CNN's $5M Mistake Just Took Down a Top Reporter

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sits with Alex Marquardt, 2015. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of State. Public domain.

In a quiet corner of the newsroom, CNN's top national security reporter signed off for the last time — but the reason for his departure is making headlines far beyond cable news.

Alex Marquardt's exit from CNN isn't just a personnel change. It's a seismic warning shot to journalists, newsrooms, and watchdogs across the country that when reporting crosses the line from scrutiny to vendetta, juries may not be forgiving.

And this time, they weren't.

The Making — And Breaking — Of a Star Correspondent

Marquardt wasn't a nobody. He was CNN's chief national security correspondent and a veteran foreign affairs reporter with stints in war zones and a trophy case full of Emmy and Murrow awards. Over his eight years at CNN, he helped lead coverage on the Ukraine invasion, the Capitol riots, and more. But it was a 2021 segment on the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that ended up becoming his legacy — and his undoing.

That segment, aired on "The Lead with Jake Tapper," spotlighted an alleged black market for Afghan evacuation services. In it, Marquardt identified Navy veteran Zachary Young, citing LinkedIn posts and message exchanges that implied he was charging steep fees to Afghans trying to escape the Taliban. Young sued. In January 2025, a Florida jury awarded him $5 million in damages after finding CNN's report defamatory — a decision driven in large part by what they uncovered behind the scenes.

What the Jury Saw

During the trial, jurors were shown internal CNN communications that dramatically shifted the tone of the case. In one message, Marquardt told a colleague he planned to "nail this Zach Young m-----------" — a statement repeatedly referenced by the plaintiff's attorneys, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Another producer reportedly described Young as having a "punchable face," according to the New York Post.

According to the jury foreperson, that internal rhetoric made it "obvious" to the panel that Marquardt was targeting Young — a key factor in their decision, according to Fox News.

Young, a former Navy officer, said the segment destroyed his reputation and business. He maintained that his evacuation services were designed for well-resourced sponsors seeking to rescue relatives — not for profiting off desperate refugees. CNN's portrayal, he argued, cast him as a black-market profiteer and made him a target in the public and professional spheres.

CNN, Settlement, and Silence

While CNN initially stood by Marquardt, calling its reporting "strong, fearless and fair-minded," insiders say the network reportedly began quietly conducting an ethics compliance review following the trial, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Though the network has yet to publicly confirm that Marquardt was fired, sources told multiple outlets that he was informed of his dismissal on a Friday in late May, citing "unspecified editorial differences," according to Fox News.

The settlement between CNN and Young was reached before punitive damages could be added — which could have pushed the payout far beyond the $5 million baseline. One juror later revealed that the panel was prepared to award Young between $50 million and $100 million in additional damages had a settlement not been reached.

Marquardt, for his part, has remained silent on the matter. In his final message on X, he simply said, "Some personal news: I'm leaving CNN after 8 terrific years. Tough to say goodbye but it's been an honor to work among the very best in the business. Profound thank you to my comrades on the National Security team & the phenomenal teammates I've worked with in the U.S. and abroad," according to the HuffPost.

A Chilling Effect, or a Long-Overdue Check?

This case is more than a media scandal. It's a cautionary tale about editorial intent — and what happens when the push to "nail" a story crosses an ethical line. While First Amendment protections remain robust, the bar for proving malice in defamation cases isn't insurmountable, especially when the evidence includes emails dripping with hostility.

Some in the media worry about a chilling effect on investigative journalism. If reporters fear being sued for large sums, will they pull punches on stories that deserve scrutiny? Others say the verdict was necessary — a signal that reputational destruction, when based on flimsy or misrepresented facts, won't be protected under the guise of journalism.

Even inside CNN, opinions seem split. One staffer told Fox News, "He was a great reporter in the field, really good in war zones. That's what makes it a shame."

References: CNN reporter Alex Marquardt exits after network lost $5M defamation case against Navy veteran | Alex Marquardt's exit from CNN 'obviously' tied to network's costly defamation trial, insiders say | Alex Marquardt Exits CNN After Defamation Lawsuit Loss Over Afghanistan Withdrawal Report | CNN Star Announces Departure Amid Report He Was Fired