On pressure, integrity, and the right to report

The Defence Blog is publishing this statement to document a pattern of conduct by EOS Defense Systems USA, Inc. and its parent company, Electro Optic Systems (ASX: EOS), that we consider a direct affront to press freedom and independent defence journalism.

On April 21, 2026, Electro Optic Systems published a press release announcing the demonstration of its Slinger remote weapon system as part of the U.S. Army’s Sling Blade counter-UAS platform during the Summit Strike live fire exercise. The Defence Blog reported on this event based entirely on that publicly released material.

In their correspondence, EOS Defense Systems USA suggested that cuashub.com is connected to The Defence Blog. That claim is false.

C-UAS Hub is an entirely independent publication. They produced their own reporting based on the same EOS press release, through their own editorial process, with no connection to The Defence Blog — no shared content, no citations, no coordination of any kind. Their article contains no link to our website, no reference to our name, and no mention of our author.

Furthermore, as of the publication of this statement, the C-UAS Hub article remains online. EOS has not requested its removal. This raises an obvious question: if the concern was genuinely about factual accuracy, why was only The Defence Blog targeted — and not the other independent outlet reporting the same information from the same source?

Following publication, an EOS Defence Systems USA representative contacted us — not to request removal, but to submit a factual correction. We accepted that correction immediately and updated the article in good faith. The article was revised to reflect precisely the language the company’s own representative requested.

Days later, a second representative — the Director of Contracts at EOS Defense Systems USA — contacted The Defence Blog demanding the article be removed entirely, stating it had been published “without proper authorization” and without “consent of the appropriate parties.” No legal basis was provided. No classified or proprietary information was identified.

At the same time, the official LinkedIn account of EOS Defense Systems USA, Inc. had publicly commented on our Editor-in-Chief’s post covering the same article (On April 21) : “Thank you for this coverage.”

We declined to remove the article on those terms. Following our formal response — which included documented evidence of their own press release, their own LinkedIn comment, and their own correction request — EOS Defense Systems USA reframed their position. We agreed to remove the article as a professional courtesy, given that the source material contained inaccuracies that originated with EOS itself.

In November 2020, EOS Defense Systems USA made an identical approach to The Defence Blog — demanding the removal of an article, claiming images were used “without permission” and that information was “not accurate.” We complied at the time. No apology was offered then either.

The pattern is clear: EOS publishes or authorises public communications, independent outlets report on them, and EOS Defense Systems USA subsequently contacts those outlets implying improper conduct. We also note that another independent publication — cuashub.com — reported on the same press release entirely independently, with no connection to The Defence Blog. They were similarly accused of errors originating from EOS’ own source material.

Our position

We formally requested a written organisational apology from EOS Defense Systems USA acknowledging that the original removal request was improperly framed and that The Defence Blog acted with full journalistic integrity throughout. That request was declined.

We are therefore publishing this statement on the record. The Defence Blog does not require authorisation from any company to report on publicly released information. We correct errors when they are identified — as we did in this case, promptly and in good faith. We do not accept false implications of wrongdoing, and we will not do so in silence.

Independent defence journalism is not a courtesy extended at the pleasure of corporate communications departments. It is a right — one we will continue to exercise.