Text Messages Released In CNN Lawsuit
CNN’s Florida defamation trial took a dramatic turn on Monday as reporter Alex Marquardt testified about his role in the controversial story that led to the lawsuit by U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young. At the heart of the case is a report that aired during the chaotic fallout of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, accusing Young of exploiting desperate Afghan citizens for profit—claims that have since been debunked by the court.
Marquardt, one of CNN’s high-profile correspondents, admitted on the stand that he had pitched the story about Afghans fleeing the Taliban, hoping to shed light on their plight. However, instead of focusing on systemic issues or broader scams that were plaguing evacuation efforts, Marquardt zeroed in on Young, portraying him as a profiteer who preyed on the vulnerable. Young’s attorney, Devin Freedman, presented internal CNN messages that painted a troubling picture of Marquardt’s intentions, including one message where Marquardt wrote, “We gonna nail this Zachary Young mf**ker.” It was a smoking gun that called into question the journalistic ethics behind the report.
When asked about how he had "no evidence Mr. Young took advantage of an Afghan," Marquardt tried to weasel an answer about how Young was "taking advantage" of the situation in Afghanistan by "doing business."
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 13, 2025
Young, a decorated Navy veteran, testified last week that his work facilitating evacuations involved corporate sponsors—companies like Bloomberg and Audible—who funded the expensive and risky logistics of extracting Afghan citizens. He emphatically denied charging individual Afghans for assistance. Despite this, Marquardt admitted during his testimony that he intentionally excluded the corporate sponsorship angle because “it was not something I was interested in.” This selective framing, combined with the lack of direct evidence of wrongdoing by Young, formed the crux of the defamation case.
Perhaps the most striking moment came when Judge William Scott Henry read questions submitted by jurors, one of which pressed Marquardt on why he still felt justified in accusing Young of exploitation despite evidence to the contrary. The jurors’ questions reflected the human cost of the report, asking pointedly how Marquardt felt about the fact that his story effectively ended Young’s ability to work in the field he was trained for.
Freedman shows a message from CNN's "top brass" rep Adam Levine that they needed a person to point to as the face of the problems.
Adam Levine is in the courtroom.— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 13, 2025
Marquardt, however, remained unapologetic. Throughout his testimony, he doubled down on his reporting, stating that he was “proud” of the story and saw no reason for CNN to apologize to Young. This defiance stood in stark contrast to the findings of the court, which had already determined that Young did not exploit any Afghan citizens.
The fallout from the story has been devastating for Young, who has described losing his livelihood and reputation as a result of CNN’s reporting. Freedman argued that CNN’s handling of the story wasn’t just sloppy—it was malicious. By ignoring exculpatory evidence, selectively framing the narrative, and approving incendiary internal messages, CNN’s “top brass” had effectively railroaded Young to fit a predetermined story angle.
Marquardt also admitted during cross-examination that he had come across reports of actual scams targeting Afghans during the evacuation crisis, but he chose not to include them in the piece about Young. Instead, the focus remained squarely on the Navy veteran, turning him into the scapegoat for broader issues in evacuation efforts. This omission, Freedman argued, further highlights the report’s lack of fairness and accuracy.