On Friday. The Pentagon fired the publisher (Max D. Lederer Jr.), editor-in-chief (Erik Slavin), and a Middle East reporter (Lara Korte) of Stars and Stripes, the long-running, government-funded military newspaper with a tradition of editorial independence.
The firings, for alleged insubordination, followed a CBS interview in which Slavin and Korte emphasized that censorship of news for service members would cross a red line and affirmed that they work for the paper rather than the Pentagon or any administration.
Lederer had recently announced his retirement, citing fundamental differences with Pentagon leadership over the paper’s direction.
The moves, occurring under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth amid prior actions (such as dismissing the ombudsman), drew widespread criticism from journalism groups and raised concerns about threats to press freedom and the outlet’s independence while covering military issues, including hardships related to ongoing conflicts.
Stars and Stripes is a unique, partially government-funded newspaper with roots in the Civil War and continuous publication since World War II. It serves service members and military families with news, including commercially available U.S. and world coverage plus original reporting relevant to the military community. Unlike typical DoD public affairs outlets, it has long operated under principles of editorial independence from the military chain of command, news management, or censorship—codified in DoD regulations and reinforced by congressional action.
Congress established an ombudsman position in the early 1990s (via Armed Services Committee action) specifically to safeguard that independence and report threats to the free flow of information. Historical precedents, including protections under Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, emphasized hands-off policies to maintain credibility with troops. Staff are DoD employees (civilian and military), creating inherent tensions, but policy long required balanced, accurate reporting without propaganda.
These actions raise direct concerns about government control over journalism:
Background on Stars and Stripes Independence
Stars and Stripes is a unique, partially government-funded newspaper with roots in the Civil War and continuous publication since World War II. It serves service members and military families with news, including commercially available U.S. and world coverage plus original reporting relevant to the military community. Unlike typical DoD public affairs outlets, it has long operated under principles of editorial independence from the military chain of command, news management, or censorship—codified in DoD regulations and reinforced by congressional action.
Sequence of Recent Actions
Under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the second Trump administration, a series of steps progressively increased oversight:
- In January 2026, a Pentagon spokesman announced efforts to “modernize” the paper, refocus away from “woke distractions,” and eliminate certain content (e.g., AP reprints or “DC gossip”). Concurrently, decades-old federal regulations affirming a “free flow of news and information... without news management or censorship” were rescinded without public notice or comment.
- A March memo introduced restrictions on wire services, syndicated features (including comics), FOIA requests by reporters in an official capacity, and publication of certain information, while asserting continued independence and requiring content consistent with “good order and discipline.”
In April, the ombudsman (Jacqueline Smith) was fired after publicly criticizing these moves; she and others filed lawsuits alleging First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act violations.
Smith - An active-duty Navy public affairs officer was installed as deputy publisher without prior consultation with the outgoing leadership. Advisory board members sued over related directives, calling them illegal censorship.
- On August 21–22, 2026, the publisher (Max Lederer Jr., who had announced retirement citing fundamental differences), editor-in-chief (Erik Slavin), and Middle East reporter (Lara Korte) received separation notices for “insubordination.” This followed their participation in a CBS interview defending editorial independence and stating that censorship of news for service members would be a “red line.” Coverage of hardships on the USS Abraham Lincoln (extended deployment amid conflict with Iran) occurred shortly beforehand.
Core Press Freedom Implications
- Erosion of mandated independence: Rescinding regulations, content limits, and personnel removals for defending First Amendment principles challenge the statutory and policy framework designed to insulate Stars and Stripes from command influence. Firing editors for articulating red lines against hypothetical Pentagon-written stories or censorship exemplifies potential viewpoint-based retaliation.
- Chilling effect on military and Pentagon coverage: Reporters may self-censor on sensitive topics (troop hardships, policy critiques, operational realities) to avoid “insubordination” claims or “good order and discipline” violations. This extends beyond Stars and Stripes to the broader Pentagon press corps, already facing access restrictions that courts have scrutinized.
- Risk to service members as informed citizens: Troops and families in remote or combat settings rely on independent reporting rather than official channels. Replacing it with mission-focused or public-affairs-oriented content risks turning the outlet into a perceived propaganda tool (“Pravda-style,” in critics’ terms), undermining trust, morale, and the ability to stay informed as citizens who defend the Constitution.
- Broader pattern and precedents: The moves fit a wider administration approach of heightened media scrutiny (restricted access, conflicts with other outlets, FCC actions). They echo historical military interference attempts that previously prompted congressional safeguards. Legal challenges (ongoing lawsuits over regulations, firings, and First Amendment claims) could clarify boundaries for government-employee journalists in unique roles, but outcomes remain pending.
- Institutional and credibility costs: Installing military public-affairs leadership and prioritizing “modernization” over traditional independence could reduce the paper’s perceived neutrality, harming its value to readers. Congressional oversight (Armed Services Committees) has been urged; failure to restore protections might normalize executive control over specialized media
