The Latest in Ex-Navy SEAL Robert O'Neill's $25 Million Defamation Lawsuit
•January 28, 2026
0
Companies Mentioned
Why It Matters
The outcome will set a precedent for how veteran podcasters and other content creators can be held liable for alleged false statements, influencing media‑law risk assessments across the industry.
Key Takeaways
- •O'Neill sues podcasters for $25 million defamation claim.
- •Case hinges on proving actual malice under public‑figure standard.
- •Lawyers argue jurisdiction battle between state and federal courts.
- •Podcast hosts cite differing memoirs to defend statements.
- •Potential loss could cost O'Neill legal fees and reputation.
Pulse Analysis
The O'Neill defamation case illustrates the legal tightrope that public‑figure plaintiffs walk when challenging speech on digital platforms. Under the landmark *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan* standard, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted with actual malice—knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for truth. In O'Neill's situation, the contested statements stem from divergent narratives in two bestselling memoirs, making the burden of proof especially steep. Courts will scrutinize whether the podcast hosts merely expressed opinion or crossed into defamatory territory, a distinction that could reshape the liability landscape for podcasters and influencers alike.
For veteran‑focused media outlets, the lawsuit raises practical concerns about content verification and risk management. Podcast hosts like Hoover and Tucker monetize their platforms through sponsorships and speaking fees, meaning a sizable judgment could threaten revenue streams and brand credibility. Their defense leans on the existence of multiple first‑hand accounts, arguing that their commentary reflects a legitimate, albeit contested, interpretation of historical events. If the court favors O'Neill, it may compel creators to adopt stricter fact‑checking protocols, potentially increasing production costs and altering the tone of veteran storytelling.
Beyond the immediate parties, the case could influence broader industry standards for defamation claims involving high‑profile figures and niche audiences. A dismissal would reinforce the high bar for public‑figure plaintiffs, encouraging content creators to continue probing controversial topics without excessive legal fear. Conversely, a ruling in O'Neill's favor could trigger a wave of litigation against podcasters, prompting platforms to refine their policies on disputed claims. Stakeholders—from legal teams to advertisers—should monitor the jurisdictional tug‑of‑war, as the final venue will affect procedural timelines, discovery scope, and the strategic calculus for future media‑law disputes.
The Latest in Ex-Navy SEAL Robert O'Neill's $25 Million Defamation Lawsuit
In November, O’Neill filed a $25 million defamation lawsuit against Tyler Hoover and Brent Tucker—hosts of The Antihero Podcast—claiming that the pair engaged in a years‑long effort to disparage the veteran’s name and efforts associated with bin Laden’s demise during Operation Neptune Spear.
He’s claimed that the repeated barbs by Hoover and Tucker, both veterans, go beyond accusations of stolen valor but are inciting veteran‑on‑veteran “hate” meant to monetize the tarnishing of his reputation.
Hoover was an Army airborne infantry veteran and former sheriff’s deputy. Tucker began his military career within the 75th Ranger Regiment, then 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), before spending the remainder of his career in Delta Force.
Retired Navy SEAL Robert O'Neill, 38, who says he shot and killed Osama bin Laden, poses for a portrait in Washington, Friday, Nov. 14, 2014. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Last week, O’Neill’s legal counsel filed a motion to remand the case to Westchester County Supreme Court, according to court documents shared with Military.com.
That follows a motion made in late December by attorney Timothy Parlatore—a military veteran who has represented his share of high‑profile clients, including U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—who filed to move the case to federal court, which he claims is the plaintiff’s fear should it remain there.
“[O’Neill] should have filed it in federal court, but he chose to file it in state court,” Parlatore told Military.com. “We moved it to federal court. He is clearly afraid of being in federal court, so he's trying to get it out.”
Podcasters Accused of ‘Rampant Conspiracy Theories’
The hosts were “lying about his role in dispatching Osama Bin Laden” and “effectively accusing Rob O’Neill of the most awful of offenses for a decorated military man who served with distinction and honor and been lauded for having courageously brought the worst of terrorists to justice who was responsible for thousands of American deaths.”
“They’ve accused him of a species of stolen valor and engaged in rampant conspiracy theories riddled with falsehoods and completely unfounded recriminations.” — Schwartz in court filings
Schwartz initially filed with the intention of the case going to trial in front of a jury.
‘I Look Forward to Court’
The newest legal filing was described by Schwartz as “a clear, if temporary, victory for O’Neill.”
“Rob O'Neill has served this country with honor, distinction and bravery,” Schwartz told Military.com. “He conducted over 400 combat missions and he is the man who walked into that compound and killed the most wanted terrorist in the world.
He has been defamed and damaged by these podcasters and we look forward to our day in court.”
In this 1998 file photo made available on March 19, 2004, Osama bin Laden is seen at a news conference in Khost, Afghanistan. The United States carried out the most noteworthy assassination of this century when Navy SEALs under President Barack Obama’s direction tracked down Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and killed him in 2011. (AP Photo/Mazhar Ali Khan, File)
The sentiment is shared by O’Neill.
“I can only watch the truth be trampled for so long before I fight back. I look forward to court.” — O’Neill to Military.com
Parlatore, however, views the case in a much different light.
“Filing any type of defamation claim on this is a losing battle because [O’Neill]’s a public figure,” Parlatore, who has represented the podcast duo since the start, told Military.com.
“In order to win this case, he has to show that the Antihero guys acted with actual malice, meaning that they knew what they were saying was false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth—which is absolutely impossible here because, setting everything else aside, you have two books that tell two different stories,” he added.
Different Accounts 15 Years Later
Parlatore referenced the two different perspectives of the now‑infamous bin Laden raid ordered by then‑President Barack Obama that are integral to this case, in the form of New York Times best sellers.
-
Mark Owen (a pseudonym for Matt Bissonnette) of the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known as SEAL Team Six, wrote No Easy Day. It is described as a “firsthand account” of the planning and execution of the successful May 2, 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan. It was published in 2012.
-
O’Neill wrote his own memoir, The Operator, published in 2017. His book detailed his 400‑plus‑mission military career and his own competing perspective of the bin Laden raid.
In this May 5, 2011 photo, Pakistani army troops guard the perimeter of the walled compound of a house where al‑Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught and killed by U.S. forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan. (AP Photo/Anjum Naveed)
The Antihero hosts based an August 2023 podcast titled, “Rob O’Neill—The Web of Lies,” in part on Bissonnette’s recounting of events. O’Neill, who has garnered large speaking fees due to his background, has in his own appearances on other podcasts called Bissonnette’s side of things “not the truth.”
“If you read both books and you say, ‘You know what, I think this book is more believable,’ there's nothing wrong with that,” Parlatore said. “Everybody's entitled to their opinion that one book is more believable than the other. So, you can't possibly make out actual malice when there's another book like that.”
“Add on top of that, there is not a single person that corroborates Rob O'Neill's claims. Yeah, there's other people on the team that have said, ‘No, he didn't [kill bin Laden].’ But there's not a single person who said, ‘Yes, he did,’ other than Rob O'Neill.”
William McRaven’s Role in Suit
O’Neill’s lawsuit also highly touts statements made by retired four‑star Adm. William McRaven, who as head of Joint Special Operations Command oversaw the 2011 operation.
McRaven, according to O’Neill’s attorneys, was introduced to the SEAL after the mission and introduced to him as “the man who killed Osama bin Laden.”
Legal filings also reference an October 2020 interview between CNN’s Jake Tapper and McRaven, in which McRaven described O’Neill as “the SEAL that, in fact, shot bin Laden.”
Navy Vice Admiral William McRaven, who as commander of Joint Special Operations Command had operational control of the SEAL Team Six mission to get Osama bin Laden, is pictured at a ceremony where President Barack Obama presented Army Sgt. First Class Leroy Arthur Petry of Santa Fe, N.M., the Medal of Honor for his valor in Afghanistan in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, July 12, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Schwartz said that the defense “has no sworn witness to rebut” McRaven’s testimony. Parlatore disagreed.
“That's stupidity,” Parlatore said. “First of all, McRaven is not even allowed to be a lawyer, not even allowed to be a witness in the case, because McRaven wasn't in the building. He wasn't on the mission. If you read McRaven's statement, which there are major problems with anyway… is that he was told by somebody else who also wasn't in the building that Rob was the shooter. So basically, somebody told him that somebody else told him that Rob was the shooter. That's three levels of hearsay.
“It's completely inadmissible. In order to prove Rob's case, the only way he can do it is he needs to bring in the other guys who were in the building. So yeah, McRaven's irrelevant.”
What’s Next
Parlatore said that O’Neill and his legal counsel are essentially jumping the gun on their claims of having the upper hand in the suit.
“My clients, before they did those episodes, they talked to multiple people who were on that mission who were in the building,” Parlatore said. “So, they are on the facts and on the law. They're totally confident here because they know what they did, they did their due diligence.
There's not a possible way under the law that you can hold them liable for defamation. Now, they're extremely confident.”
The case will be dismissed and O’Neill will end up paying both his legal fees as well as the Antihero guys, he added.
“Honestly, it's just a matter of how long is it going to take? How much money is Rob going to owe them at the end of this? And how bad of a hit is this going to be to Rob O'Neill's reputation, or is this going to go all the way to where these guys have to testify?”
“Worst‑case scenario for Rob, if this thing went to trial, a jury would find that Rob O'Neill did not shoot bin Laden. … He has to prove that he did. I don't have to prove that he didn't,” Parlatore added.
There is currently no specific timeline for when the judge in the case will respond to Schwartz’s request to move the case back to state court.
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...