Three Stars and Stripes staffers who were shown the door last week are now running to a D.C. federal court and forcing the Trump administration to keep them on the taxpayer-supported payroll.

Publisher Max Lederer, Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin, and Middle East reporter Lara Korte filed a 45-page lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, senior Pentagon official Andrew Brey, and the Department of Defense, Politico reported.

The plaintiffs accuse the Pentagon of violating their First Amendment rights and federal personnel rules by moving to fire them for alleged “insubordination.”

Although media reports have described the three as already fired, the federal complaint confirms that they received proposed separation notices on August 21. They are now seeking an emergency temporary restraining order to stop the terminations from becoming final.

They are also demanding reinstatement and back pay if the Pentagon completes the firings before the court intervenes.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the Pentagon moved against all three employees as the Trump administration attempts to overhaul Stars and Stripes, modernize its operations, and eliminate what officials have called “woke distractions that syphon morale.”

Slavin and Korte claim the Pentagon targeted them for participating in a July 5 CBS News segment about the military newspaper’s relationship with the Department of Defense.

During the interview, Slavin said Pentagon censorship would cross a personal “red line.” Korte insisted that she worked for Stars and Stripes—not for the Pentagon, an administration, or a policymaker.

The two journalists claim that their appearances were approved by their supervisors and that they were expressing personal opinions consistent with Stars and Stripes’ historic claim of editorial independence.

But the Pentagon reportedly viewed their television appearance as an unauthorized public attack on the administration’s reforms.

According to the complaint, Parnell accused the newspaper’s senior leadership of “open rebellion” in a July performance review and wrote that carrying out President Trump’s policies was the most important element of the performance plan.

The lawsuit alleges the Pentagon waited more than five weeks after the CBS appearance before initiating disciplinary action—and acted only after Stars and Stripes published a damaging report about conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

On August 11, the newspaper reported that approximately 5,000 sailors aboard the aircraft carrier had endured food and water shortages, disrupted mail service, exhausting workdays, and little time off during an extended Middle East deployment.

The report also raised concerns about the sailors’ physical and mental health.

The very next day, according to the complaint, Brey ordered Lederer to present separation notices to Slavin and Korte based on statements they had made during the CBS interview more than a month earlier.

Lederer refused.

He reportedly asked Brey to explain the legal basis for the punishment and questioned whether Slavin and Korte’s comments actually violated Pentagon regulations.

Brey allegedly responded by ordering Lederer to deliver the notices as instructed.

Rather than comply, Lederer announced that he would retire on September 30, citing fundamental disagreements with the Pentagon’s direction for the newspaper. The Pentagon then issued Lederer his own proposed separation notice.

The three employees were charged with insubordination and violations of administrative regulations.

Their lawsuit presents four claims against the government: First Amendment retaliation, unconstitutional restrictions on press activity, violations of the Administrative Procedure Act in connection with the terminations, and separate APA violations involving the Pentagon’s new Stars and Stripes policies.

The employees argue that Pentagon personnel regulations typically require progressive discipline and 30 days’ notice before separation. Their notices allegedly provided only five business days to respond.

They also argue that the Pentagon’s regulations encourage employees to discuss unclassified matters with the media and that Slavin and Korte had received supervisory approval before appearing on CBS.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the proposed firings unconstitutional, block the Pentagon from carrying them out, and overturn recent rules expanding Pentagon oversight of the newspaper.

White House adviser Stephen Miller previously defended the administration’s actions, telling reporters, “If anybody was fired, it was for just cause.”

The post Three Stars and Stripes Staffers Sue Trump Pentagon, Demand Reinstatement and Back Pay After “Insubordination” Dispute appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump on Thursday announced Ben Moss will be the new Assistant to the President and White House Staff Secretary.

Ben Moss will replace Will Scharf who was recently chosen to be Trump’s new White House Counsel.

David Warrington, the current White House Counsel, will step down effective September 1.

Trump’s full statement:

I am pleased to announce that, effective September 2nd, Ben Moss will become Assistant to the President and White House Staff Secretary, replacing our new White House Counsel, Will Scharf.

Will did a truly outstanding job as Staff Secretary, and will no doubt be an amazing White House Counsel. Ben has been tremendous as Deputy Staff Secretary and, before that, as Policy Director to the Vice President.

Ben started in Government as General Counsel to JD Vance in the United States Senate, after serving as a Law Clerk to a Highly Respected Federal Appeals Court Judge, and a lawyer in private practice.

He was a top student at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the best Law Schools in the Country and, more importantly, he is a Patriot who loves our beautiful Country. He will do a great job as Staff Secretary. Congratulations Ben! President DONALD J. TRUMP

The post President Trump Announces New Assistant and White House Staff Secretary appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Independent journalist Nick Shirley turned the tables on a New York Times reporter who repeatedly pushed the Democrat defense of California’s so-called “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

Independent journalist Nick Shirley, the 24-year-old YouTuber whose viral reporting on empty Somali-run “learing centers” in Minnesota and hospice schemes in California helped blow open a national fraud scandal, was interviewed by NYT reporter Laurel Rosenhall outside the State Capitol after a rally against Assembly Bill 2624.

Rosenhall is The Times’ Sacramento-based California politics correspondent. She showed up with a notepad. Shirley showed up with a camera, a “Califraudia Republic” hoodie, and a simple question the paper of record could not answer: why is California writing a law that protects the people spending public money instead of the people exposing how that money disappears?

Shirley posted the clip Thursday with a caption that said it all:

“Here is the New York Times realizing they are advocating for a law that would effect journalism and fraud from being exposed.”

Rosenhall starts in defense mode. According to her, lawmakers maintain that the bill was already being developed before Shirley traveled to California.

Shirley immediately shot back: “Not true.”

“Because I announced on January 31 that I was coming to California,” Shirley explained. “I had already filmed the videos. The word had already gotten out that I filmed inside these immigration support service providers, and then they created the bill before I published the video.”

Official legislative records show Democrat Assemblywoman Mia Bonta introduced AB 2624 on February 20, approximately three weeks after Shirley says he publicly announced his California investigation. Bonta is married to California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Rosenhall continued pressing the Democrat talking point, telling Shirley that immigration-service providers claim they had experienced problems “for quite a long time” and were supposedly unaware of his work when they decided the legislation was necessary.

“It’s a lie, quite frankly,” Shirley responded.

Shirley argued that California already has laws against doxxing and threatening people and warned that AB 2624 creates a special protected class for virtually anyone associated with an immigration-service organization.

“There’s no need for this bill,” Shirley said. “They’re making a protected class by specifically saying immigration support service providers.”

The enacted legislation defines “immigration support services” broadly to include legal representation, advocacy, case management, humanitarian relief, referrals, translation, counseling, and healthcare.

Even more troubling, the law’s definition of a protected provider includes a person who “provides, assists in providing, or receives” those services.

The law also defines protected “personal information” to include names, physical descriptions, photographs, video footage, telephone numbers, employment histories, license plate numbers, and financial information.

Rosenhall then claimed that individuals could not simply receive the law’s protections automatically and suggested they would need law-enforcement approval.

But that is not the full story.

Under the enacted text, a restraining order is only one possible form of documentation. An applicant may alternatively submit a certified statement from the immigration-service organization, or from the employee or volunteer claiming to have experienced threats or harassment, along with a sworn statement of fear. Knowingly submitting false information is classified as a misdemeanor.

Shirley warned that the system could be exploited by someone attempting to conceal fraud.

“Imagine a fraudster who knows he’s committing fraud,” Shirley said. “He’s like, ‘Oh, well, now under this bill, if I’m committing fraud, I’m just going to go enroll in this program.’”

The New York Times reporter then pointed to language stating that posting information becomes unlawful when it is done with the specific intent to incite violence or issue a threat.

“If you’re just posting it for information to inform the public, that wouldn’t be a violation, would it?” Rosenhall asked.

Shirley responded by raising the nightmare scenario facing independent journalists: Who ultimately gets to decide what the journalist intended after an unrelated third party responds to a report?

The harassment standard in the bill, he noted, includes “unwelcome visitation” and “unreasonable fear.”

“If I go expose a fraudster, are they going to be fearful? Well, of course.”

Rosenhall reached for the last talking point: the ban only applies if someone posts information “to incite violence or make a threat.” Informing the public, she suggested, would be fine.

Shirley asked the question the New York Times never asks about Democrat legislation.

“Who’s to say that? … If I expose it and then I expose it to somebody else and then a third party comes in and incites violence or harassment, what does that mean? That means that they could literally hire somebody to go commit the crime and say that third party was because of Nick Shirley, then Nick Shirley is responsible for that crime, and then we’re gonna give Nick Shirley a $4,000 fine.”

He put it on her.

“So you as a journalist, if you go expose a Learing Center — do you know what a Learing Center is?”

She admitted she had watched his videos. He finished the thought.

“If you go expose a Learing Center where there’s no kids at the daycare, they receive $1.9 million, and it just opens up a whole entire fraud ring, and then I expose it, a bunch of other people come in and say someone throws a — I don’t know, say somebody paintballs the building, right? They cause fear for that building, and then you’re responsible for the actions of a third party. But that fraud was real. It completely breaks the trust and the amendment of the freedom of the press by putting other crimes upon another person for reporting the truth.”

Rosenhall goes quiet and has to allegedly stop the interview, according to Shirley.

WATCH:

Here is the New York Times realizing they are advocating for a law that would would effect journalism and fraud from being exposed pic.twitter.com/AQ88oUZziu

— Nick shirley (@nickshirleyy) August 27, 2026

Independent reporter Jonathan Choe, standing a few feet away, later identified her by name and said he was “shocked she was this clueless.”

Libs of TikTok summed up what millions of viewers saw: Shirley “leaves NY Times reporter SPEECHLESS after she attempts to defend the Stop Nick Shirley Act.” Then the interview ends.

The paper that lectures America about “democracy dying in darkness” could not finish a sidewalk conversation with the kid they spent months smearing as an “influencer.”

The NY Times reporter is Laurel Rosenhall. I was next to them during this exchange. Shocked she was this clueless. pic.twitter.com/Nfudglibp8

— Jonathan Choe (@choeshow) August 27, 2026

The post Independent Journalist Nick Shirley Leaves New York Times Reporter SPEECHLESS After She Tries to Defend California’s “Stop Nick Shirley Act” — Then She Allegedly Cuts the Interview Short appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Air traffic controllers warned of communication issues one week before an air traffic safety incident involving Marine One while Trump was onboard earlier this month.

Earlier this month, it was reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was investigating an air traffic safety incident involving Marine One while President Trump was on board.

The incident happened on August 4th while President Trump was traveling to Joint Base Andrews for a trip to Southern California.

“The president’s Marine One helicopter took off from the White House Tuesday afternoon, but air-traffic controllers hadn’t halted commercial flights at nearby Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as required under safety protocols, people familiar with the matter said,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

According to Reuters, a commercial flight departed Reagan Airport one minute after Marine One lifted off from the Ellipse.

Video of the safety incident shows Marine One over East Potomac Park near a commercial flight.

WATCH:

NEW: STATter911 video showing a jet departing Runway 1 at DCA as the helicopter with President Trump was over East Potomac Park heading toward Joint Base Andrews. As @WSJ reports, the normal procedure of stopping commercial flights at Reagan National did not occur this afternoon… https://t.co/l3qGgDvXfa pic.twitter.com/lj4K19818w

— Dave Statter (@STATter911) August 5, 2026

The AP reported:

Air traffic controllers in Washington and the pilots of President Donald Trump’s helicopter met to discuss communication issues one week before a jet and the chopper were allowed to take off at the same time, the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday.

Both sides met to discuss the failures in communications and agreed to an alternative for such occasions — but that method was also unsuccessful on the day of the Aug. 4 incident at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, the National Transportation Safety Board’s preliminary report shows.

Having both in the air at the same time seemed to violate safety procedures put in place after last year’s midair collision near the busy airport that killed 67 people, but officials stressed the president was never in danger. The Pentagon also has a longstanding agreement with the FAA to provide controllers with a three-minute warning before the president’s helicopter takes off that predates last year’s crash.

The post Air Traffic Controllers Warned of Communication Issues One Week Before Air Traffic Safety Incident Involving Marine One While Trump Was Onboard appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A Democratic Senate candidate — a “democratic socialist” — is set for a November showdown with her Republican opponent to see who will fill the seat previously held by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

The candidate in question, 31-year-old N’Kiyla Jasmine Thomas, had a completely deranged and childish means of letting voters know how she felt about Mullin in a video posted to social media platform TikTok.

When witnessing this spectacle, keep in mind this is an individual who wants to be a member of the U.S. Senate.

The footage was posted in September 2025, but it’s unlikely her views have shifted much about the now-Trump Administration official.

@jasmineforok Stop trying to make Mullin happen. He’s not fetch. #BurnBook2025 #jasmineforok #nkiylaforok #fyp #reginageorgepolitics Shout out to @Y2K Party House ♬ original sound – N’Kiyla “Jasmine” Thomas

Thomas storms into the room in a rage, cuts out Mullin from a portrait she has of him, and puts it in a “Burn Book.”

For the unaware, she is parodying a scene from the 2004 film “Mean Girls,” in which the antagonist, Regina George, goes through the same sequence with a picture of the protagonist in the film, Cady Heron.

So, it’s meant to be a pop culture reference to a movie for teenagers.

That’s the intellectual level on which the socialist candidates currently overtaking the Democratic Party are operating.

One could argue it was a savvy means of referencing a popular film that now-adults in their 30s — like Thomas — would understand and identify with as a novel way to denounce Mullin.

At the same time, she picked the villain of a film about petty gossiping high school girls as her method of delivery.

Another video on TikTok accompanied it, displaying the contents of the “Burn Book” taking more digs at Mullin.

On Monday, NBC News reported that Thomas — who faces Rep. Kevin Hern, a Republican, this November — is a “self-proclaimed democratic socialist,” but “not yet” an official member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

She seems to check the boxes to join, spouting the usual nonsense in saying “capitalism is what’s destroying our country right now” — apparently unaware that it’s responsible for the prosperity and freedoms she enjoys.

Imagine former President Abraham Lincoln seeing this after his debates with former Illinois Sen. Stephen Douglas in 1858 during their race for that seat.

One can only hope we won’t be seeing more of this.

Although funding can only tell so much of the story for electability, Thomas, as of August, has $456 in campaign funds, per NBC News. Hern has $2.6 million as of late June.

Who witnesses this TikTok video and thinks, “Indeed, this person should be a lawmaker for the most powerful country in the world”?

Apparently, Democrats.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Deranged Video: Dem’s OK Senate Candidate Storms Into Bedroom Shrieking, Cuts Up Pic of GOP Senator, Pastes Into ‘Burn Book’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Prince Harry and Meghan arrived back in Britain on Wednesday with their two children after six years in California.

A source close to the couple told NBC News last week that the family was returning for an “extended period,” not to resume official royal work.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, 41 and 45, flew privately from California with Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5, according to British news outlets.

The Telegraph reported they landed around midday at Birmingham Airport.

A Sussex representative would not say where they will live, citing privacy and security.

The same representative confirmed the family brought their dogs and left their chickens at the Montecito, California, estate they have occupied since 2020.

They are expected to keep that house and a property in Portugal while basing themselves at a private, non-royal home outside London, the Associated Press reported.

British media said the children are enrolled to start school in September.

Harry and Meghan stepped back from working royal duties in 2020, saying they wanted to escape what they called a toxic press climate in Britain.

They later settled in Montecito, signed media deals, and publicly criticized members of the royal family in a Netflix series and in Harry’s memoir “Spare.”

Relations with King Charles III and Prince William have been strained for years.

The couple visited Charles at Highgrove in July. Palace officials have said the king welcomes seeing more of his son’s family in a private capacity.

Charles was informed of the relocation earlier this month, Reuters reported. There are no current plans for them to take on official duties.

Harry has spent years in court fighting the British government’s decision to strip him of automatic police protection when he is in the United Kingdom.

That security question is still hanging over the return.

The move does not, on paper, end their American life. Montecito remains in the picture, and Meghan’s lifestyle brand is expected to continue.

What has changed is the center of gravity. After six years of California as home base, the children will be in British classrooms and the parents will be living, for now, on Harry’s side of the Atlantic.

Whether the “extended stay” becomes a permanent homecoming is the part no official statement has settled.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Harry and Meghan Have Officially Left the U.S. and Returned to Britain: Report appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.