A Hancock County deputy prosecutor has been terminated following her controversial social media posts regarding supporters of Donald Trump.
The Indy Star reported that Stroh, formerly a deputy prosecutor in Hancock County, was dismissed after comparing Trump voters to Nazis and requesting that those who supported him unfriend her on Facebook.
Jordan Stroh, a deputy prosecutor in Hancock County, faced backlash after her posts on Facebook came to public attention. She expressed her dissatisfaction with friends who voted for Trump, urging them to unfriend her. The posts were published shortly after Trump won his second term.
Among the controversial content was a shared post that included a quote from A.R. Moxon, likening Trump supporters to Nazis for reasons ranging from economic anxiety to patriotism. This comparison sparked significant controversy within the community and among her colleagues.
Her actions raised concerns about the neutrality required in her role within the justice system. Brent Eaton, the County Prosecutor and a member of the Republican party stated that such public expressions were incompatible with the impartiality expected of a prosecutor.
The issues escalated when members of the Hancock County law enforcement community, disturbed by the posts, reported them to Eaton. They argued that the posts damaged the perception of the prosecutor’s office's commitment to impartial justice.
Eaton, emphasizing the need for neutrality in public service, decided to terminate Stroh’s employment. He highlighted that the specific comparison of Trump supporters to Nazis was especially inappropriate and harmful to the community’s trust in the justice system.
Stroh defended her social media activity as personal opinions, distinct from her professional responsibilities.
She insisted that her posts on her private Facebook page did not impact her ability to serve impartially and justly in her official capacity.
Stroh, who was away for her wedding and honeymoon, was not immediately aware of the controversy. Upon her return on November 18, she was presented with a dismissal letter from Eaton, which detailed several complaints about her social media conduct.
The two-page letter outlined the reasons for her firing, stressing that her actions had called into question her suitability as a "minister of justice." Eaton’s letter explicitly criticized the nature of the posts and their public visibility.
“As a Prosecutor, you are charged with being a minister of justice. Unfortunately, the decisions you made to post content to your social media page call into question your ability to be fair and impartial minister of justice equitably, to all that you serve in this community," the dismissal letter stated.
Eaton further explained that while Stroh may have considered her Facebook page private, the platform is inherently public, where posts are intended to be viewed and shared widely.
“This was not a private email between two people. This was not a private message between, you know, parties speaking privately," he said, illustrating the public nature of social media platforms like Facebook.
He reiterated that comparisons to Nazis were particularly harmful and had no place in public discourse, especially not from someone involved in upholding justice. “How many times can you refer to large swaths of people as Nazis? I think the answer is zero. The answer should be zero," Eaton commented in a follow-up interview.
In response to her firing, Stroh maintained that her professional performance had always been aimed at ensuring the safety of Hancock County’s residents. “At the end of the day, my job was to advocate for the safety of the people of Hancock County and all of my actions did so," she stated.
She argued that her personal political views expressed on Facebook did not interfere with her responsibilities as a prosecutor.
Stroh’s case has sparked a broader discussion about the balance between personal expression and professional conduct in public service roles.
The incident continues to be a topic of debate within the community, with opinions divided on the appropriateness of Eaton’s decision and the implications for freedom of speech versus professional responsibility.
