Pentagon fires Stars and Stripes leaders amid Hegseth pressure campaign

Stars and Stripes Leadership Ousted in Latest Escalation of Pentagon Pressure on Military Press

Sandego.net – The long-standing tradition of editorial independence at Stars and Stripes, the newspaper produced by the United States military, came to a sharp halt this week when the Department of Defense removed the publication’s top editorial and publishing leadership in a single day. Reporter Lara Korte, publisher Max Lederer, and editor-in-chief Erik Slavin all received separation notices on Friday, ending their roles at the outlet that has covered defense affairs for decades while operating under a charter that shields it from government news management.

The dismissals landed amid a months-long campaign by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his office to reshape how the military’s own newspaper reports on its leadership. Advocacy organizations representing journalists quickly condemned the moves, framing them as an attempt to convert an independent newsroom into a channel for official messaging.

What the Pentagon Cited

Slavin said he was informed that his removal was tied to remarks he made during a television interview. In a conversation with CNN’s Erin Burnett, he recounted the explanation he received:

“They cited the CBS interview, and they said that I was insubordinate for responding to a hypothetical about censorship, saying that it was a red line.”

He pushed back on the characterization, insisting he had never indicated he would defy any directive. Instead, he said, he was restating what existing law and government regulations already establish:

“In my mind I reaffirmed what the law says, what the [government regulations] say, which is that Stars and Stripes is meant to be free of news management and censorship.”

The interview in question aired in early July on “CBS Sunday Morning.” Correspondent David Martin had sat down with both Slavin and Korte to discuss their ongoing efforts to report freely while navigating mounting pressure from the Pentagon. That segment now appears to have become the stated justification for Slavin’s departure.

A Pattern of Pressure Building Since January

The firings did not arrive without warning. As early as January, Sean Parnell, Hegseth’s principal spokesman, made public remarks that signaled the publication’s operating environment was about to change, raising alarm inside the newsroom. By April, the Department of Defense had compelled the departure of Jacqueline Smith, the Stars and Stripes ombudsman — a position created by congressional mandate to provide readers with a channel for complaints and corrections. Smith had been vocal about what she described as Pentagon attempts to steer the paper’s editorial content. In June she filed a federal lawsuit arguing the government had violated her First Amendment rights. That case remains pending.

Earlier this week, the pressure intensified further when Lederer announced his intention to retire at the close of September. In a memo addressed to staff, he laid out his reasoning:

“It has become clear that my philosophy of leadership, and my understanding of the value and mission of Stars and Stripes, differ in fundamental ways from the direction the leadership of the Department of Defense has for the organization.”

He was removed before that planned transition could take place.

Urban’s Appointment and the New Editorial Memo

The Pentagon declined to offer direct comment on the firings, instead pointing to an open letter published Friday by Navy Captain Bill Urban, who had been installed as “military deputy to the publisher” earlier in the week. Several senior Democratic senators objected to that appointment, writing to Hegseth that placing an active-duty public affairs officer in senior leadership of an organization whose credibility rests on its independence from the chain of command “raises serious questions.”

In his introductory memo, Urban described a need for “modernization” at the publication and stated he had received “multiple assurances” from Pentagon leadership regarding its commitment to editorial independence. Yet a separate memo issued the same day and approved by Parnell set out operational guidelines that drew immediate scrutiny. Among its provisions, it directed that the paper must prevent disclosure of classified and controlled unclassified information and avoid publishing material that would “adversely affect national security or clearly endanger U.S. personnel.”

Critics zeroed in on the “adversely affect national security” phrasing, noting that Stars and Stripes had published stories as recently as that same week which Pentagon leaders might find objectionable. One example was Korte’s report on Navy families evacuated from Bahrain amid what she described as bureaucratic confusion. The publication had also run repeated coverage of hardships endured by sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

What the Firings Mean for Military Press Freedom

Stars and Stripes occupies a unique position in American journalism. It is a product of the military, receives partial funding from the Pentagon, and yet is structured to operate like a commercial newspaper, covering defense news without government pre-approval. That hybrid status has made it a lightning rod whenever the relationship between the military and its own press is tested.

Korte, speaking after learning of her own dismissal, framed the episode in terms of institutional obligation rather than personal grievance:

“I consider it a great privilege to live alongside members of the military and share their stories. These firings are a shame for the institution and service members, who swore to defend the Constitution and deserve the right to a free and independent press.”

She added that she remained proud of the reporting her team had produced, particularly over the preceding six months of covering the protracted conflict in Iran, where military families and service members had been directly affected by events on the ground.

The episode underscores a broader question now facing defense journalists, members of Congress, and the public: whether the Pentagon’s constitutional obligation to maintain an independent military pressroom can survive sustained institutional pressure from the very leadership that publication is meant to scrutinize. With Smith’s lawsuit still pending and Urban’s new guidelines now in effect, the answer may be tested in courtrooms as well as newsrooms in the months ahead.