Pete Hegseth Legal Victory: Stars and Stripes Staffers Lose Emergency Fight — But Could Still Gain Access to Pentagon Emails and Testimony
Pete Hegseth is at the center of a legal battle involving 'Stars and Stripes' journalists.
Sept. 8 2026, Published 7:20 p.m. ET
Pete Hegseth's Pentagon has scored an early court victory against three Stars and Stripes journalists fighting their threatened firings – but their legal battle is far from over, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
According to court documents obtained by Radar, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden denied an emergency request from editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, reporter Lara Korte, and publisher Max Lederer Jr. to temporarily block the Department of Defense from terminating them while their First Amendment lawsuit proceeds.
Lawsuit Lives On
The journalists sued Hegseth and other Pentagon officials.
The trio sued Hegseth, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell and other Defense Department officials in August, accusing the agency of retaliating against them for publicly defending Stars and Stripes' editorial independence and challenging what they described as growing Pentagon interference with the military newspaper.
McFadden ruled the journalists had not cleared the high legal bar necessary to win preliminary protection.
The judge concluded Slavin and Korte were unlikely, at this stage, to prove that comments they made during a CBS News interview were protected speech made as private citizens.
Instead, he found the existing record suggested they were speaking as part of their official roles at Stars and Stripes. But the ruling did not dismiss their lawsuit.
Judge Leaves Door Open
Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin's case could still gain strength as the journalists seek internal Pentagon records, communications and testimony.
McFadden specifically left open the possibility that additional evidence obtained as the litigation progresses could change the picture, writing: "Perhaps discovery will strengthen Plaintiffs' case."
That stage of a federal lawsuit can allow parties to seek internal documents, communications, and sworn testimony relevant to their claims, potentially providing the journalists with a deeper look at how Pentagon officials reached the decisions at the center of the case. That could prove significant given what the journalists already claim was happening behind the scenes.
The journalists claim Parnell criticized Lederer during a July performance review for allegedly losing control of Stars and Stripes leadership, which he purportedly described as being in "open rebellion" against the Pentagon's new policies.
POTUS Policies' Under Fire
The complaint claims Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell accused 'Stars and Stripes' leadership of rebelling against administration policy
The complaint also alleges Parnell wrote that the most important element of Lederer's performance plan was the "faithful administration of POTUS policies," and blamed the newsroom's resistance on Lederer's leadership.
The dispute erupted after Slavin and Korte appeared in a CBS News Sunday Morning segment discussing the publication's independence.
Korte said she worked for Stars and Stripes – "not for the Pentagon, not for any administration, not for any policymaker." Slavin said being ordered to replace an accurate article with Pentagon-written material would cross a "red line."
CBS Comments Spark Fight
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Lara Korte said she worked for 'Stars and Stripes' – not the Pentagon – as the newsroom's independence became the center of the legal war.
The plaintiffs also alleged retaliation connected to an August 11 Stars and Stripes report detailing difficult conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. The complaint says Lederer was ordered the following day to deliver separation notices to Slavin and Korte.
The Pentagon disputes the retaliation allegations and argued that officials had begun preparing the proposed separation actions before the Abraham Lincoln article was published. McFadden agreed that the current timeline weakened that particular theory.
Still, the judge characterized the employees' broader complaint as resembling a possible "cruel bait-and-switch" – noting they claim they are being fired over pre-approved interviews in which they largely defended the publication's established mission.
