Commentary Culture Investigations

Well here’s an “only in Washington” conundrum.The news emerges from the Pentagon with this sample headline from The Washington Post: Stars and Stripes employees sue Pentagon over firings at military newspaperThe publication’s publisher, its editor in chief and a reporter allege that the government violated their First Amendment rights to free speech.The Post story reports: Three staffers at Stars and Stripes, including the military publication’s publisher and editor in chief, sued the Defense Department, saying their recent firings by the Pentagon were illegal and violated their free-speech protections under the First Amendment. In the lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal district court in Washington, publisher Max Lederer, editor in chief Erik Slavin and reporter Lara Korte claimed that their firings last week for “insubordination” were retaliatory in nature and violated federal administrative law.After a Pentagon official, Andrew Brey, emailed Lederer last week and asked him to fire Slavin and Korte for participating in a CBS News interview, he declined to do so and instead submitted plans to retire, The Washington Post previously reported.Well now. The obvious question arises, even if it won’t be asked in Washington. The question: Were these three people independent journalists? Or were they federal government employees?Interestingly, Wikipedia records this on the subject: Stars and Stripes (stylized in all caps) is a daily American military newspaper reporting on matters concerning the members of the United States Armed Forces and their communities, with an emphasis on those serving outside the United States.[2] It operates from inside the Department of Defense, but is editorially separate from it, and its First Amendment protection is safeguarded by the United States Congress, to whom an independent ombudsman, who serves the readers’ interests, regularly reports.Now. Note well this line: It operates from inside the Department of Defense, but is editorially separate from it, and its First Amendment protection is safeguarded by the United States Congress, to whom an independent ombudsman, who serves the readers’ interests, regularly reports.”Hello? It shouldn’t be rocket science to see the problem here. If some Congressman came up with the idea of the federal government purchasing The New York Times, turning Times reporters into both journalists and federal government employees, one can only imagine the resulting uproar. But that, in reality, is what’s going on with Stars and Stripes. The line used that Stars and Stripes is “editorially separate from” the federal government — the Department of Defense in this case — but its First Amendment “protection is safeguarded by the United States Congress” and an “independent ombudsman who serves the readers’ interests” is, to say the least, amusing. Make that laughable.What Americans are being asked to believe is that Stars and Stripes serves two masters: Independent journalism and the federal government.Not to put too fine a point on it, but only the tooth fairy would believe that is possible. There is, in fact, a direct and vivid conflict between being a federal government employee and an independent journalist in the media. You can be one — or you can be the other. But you most certainly cannot be both simultaneously. And to pretend otherwise denies reality.One would suggest that this incident with Stars and Stripes should bring home the obvious question that Members of Congress must address.Either Stars and Stripes reporters are independent journalists — or they are federal government employees.But they can’t be both. 

Good Morning America co-host Whit Johnson and ABC reporter Alex Presha joined forces on Saturday to promote Friday’s “voting rights” demonstration in Washington, and if ABC was your only source of news, you would come away with the impression that the Defend the Vote demonstration was just the latest chapter in the fight for Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream and not what it actually was, which was an incendiary attack on Republicans.Johnson began the sanitation efforts by simply referring to the question on the table as one about “voting rights.” Introducing Presha, he declared, “This morning there are renewed calls for action on voting rights as thousands mark the anniversary of the historic March on Washington. ABC’s Alex Presha joins us now with details. Alex, good morning.” ABC’s Whit Johnson hypes, “This morning there are renewed calls for action on voting rights as thousands mark the anniversary of the historic March on Washington” as reporter Alex Presha similarly highlights “the likes of Senator Bernie Sanders, the Reverend Al Sharpton and… pic.twitter.com/hzOfefMxNH— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) August 29, 2026 Presha replied:It’s been 63 years since Martin Luther King Jr. iconic March on Washington, punctuated by his ‘I have a dream’ speech, and thousands retraced his steps and those of other civil rights leaders on Friday. The likes of Senator Bernie Sanders, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gathered at the base of the Lincoln Memorial for the Defend the Vote demonstration, and this comes after the Supreme Court decision this past April that rolled back key provisions in the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for some conservative states to redistrict, some severely reducing or even completely eliminating historically black voting districts. It also comes amid an ongoing legal battle over the Trump administration’s efforts involving the U.S. Postal Service and mail-in voting. ABC does have a habit of finding liberal protests more newsworthy than conservative ones. Nevertheless, Presha continued, “Martin Luther King III says he feels his father would be disappointed in the state of America today regarding the lack of civility, and the reverend’s granddaughter, Yolanda, who is now an incoming freshman at Columbia University, urged for the work that made the King legacy continue.”He then played a clip of Yolanda King declaring, “My grandfather was 34 years old when he stood at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 and told America about his dream. I never met him. I never met my grandmother, Coretta Scott King, but I know something they both understood: a dream without work is just a wish.”To a casual viewer, those soundbites might not sound so bad, but elsewhere at the rally, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called Republicans “wicked” and played the Jim Crow card. Statements like that contribute to the “lack of civility” in politics because it is a grossly inaccurate assessment of the state of voting in America in 2026, but in ABC’s desire to portray liberals as the reasonable ones, such omissions are necessary.Here is a transcript for the August 28 show:ABC Good Morning America8/29/20268:10 AM ETWHIT JOHNSON: This morning there are renewed calls for action on voting rights as thousands mark the anniversary of the historic March on Washington. ABC’s Alex Presha joins us now with details. Alex, good morning.ALEX PRESHA: Good morning, Whit. Yeah, it’s been 63 years since Martin Luther King Jr. iconic March on Washington, punctuated by his “I have a dream” speech, and thousands retraced his steps and those of other civil rights leaders on Friday. The likes of Senator Bernie Sanders, the Reverend Al Sharpton and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gathered at the base of the Lincoln Memorial for the Defend the Vote demonstration, and this comes after the Supreme Court decision this past April that rolled back key provisions in the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for some conservative states to redistrict, some severely reducing or even completely eliminating historically black voting districts. It also comes amid an ongoing legal battle over the Trump administration’s efforts involving the U.S. Postal Service and mail-in voting. Martin Luther King III says he feels his father would be disappointed in the state of America today regarding the lack of civility and the reverend’s granddaughter, Yolanda, who is now an incoming freshman at Columbia University, urged for the work that made the King legacy continue.YOLANDA KING: My grandfather was 34 years old when he stood at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 and told America about his dream. I never met him. I never met my grandmother, Coretta Scott King, but I know something they both understood: a dream without work is just a wish.

PBS News Hour host Geoff Bennett, The Atlantic staff writer David Brooks, and MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart assembled on Friday to recap the week’s news, which featured them developing a newfound respect for federalism and the Tenth Amendment as President Trump’s executive order about the Postal Service and voting by mail makes its way through the courts.Bennett began with Brooks, the supposed conservative of the Brooks and Capehart duo, and declared, “Well, this week, the U.S. Supreme Court, as you both well know, they cleared a path for President Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting without deciding whether the order itself is legal. And then you had this federal judge lift another block. And then the Postal Service, they have rules that are already in effect with ballots set to go out as soon as September 4.” PBS News Hour host Geoff Bennett finds a newfound respect for federalism on Trump’s Post Office Mail Voting executive order, “David, the key question here is this. The Constitution gives the power to the states to administer elections with Congress empowered to override them in… pic.twitter.com/dNyfc83Scq— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) August 29, 2026 Before getting to any Tenth Amendment question, it should be noted that the executive order does not restrict mail voting so much as adds various security measures to the process.Nevertheless, Bennett was certain that any supportive conservatives were being hypocritical, “And, David, the key question here is this. The Constitution gives the power to the states to administer elections with Congress empowered to override them in certain circumstances. It does not give that authority to the president. So what is the conservative argument? Is there a conservative argument for President Trump trying to assert all of this through executive action?”Brooks replied, “Wow. I have got to come up with a creative, like—wow, this is like the toughest question you have ever asked me in my life. Yeah, there is no conservative argument. The conservatives are supposed to believe in federalism, that, with the Tenth Amendment or whatever it is, the states have the power to do this, and the federal government does not get to control everything.If one were to rewind to January 2022, they would find Brooks not only singing a different tune on federalism but also endorsing the idea that Democrats’ “voting rights” agenda was so important that it required an exemption to the Senate’s filibuster rules. Capehart, naturally, also supported such a “carve-out.”Back in 2026, Brooks continued doom-mongering:And so the things that I find startling, let’s put it that way, is first, if—the Postal Service threatening to not deliver mail in states that don’t comply, like, when does the Postal Service get to decide whose mail to deliver? This is a public good. And, second, if power does get vested in the federal government, no one should think that Donald Trump won’t use this authority. He will absolutely use this authority. And so it really is an attempted federal takeover of a job the states have been doing pretty well.Bennett then turned to Capehart with a question about strategy, “And the question for Democrats always seems to be, what are Democrats going to do about it? Because Republicans don’t see it in their own personal interests, elected Republicans on the Hill, to do anything at the moment.”Capehart began his response by declaring, “Well, that’s why you have seen Democratic governors and Democratic secretaries of state, the moment the president does anything, related to anything, but particularly when it comes to voting, they are in court immediately.”He then urged the Supreme Court to strike down the executive order quickly and unanimously, “And so they’re still in court over this. And if the conservatives on the Supreme Court are truly conservative, when the ultimate question of the legality gets to them, it should not take them but two minutes, if that, to come back with a unanimous decision, all six conservatives joining the three liberals on the bench, saying, ‘This is not legal, Mr. President.’ But, you know, hope springs eternal.”This whole segment was about alleged conservative hypocrisy, but Brooks and Capehart have both clearly switched their opinions on the constitutional question. Before accusing the administration, conservatives, or the Supreme Court of hypocrisy, they should look at themselves in the mirror.Here is a transcript for the August 28 show:PBS News Hour8/28/2026 7:36 PM ET GEOFF BENNETT: Well, this week, the U.S. Supreme Court, as you both well know, they cleared a path for President Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting without deciding whether the order itself is legal. And then you had this federal judge lift another block. And then the Postal Service, they have rules that are already in effect with ballots set to go out as soon as September 4. And, David, the key question here is this. The Constitution gives the power to the states to administer elections with Congress empowered to override them in certain circumstances. It does not give that authority to the president. So what is the conservative argument? Is there a conservative argument for President Trump trying to assert all of this through executive action? DAVID BROOKS: Wow. I have got to come up with a creative, like—wow, this is like the toughest question you have ever asked me in my life.   Yeah, there is no conservative argument. The conservatives are supposed to believe in federalism, that, with the Tenth Amendment or whatever it is, the states have the power to do this, and the federal government does not get to control everything.And so the things that I find startling, let’s put it that way, is first, if—the Postal Service threatening to not deliver mail in states that don’t comply, like, when does the Postal Service get to decide whose mail to deliver? This is a public good.And, second, if power does get vested in the federal government, no one should think that Donald Trump won’t use this authority. He will absolutely use this authority. And so it really is an attempted federal takeover of a job the states have been doing pretty well.BENNETT: And the question for Democrats always seems to be, what are Democrats going to do about it? Because Republicans don’t see it in their own personal interests, elected Republicans on the Hill, to do anything at the moment.CAPEHART: Well, that’s why you have seen Democratic governors and Democratic secretaries of state, the moment the president does anything, related to anything, but particularly when it comes to voting, they are in court immediately.And so they’re still in court over this. And if the conservatives on the Supreme Court are truly conservative, when the ultimate question of the legality gets to them, it should not take them but two minutes, if that, to come back with a unanimous decision, all six conservatives joining the three liberals on the bench, saying, “This is not legal, Mr. President.” But, you know, hope springs eternal.

With one swift act, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes the country a better place.

Zineb Riboua, City Journal Israel, Third Worldism, and the politics of grievance.

Michelle Smith, Guardian Letters obtained by Guardian and AP contradict testimony that 2019 visit to Samoa had ‘nothing to do with vaccines.’

Charles Lane, The Free Press Contrary to popular belief that our criminal justice system is broken, the United States seems to be experiencing a virtuous cycle in which crime and incarceration…

Emily Kopp, Daily Caller Anthony Fauci instructed an aide to permanently delete an email in apparent violation of federal record-keeping laws, new documents reveal.

Samy Magdy, AP News The smuggling of goods restricted by Israel into Gaza has boomed. Items from cigarettes and iPhones to fuel and solar panels make their way to the territory devastated by…