Pentagon fires Stars and Stripes leaders amid Hegseth pressure campaign
By Josie Calloway ·
The story isn't about insubordination; it’s about control.
When the Pentagon treats the press like another weapons system
The story isn't about insubordination; it’s about control. It’s about the Department of Defense trying to re-engineer its own narrative, and when journalists refuse to be paid for that service—when they insist on reporting what is actually happening, not what the Pentagon wants them to report—they get fired. The US Pentagon sacked the editor, publisher, and a reporter at Stars and Stripes after they publicly objected to potential editorial interference (DW). Erik Slavin, the Editor-in-Chief, received a notice of separation for "insubordination" simply for stating in a CBS interview that hypothetical censorship would constitute a personal red line. Lara Korte, Middle East reporter, faced the same charge after telling a CBS reporter she worked for Stars and Stripes, not the Pentagon (Al Jazeera).
The message is crystal clear, delivered by spokesmen like Sean Parnell: Stars & Stripes will be "custom tailored to our warfighters... No more repurposed DC gossip columns; no more Associated Press reprints" (DW). This isn't a mission statement; it’s an edict. The paper has historically maintained its editorial independence despite receiving significant funding from the DOD, but now that the leadership—including Max Lederer, who noted his philosophy differed "in fundamental ways from the direction the leadership of the Department of Defense has for the organization" (Al Jazeera)—has pushed back, they are being purged.
The institutional cost of independent reporting
The sheer breadth of this coordinated firing is deeply troubling to anyone who understands how infrastructure works. Jacqueline Smith, the ombudsman, was fired in April; now Slavin and Korte follow suit. As Chris Vaccaro, President of the Society of Professional Journalists, noted, service members deserve journalism "produced in their interests—not journalism shaped to serve the interests of the Pentagon" (Al Jazeera). The outrage wasn't just confined to Washington D.C.; Democratic senators sent a joint letter emphasizing that trust depends on preserving a clear separation between independent journalism and the Department’s public affairs apparatus (Al Jazeera).
This isn't some isolated bureaucratic squabble; it is an attempted systemic chokehold on information flow. It reminds me immediately of the Pentagon Papers. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg released classified documents exposing how Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration had "systematically lied... to Congress" (Source Material). The state tried to legally suppress that truth, but the press found a way to publish it anyway.
When the government treats the newsroom like another warzone
The mechanism is identical: when powerful institutions believe they can control the narrative—when they treat journalism as merely another tool for military messaging rather than an independent check on power—they will attempt suppression. The Pentagon's actions against Stars and Stripes are not a deviation from history; they are a predictable, cynical repetition of it.
The Department of Defense cannot function in a democracy if its own press is forced to operate under the threat of termination for asking questions. They mistake funding for ownership, and independence for insubordination. The military-industrial complex needs unquestioning loyalty, and nothing scares an apparatus built on secrecy more than a free press.