Latest News
- Former Stars and Stripes editor expresses concern over paper’s independence following dismissal
- Italian restaurant faces backlash over offensive receipt after customer complaint
- Saudi Arabia to invest €6 billion in Paris theme parks project
- Supreme Court pauses ruling on Trump mail voting order amid legal hurdles
- US public support for war on Iran declines amid Trump’s record low approval
- Doug Ford criticises Donald Trump, calling him a dictator and loser
- Trump to impose 50% tariffs on Canadian auto and steel imports from 2027
- Bradley Townsend becomes first British fighter to die in Ukraine for Russia
LIVE German 2025 Election Results as they come in and analysi on who will be the next German Chancellor.
Knowledge Hub
Global Reaction to DE Elections
Former Stars and Stripes editor expresses concern over paper’s independence following dismissal
1:00 am
Get you up to speed: Former Stars and Stripes editor says firing was “real shock,” hopes paper “can remain independent”
The Pentagon dismissed Stars and Stripes Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin, publisher Max Lederer, and Middle East reporter Lara Korte, citing insubordination. The firings occurred last week and have raised concerns about the future editorial independence of the military newspaper.
The Pentagon is facing scrutiny regarding its management of Stars and Stripes, with the Defence Department describing recent terminations as necessary due to allegations of insubordination. Stars and Stripes’ operational budget remains largely funded by taxpayers, yet its future editorial independence is uncertain as new leadership seeks to modernise its practices amidst ongoing discussions about content direction.
The Pentagon has stated that it plans to “modernize its operations” at Stars and Stripes while refocusing content “away from woke distractions that siphon morale.” In response to the firings, Navy Capt. William Urban emphasised his commitment to ensuring “the highest quality of editorially independent reporting,” but concerns remain about the paper’s independence in light of recent developments.
What remains unclear — It is uncertain how the Pentagon’s planned changes to Stars and Stripes will impact the newspaper’s editorial independence.
Former Stars and Stripes editor expresses concern over paper’s independence following dismissal
Days after his sudden firing by the Pentagon, the former editor-in-chief of Stars and Stripes told WTX US News that “time will tell” whether the military newspaper will remain editorially independent from the government agency it covers.
The Defense Department delivered termination notices last week to Stars and Stripes Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin, publisher Max Lederer and Middle East reporter Lara Korte, accusing them of insubordination. The dismissals raised questions about the future of the paper, which is partly funded by U.S. taxpayers but has historically operated independently.
In an interview Monday on WTX US News’ “The Takeout with Major Garrett,” Slavin called the termination notice a “real shock” and a “very unexpected” development. Slavin had worked at the Stars and Stripes for just over two decades, serving as a reporter and bureau chief before being promoted to editor-in-chief last fall.
The stated reason for his firing, Slavin said, was his appearance last month in a “WTX Sunday Morning” report on the Trump administration’s push to overhaul Stars and Stripes. Slavin was asked if there were any lines that he would not cross, and he said a demand from the military not to publish a “perfectly accurate story” would be a “red line.”
On Monday, Slavin called those comments a “hypothetical response, in my personal opinion, as to what would be my red line. And I described censorship, which I believe to be in line with Department of Defense regulations and the law itself.”
Stars and Stripes was first published during the Civil War, and in recent decades, the paper has prided itself on its editorial independence — meaning the federal government does not dictate what it can and can’t publish.
Roughly half of Stars and Stripes’ $29 million annual budget comes from taxpayers, a person familiar with the newspaper’s operations told WTX US News last week. Readership has declined since its peaks during the Vietnam War, the Cold War and World War II, according to two U.S. officials, but an average of 1.4 million people see Stars and Stripes each day. Print editions overseas also reach service members in remote locations.
Slavin described the paper’s goal as giving service members “the straight truth.”
“They hold us accountable every day,” Slavin said of the paper’s readers. “If we get something that doesn’t correspond with their lived experience, they call us out on it real fast.”
“We never think, really, in terms of positive and negative, but I can certainly see why maybe the Pentagon would. But we don’t shy away from that, we look for what’s new, different, interesting and relevant to service members,” he added.
Earlier this year, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the Defense Department would make sweeping changes to the paper. He vowed to “modernize its operations, refocus its content away from woke distractions that syphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members.” The Pentagon later sought to stop the paper from running syndicated articles by wire services, Slavin has said.
Last week, Lederer told colleagues he planned to retire at the end of September, citing fundamental differences with the Trump administration. And on Friday, Lederer, Slavin and Korte were terminated.
Slavin told WTX US News: “I certainly hope [Stars and Stripes] can remain independent in some way. I haven’t given up on that, but time will tell, and I think there needs to be a reckoning.”
Shortly after the firings, Stars and Stripes published an open letter from Navy Capt. William Urban, who said he was tapped to serve as military deputy to the publisher. Urban wrote that his priorities were to produce “the highest quality of editorially independent reporting,” while modernizing the paper and boosting its advertising revenue.
Asked about Urban’s letter and his pledge to keep the paper independent, Slavin said he’s “not sure” how to square it with this year’s push to change the paper’s operations.
Korte — the Middle East reporter who was fired alongside Slavin for sitting for a “WTX Sunday Morning” interview — said in a separate interview with WTX US News on Monday that she has “certainly been bolstered to see comments from the Stripes’ leadership and from the Pentagon that the Stripes is editorially independent.”
“Obviously that’s something that has to be instituted in practice, and I think that’s something we’re going to get an answer on in the coming weeks and months,” she said.
The Pentagon has made other changes to how the military can be covered.
Last year, reporters who cover the Pentagon were told that in order to maintain daily access to the building, they would need to sign on to a host of rules, including a restriction on “soliciting” sensitive information from military personnel. WTX US News and many other media outlets declined to sign the policy, leading dozens of reporters to turn in their press credentials. The Pentagon has denied that it is seeking to control what reporters can publish, calling the rules necessary to prevent harmful leaks.
A judge struck down many of the new rules earlier this year, and the military replaced them with a requirement that all journalists be escorted while inside the Pentagon.
Slavin told WTX US News that “there used to be a time … where in the Pentagon, it was very simple for military officials to talk with journalists very frankly.”
“I think it contributed to the nation’s knowledge of what the U.S. military was doing, and I fear that we’re losing that,” he said.
Italian restaurant faces backlash over offensive receipt after customer complaint
12:00 am
Get you up to speed: Diner’s disgust at receipt telling chef to ‘burn and spit on eggs’ after she sent them back | News World
An Italian restaurant in Romagna, Italy, faced backlash after a customer discovered a derogatory message on their receipt, which read: “This is p***ing me off. Burn [her] eggs and spit in them.” The teenager who served the meal reportedly attempted to dispose of the receipt when confronted, and the restaurant’s owner later attempted to downplay the incident by making light of it on social media.
The restaurant owner has attempted to downplay the incident by posting a video that mockingly references the complaint. Authorities have not confirmed whether an investigation into the server’s actions is underway.
The manager of the restaurant apologised publicly, stating, “The behavior you reported was absolutely inappropriate and in no way reflects the values, customer service, and professional standards we strive to ensure every day.” Following the incident, the owner conducted a poll on social media regarding whether the waiter should be dismissed, drawing both criticism and support from the public.
What remains unclear — It is uncertain how the restaurant will address the backlash and whether any disciplinary action will be taken against the waiter.
Italian restaurant faces backlash over offensive receipt after customer complaint
Owner tried to claim the aggressive message was a joke
An Italian restaurant wrote, ‘This is p***ing me off. Burn [her] eggs and spit in them’ after a tourist complained they were runny.
Clara had been visiting the Victor Lab, in Romagna, Italy for breakfast with her family last week.
But when the Brazilian mum’s scrambled eggs, juice, and coffee arrived she asked her teenage server if the eggs could be ‘a little more cooked’.
He reportedly scoffed, ‘we don’t make raw eggs here’ before taking them back to the kitchen, La Voce di Cesenatico reported.
‘In the end, they arrived very soft, but I didn’t ask for them to be recooked,’ the diner, who refused to reveal her surname after getting death threats, said.
The offending receipt
Sign up for all of the latest stories
‘I let it go because I didn’t want to argue,’ Clara said.
But when it was time to pay she noticed something peculiar with her receipt.
In Italian, it read: ‘This is pissing me off. Burn the eggs and spit in them.’
She claimed her family became ‘scared’ over the possibility of their food getting saliva seasoning.
After telling the 17-year-old waiter she understood the message, he reportedly went ‘as white as a sheet’ and tried to throw the receipt away. But Clara told him she would call the police if he did.
She went viral after posting the receipt under a scathing one-star Google review of the restaurant.
A manager then apologised under the comment saying: ‘The behavior you reported was absolutely inappropriate and in no way reflects the values, customer service, and professional standards we strive to ensure every day.’
The owner made a poll suggesting he could sack the waiter
The owner is filmed pretending to be a demanding diner ordering a dish with added ‘spit’ in an attempt to make light of the situation.
They even added a poll asking customers whether the 17-year-old server should be sacked.
‘Sometimes it almost makes you laugh when you watch it, but this isn’t a laughing matter.
‘It’s serious,’ said Clara, adding she had received racist threats on social media.
Comment now
Comments
Add WTX as a Preferred Source on Google
Saudi Arabia to invest €6 billion in Paris theme parks project
11:17 pm
Saudi Arabia to invest €6 billion in Paris theme parks project
Investment Announcement
Saudi Arabia will invest €6 billion in building three theme parks in Cergy-Pontoise, close to Paris, as confirmed by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Saudi Arabia will invest €6 billion in building three theme parks in Cergy-Pontoise, close to Paris, as confirmed by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Economic impact
Saudi Arabia’s €6 billion investment in theme parks near Paris will create 22,000 jobs, significantly boosting local employment and enhancing France’s position as a premier tourist destination.
Saudi Arabia’s €6 billion investment in theme parks near Paris will create 22,000 jobs, significantly boosting local employment and enhancing France’s position as a premier tourist destination.
Macron’s Enthusiasm
“Thank you to Qiddiya and Saudi Arabia for their confidence in our country, our talent and our future,” stated President Emmanuel Macron.
“Thank you to Qiddiya and Saudi Arabia for their confidence in our country, our talent and our future,” stated President Emmanuel Macron.
Saudi Arabia to pump €6 billion into building three theme parks near Paris
Published on
Saudi Arabia will invest €6 billion into building three theme parks close to Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Monday.
Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sealed the deal for the project during an official visit to the French capital, where they also discussed “major economic and strategic issues” as well as key regional matters, per the Élysée.
In a post on X, Macron hailed the “extraordinary announcement,” saying the parks would become a “new global destination” and would create 22,000 jobs.
The parks are set to be constructed in Cergy-Pontoise at the site of the former Mirapolis theme park to the northwest of Paris, and are expected to include a manga-themed attraction. Manga is a style of comic book and graphic novel originating in Japan.
“Thank you to Qiddiya and Saudi Arabia for their confidence in our country, our talent and our future,” Macron added in his post, referencing the investment firm slated to lead the development of the parks. “Nothing like this has been seen since Disneyland Paris”.
Valérie Pécresse, the president of the Île-de-France regional council, said on social media that she was “delighted” by the news of the investment, adding that the region had been showing its support for the project over the last 18 months.
“France is the world’s leading tourist destination,” she added during an interview with France’s TF1 TV network. “We need these jobs. We need these investments.”
Supreme Court pauses ruling on Trump mail voting order amid legal hurdles
11:01 pm
Media Lens: Supreme Court pauses ruling on Trump mail voting order amid legal hurdles
Supreme Court pauses ruling on Trump’s mail voting order.
The Supreme Court has paused a lower court ruling concerning Trump’s mail voting order. This comes as concerns rise about the impact on mail-in voting protocols, according to coverage in latest US news and US and global politics.
What happened
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily paused a lower court ruling regarding Donald Trump’s mail voting order. This decision comes as various challenges arise concerning mail-in voting procedures.
In a related context, the U.S. Postal Service has implemented a new rule for mail ballots, although its impact on the upcoming midterm elections remains uncertain. Legal battles continue over the regulations surrounding mail-in voting, emphasizing the ongoing complexities in the electoral process.
Key facts
- The Supreme Court has paused a lower court ruling regarding Trump’s mail voting order.
- This decision comes amid concerns over potential hurdles in the upcoming elections.
- The ruling was confirmed by multiple news sources, including NPR and The New York Times.
- The Supreme Court’s action allows Trump’s plan to restrict mail-in voting to remain in effect for the time being.
- The announcement was made within the last hour, indicating a recent development in the ongoing legal discussions surrounding mail voting.
Where coverage differs
- NPR emphasizes the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision on mail voting, while The New York Times focuses on the court’s allowance of Trump’s plan.
- Al Jazeera foregrounds the decision’s context regarding voting rights, rather than specific legal interpretations.
- AP News prioritizes the uncertainty surrounding the impact of the new postal service rules on upcoming elections over the legal aspects.
One story, four angles
NPR – Supreme Court pauses lower court ruling on Trump’s mail voting order as hurdles loom
Publication: NPR | Primary framing pattern: legal | Tone: neutral | Intensity: 5/10 | Sentiment: neutral | Legal precision: high
Expand
Espresso Shot: NPR reports on the Supreme Court’s temporary suspension of a lower court’s ruling that would have impacted Trump’s mail voting regulations. The piece emphasizes the legal ramifications and potential challenges ahead for the Trump administration related to voting procedures.
Publication emphasis: The focus is on the legal implications and procedural obstacles facing the Trump administration regarding mail voting.
Framing analysis: The article foregrounds the Supreme Court’s decision, illustrating it as a pivotal legal moment, while the socio-political ramifications are treated as secondary concerns, mostly highlighting procedural aspects.
Bias: Selection: Legal context of the ruling. Language: Neutral legal terminology. Omission: Public opinion regarding mail voting is not included.
Assessment: The coverage is primarily factual and focused on the legal processes involved, providing clarity on implications for the Trump administration.
The New York Times – Supreme Court Allows Trump Plan to Restrict Mail-In Voting, for Now
Publication: The New York Times | Primary framing pattern: political | Tone: critical | Intensity: 7/10 | Sentiment: negative | Legal precision: high
Expand
Espresso Shot: The New York Times addresses the Supreme Court’s ruling as a significant political maneuver that may affect mail-in voting procedures favored by them. The piece conveys a sense of urgency regarding the implications of these restrictions in the context of upcoming elections.
Publication emphasis: The emphasis lies on the political consequences of the ruling, framing it as a move that serves the interests of the Trump administration at the potential cost of fair voting access.
Framing analysis: The report foregrounds the political implications and potential impact on voters, while the legal nuances put forward in the ruling are relegated to a secondary status within the broader political narrative.
Bias: Selection: Focus on political repercussions. Language: Emphasizes critique and concerns. Omission: Lacking in-depth exploration of legal rationale.
Assessment: The Times conveys a critical perspective, highlighting the political stakes in the Supreme Court’s action and rooting for voting access in its tone.
Al Jazeera – US Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on mail voting
Publication: Al Jazeera | Primary framing pattern: moral | Tone: concerned | Intensity: 6/10 | Sentiment: critical | Legal precision: moderate
Expand
Espresso Shot: Al Jazeera highlights the Supreme Court’s decision favoring the Trump administration as a moral concern over the integrity of voting rights. The narrative stresses human impacts and ethical considerations surrounding access to mail-in voting.
Publication emphasis: It underscores moral implications, framing the ruling as a troubling development for democracy.
Framing analysis: The moral aspects of voting accessibility are foregrounded, emphasizing human rights and fairness, while the legal technicalities are more backgrounded.
Bias: Selection: Focus on moral implications of the decision. Language: Language is emotive and urgent. Omission: Lacks specific legal arguments set forth in the ruling.
Assessment: Al Jazeera provides a critical perspective that alerts readers to the potential fallout of the decision on democratic principles and voter rights.
AP News – US Postal Service issues new rule for mail ballots, but its impact on the midterms is uncertain
Publication: AP News | Primary framing pattern: consequence | Tone: informative | Intensity: 5/10 | Sentiment: neutral | Legal precision: moderate
Expand
Espresso Shot: AP News discusses the recent rule changes by the US Postal Service concerning mail ballots, emphasizing the uncertainty around these implications for upcoming midterm elections. It seeks to inform about the possible consequences these changes might bring.
Publication emphasis: The emphasis is on the practical outcomes of the new rules, relating them directly to the electoral process without taking a strong moral or political stand.
Framing analysis: The article foregrounds the potential consequences of new regulations on mail-in voting, while the political or moral arguments surrounding the issue are largely treated in the background.
Bias: Selection: Focus on the procedural and practical outcomes. Language: Utilizes straightforward, neutral language. Omission: Limited political context or public sentiment regarding mail-in voting.
Assessment: The coverage is factual, prioritizing the implications of USPS rule changes over deeper discussions of political or ethical considerations.
Food for thought
Among various news outlets, NPR presents the strongest legal framing by focusing on the Supreme Court’s pivotal decision to pause a lower court ruling related to Trump’s mail voting order, emphasizing judicial authority and procedural integrity. Conversely, The New York Times adopts the most escalatory framing, describing the implications of this decision as a significant step toward restricting mail-in voting, suggesting a heightened constitutional crisis. While NPR maintains a more analytical tone regarding legal ramifications, The New York Times escalates the situation by highlighting potential threats to democratic processes. The facts do not change. What changes is where scrutiny lands.
US public support for war on Iran declines amid Trump’s record low approval
10:00 pm
Get you up to speed: US public support for Iran war falls as Trump approval at record low: Poll
Support for the US war on Iran has declined to 31 percent, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted among 1,215 adults across the United States. The conflict, which began on February 28 with US and Israeli attacks on Iran, has contributed to rising petrol prices amid concerns about its economic impact.
The conflict that began on February 28 has seen petrol prices rise by more than $1 per gallon compared to pre-war levels, increasing economic pressure prior to the upcoming midterm elections. The Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted over four days, queried 1,215 adults nationwide and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Public support for the war on Iran has dropped to 31 percent, with a significant decline among Republican respondents, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent announced new measures under “Operation Economic Outcast” aimed at increasing economic pressure on Iran, while a growing majority of Americans expect the conflict to persist for an extended period.
What remains unclear — It is uncertain how the ongoing economic effects of the war will influence voter sentiment in the upcoming midterm elections.
US public support for war on Iran declines amid Trump’s record low approval
News|US-Israel war on IranUS public support for Iran war falls as Trump approval at record low: Poll
Falling Republican support, rising gas prices, and fears of a long conflict drive a decline in backing for the Iran war.
Published On 24 Aug 202624 Aug 2026
Published On 24 Aug 202624 Aug 2026Support in the United States for the war on Iran has fallen as President Donald Trump’s approval remains at a record low, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests.
Public backing for the war has dropped to its lowest level since the early stages of the conflict, with declining Republican support contributing to the shift, according to the poll released on Monday.
Just 31 percent of Americans surveyed said they support US military action against Iran, down from 37 percent in March and 34 percent earlier this month. Support among Republican respondents fell to 69 percent, compared with 77 percent in March.
The war is also continuing to weigh on Trump’s standing with the public, the poll suggests. For the second consecutive Reuters/Ipsos survey, 33 percent of respondents said they approved of Trump’s performance as president, matching the lowest approval rating recorded in the polling series across his first and second terms.
Trump has defended the military campaign as necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The conflict began on February 28 with US and Israeli attacks on Iran.
But the economic effects of the war remain a concern for Americans. Iran has maintained a de facto blockade of oil exports from the region, contributing to a rise in US petrol prices to near record highs.
The Trump administration has also announced recent pledges to increase economic pressure on Iran. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said on Monday that the US would target all of Iran’s sources of revenue, including oil, with the aim of preventing other countries and companies from doing business with Tehran. The campaign is dubbed “Operation Economic Outcast”.
A growing majority of Americans expect the war to continue for some time, the poll suggests. Eighty-three percent of respondents said they believe the conflict will last for an extended period, up from 80 percent earlier this month.
The prospect of a lengthy war presents a challenge for Trump, who campaigned for the presidency in 2024 on promises to bring down inflation and to adopt an “America First” strategy of avoiding foreign military engagements.
Six months into the conflict, petrol prices are more than $1 per gallon (3.8 litres) higher than they were before the war, adding to economic pressure ahead of November’s midterm elections.
The higher fuel costs could also create difficulties for Republicans defending narrow congressional majorities.
The poll suggests that independent voters favour Democrats over Republicans when asked which party they would support in a congressional election held today. Among independents, 33 percent said they would vote for a Democrat, compared with 19 percent who said they would choose a Republican.
The Reuters/Ipsos survey questioned 1,215 adults across the United States over four days and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.
Doug Ford criticises Donald Trump, calling him a dictator and loser
9:00 pm
Get you up to speed: ‘Bring it on buddy’: Everything Ontario’s Doug Ford said about President Donald Trump
Doug Ford made disparaging comments about Donald Trump, referring to him as a “dictator,” a “loser,” and the “king of bankruptcies.” The remarks were made during a 45-minute speech.
Doug Ford’s remarks followed a series of criticisms aimed at Donald Trump’s leadership style and business practices. The comments were made during a public event and have drawn attention to the ongoing tensions between the two figures.
Doug Ford’s statements have drawn sharp criticism from various political commentators who suggest his comments could strain relations with the Republican Party. The Ontario Premier’s remarks come amid discussions of potential electoral implications, with some analysts predicting that such rhetoric may influence voter sentiment in upcoming elections.
What remains unclear — It is uncertain how Donald Trump will respond to Doug Ford’s remarks.
Doug Ford criticises Donald Trump, calling him a dictator and loser
Over the course of 45 minutes, Doug Ford said Donald Trump could ‘kiss my ass,’ calling him a ‘dictator,’ a ‘loser’ and the ‘king of bankruptcies.’
Local insights
Related Election News
© 2026 WTX News.