Leaked Secrets and Pentagon Suspensions: Inside the Growing Defense Department Scandal

A senior advisor to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has been placed on administrative leave and escorted from the Pentagon, marking a dramatic escalation in the Department of Defense’s crackdown on internal leaks. According to a Pentagon official, Dan Caldwell was removed from his position following an alleged unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, now part of a wider investigation aimed at rooting out leaks within the defense establishment.

Caldwell, known for his foreign policy restraint and prior work with think tanks like Defense Priorities and Concerned Veterans for America, had close ties to Hegseth—both personally and professionally. His policy views often challenged the consensus within the defense community, particularly his push to significantly scale back U.S. military commitments in Europe and the Middle East, including full troop withdrawals from Iraq and Syria.

The Department of Defense recently launched an aggressive effort to identify individuals responsible for leaking national security information. This effort includes the use of polygraph examinations—an extraordinary measure that underscores the seriousness with which the Pentagon views the recent breaches.

In a memo circulated internally, DoD Chief of Staff Joe Kasper confirmed that the investigation would begin immediately and culminate in a detailed report submitted directly to Secretary Hegseth. “The use of polygraphs in the execution of this investigation will be in accordance with applicable law and policy,” the memo read. It further stated that any individuals identified as responsible for unauthorized disclosures would be referred for potential criminal prosecution.

The internal memo promised a comprehensive record of leaks, alongside recommendations for improving information security protocols throughout the department. While the investigation spans multiple incidents, Caldwell’s case has drawn the most immediate attention—both for his proximity to top leadership and for the nature of the leak tied to him.

Caldwell was allegedly named in a leaked private chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal, where he was referred to as the Pentagon’s point of contact during discussions about U.S. military strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. The leak itself reportedly emerged after National Security Advisor Mike Waltz mistakenly included The Atlantic‘s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, in the group chat, inadvertently exposing sensitive details of the operation.

This specific leak is unrelated to another high-profile breach involving classified intelligence about airstrikes against Iranian targets. In that separate incident, internal frustration within the White House has reportedly grown after media outlets, including CNN and The New York Times, published stories based on classified assessments of the strikes’ impact.

A recent report suggested that the deployment of twelve 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs failed to meaningfully disrupt Iran’s nuclear enrichment efforts—a narrative the Trump administration has vehemently denied. Former President Trump has publicly lashed out at the reporting, accusing members of Congress of leaking sensitive briefings and hinting that the White House may cut back on how often it shares military updates.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Hegseth and Air Force General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed the press at the Pentagon to provide updates on the situation in the Middle East, as well as to push back on the leaked assessment.

General Caine confirmed that U.S. bases in the region had received credible threats of an Iranian attack, prompting a large-scale evacuation of personnel on Monday morning. “We received clear indications and warnings of imminent hostile action. The safety of our forces remains our top priority,” he stated.

Hegseth took the podium shortly after to deliver a scathing critique of what he called the media’s misrepresentation of preliminary military intelligence. “Reports claiming the strike failed are based on a preliminary assessment. Not only was it produced without coordination with the broader intelligence community, it openly admits to having low confidence and major information gaps,” Hegseth told reporters.

He continued: “This was leaked with a purpose—to discredit a historic operation. The report itself relies on linchpin assumptions. If one is wrong, the entire conclusion collapses. It even acknowledges likely severe damage, yet that part gets ignored.”

The Secretary emphasized that such leaks have a real impact on military morale, operational security, and the credibility of the Department of Defense. He also indicated that General Caine would soon release more detailed operational data in response to the misleading media coverage.

The implications of the Caldwell investigation extend far beyond one advisor. The use of polygraphs and threat of criminal prosecution signal a broader campaign to restore internal discipline and secure classified information. For critics, it raises concerns about surveillance and retaliation against dissenting voices within the Pentagon. For supporters, it’s a long-overdue move to protect the integrity of national defense.

As the Defense Department continues its investigation and prepares to submit findings to Secretary Hegseth, more names could emerge in connection to the leaks. What remains clear is that a battle over information—who controls it, who leaks it, and who pays the price—is unfolding at the highest levels of the U.S. military.

And for the Pentagon, where policy, politics, and secrecy often collide, this may only be the beginning.