The former ombudsman warned that the new directives could change the foundational nature of the historically independent publication.
"By having a government agency say, 'You cannot print this,' it's the beginning of saying more – 'You cannot print that,' or 'You must print this.'
It's editorial control," she said.
Smith expressed concern over a March 2026 memo stating that content must align with military standards.
She argued that the endgame is turning Stars and Stripes into a public affairs propaganda machine.
"Stripes content must be consistent with good order and discipline of the military," she noted, adding that such language is used in military court martials and could be applied arbitrarily.
In her published columns, Smith directly targeted the leadership's new directives. "Pete Hegseth doesn't want you to see cartoons in this newspaper anymore," she wrote.
She stated that the removal of these sections prompted widespread pushback from readers, who saw it as censorship.
Smith admitted that her public commentary was a direct challenge to administration officials.
"Poking the bear, in a way, but I had not at all expected that retaliation," she said.
Her legal representation stated that the litigation seeks an injunction to restore Smith to her position.
>>> Travelers Retrace Homeric Landscapes Ahead of Nolan Film Release
The lawsuit claims that the government retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights and for telling the public the truth about efforts to undermine Stripes' editorial independence.
Stars and Stripes Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin stated that an average of 1.4 million people read the publication daily across online platforms and overseas print editions.
