Justice
Military.com’s False and Defamatory Reporting Concerning Slade Douglas
TO: The Editors and Legal Department of Military.com
FROM: Slade Douglas
RE: FORMAL DEMAND FOR RETRACTION AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY — Military.com’s False and Defamatory Reporting Concerning Slade Douglas
I am writing to demand the immediate correction and/or retraction of Military.com’s coverage concerning me, Slade Douglas, and my federal civil-rights case against the City of Los Angeles and LAPD officers. (https://www.military.com/
I am a United States Army veteran, former law-enforcement officer, veterans advocate, and the prevailing plaintiff in Douglas v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07439-MEMF-MAR, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
On December 23, 2025, a federal jury returned a multimillion-dollar verdict in my favor, including punitive damages against individual LAPD officers. The City and officers subsequently sought post-trial relief. On August 26, 2026, the federal court rejected their effort to obtain a new trial and expressly recognized that my victory “served the public interest by vindicating important constitutional rights,” describing the underlying conduct as “lawless, unconstitutional conduct.” The Court further recognized the deterrent and public-policy significance of the litigation.
Against that record, Military.com published an account on Sept. 2 that perpetuates false, materially misleading, and rejected narratives concerning what happened to me while omitting critical facts necessary for readers to understand the case and the verdict.
This was not simply the benign intervention suggested by the narrative presented to your readers. I have consistently maintained that I was swatted after advocating for veterans and challenging government conduct. LAPD officers arrived without a warrant. I called 911 myself. What followed ultimately became the subject of a federal civil-rights trial at which a jury found in my favor and imposed punitive damages. The federal court then refused to disturb that result through a new trial.
Presenting allegations or labels used to justify government conduct as though they constitute an established account of what actually occurred is particularly damaging after a federal jury verdict and post-trial judicial findings demonstrating the constitutional gravity of the case. Material omissions can likewise create a fundamentally false impression when readers are denied the adjudicated facts and context necessary to understand the story.
This is especially troubling coming from Military.com.
Your publication serves veterans. I am one of those veterans.
I served this country. I became an advocate for other veterans. And after prevailing before a federal jury in litigation arising from government conduct against me, I should not have to watch a publication dedicated to the military community perpetuate a narrative that obscures the constitutional violations a jury found and the extraordinary public-interest findings subsequently made by a federal court.
There is also a larger opportunity here.
My response to what happened has not been limited to obtaining a verdict. I developed the Slade Douglas Liberty Act, a proposed reform intended to establish meaningful constitutional and due-process safeguards so that administrative labels cannot become substitutes for constitutional protections and so that other veterans and members of the public are not subjected to similar treatment.
I am therefore providing Military.com with two important pieces of the current record:
My recent letter to Los Angeles city leadership calling for accountability and systemic reform following the verdict and the federal court’s August 26, 2026 ruling.
The Slade Douglas Liberty Act and its supporting public record, which explain how this case has developed into a broader effort to protect constitutional rights and prevent similar abuses.
I ask Military.com to have its editors and legal department review the article against the actual trial result, judgment, August 26 federal court ruling, and materials I am providing.
I further request that Military.com:
• retract or prominently correct materially false or misleading statements and implications concerning the circumstances giving rise to my detention;
• cease presenting disputed government allegations and labels as established fact;
• update the article to accurately reflect the federal jury’s findings, punitive-damages determination, post-trial ruling, and the federal court’s public-interest findings;
• provide an appropriate editor’s note explaining the correction to readers; and
• advise me promptly whether Military.com will issue a correction and/or retraction.
I also invite Military.com to do something considerably more constructive: use its national platform to educate veterans about what this case exposed and the constitutional protections the Slade Douglas Liberty Act seeks to establish.
Military.com has an opportunity to help veterans understand their rights and to examine how government systems can fail the very people they were created to serve. That would be a meaningful public service. Repeating false or materially misleading narratives about a veteran who successfully vindicated his constitutional rights before a federal jury is not.
This is not a request that Military.com accept my characterization of disputed matters without examination. It is a demand that Military.com examine the adjudicated record and report it accurately.
The jury has spoken. The federal court has spoken. The public-interest implications have now been expressly recognized by the court.
I am asking Military.com to correct the record and to consider whether its platform should be used to perpetuate a narrative harmful to a veteran or to educate and protect veterans so that what happened in this case is not repeated.
Please preserve all materials relating to the preparation, editing, sourcing, publication, republication, and subsequent review of the article, including communications with sources and internal editorial communications, to the extent required by applicable law and your document-retention obligations.
Please provide Military.com’s substantive response concerning correction and/or retraction promptly upon review of the enclosed materials.
Respectfully,
Slade Douglas
U.S. Army Veteran
Veterans Advocate
Founder, Slade Douglas Liberty Act
Slade Douglas Liberty Act
Letter to Los Angeles City Leadership
Slade Douglas Liberty Act / Supporting Materials
August 26, 2026 Federal Court Order