Pentagon Official Placed on Leave Amid National Security Leak Investigation
In a surprising development from Washington, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was reportedly escorted from the Pentagon and placed on administrative leave as part of an ongoing internal investigation, according to a Defense Department official.
The action follows a broader inquiry into unauthorized disclosures of sensitive national security information. Dan Caldwell, a senior Pentagon official and foreign policy analyst, was also suspended in connection with the investigation. Caldwell, who has been a vocal advocate for reducing the U.S. military presence overseas, previously worked with organizations that emphasize military restraint. He also shares a close working relationship with Hegseth, having collaborated on national defense initiatives in the past.
A Serious Crackdown on Leaks
The Pentagon has launched a full-scale effort to identify sources of recent leaks, especially those involving U.S. military strategy and operations. A recent memo from DoD Chief of Staff Joe Kasper confirmed that polygraph testing would be employed during the investigation, following all legal and regulatory guidelines.
“The investigation will commence immediately and culminate in a report to the Secretary of Defense,” the memo states. The final report is expected to include details on the scope of unauthorized disclosures and suggest ways to strengthen internal safeguards.
The memo also made it clear that any individual found to be responsible for leaking classified information could face criminal prosecution.
Leak Linked to High-Level Pentagon Communications
Attention turned toward Caldwell after messages surfaced from a private Signal group chat regarding U.S. strikes on Houthi targets in the Middle East. According to the leaked messages, Hegseth had identified Caldwell as a key contact in the Pentagon for the operation. That conversation came to light after National Security Advisor Mike Waltz mistakenly added a journalist to the group chat.
Importantly, this leak is said to be separate from another high-profile breach involving classified U.S. intelligence on airstrikes in Iran.
Questions Raised Over Iran Strike Effectiveness
Recent reporting from several major outlets suggested that a dozen 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs used in an air campaign against Iran may not have significantly affected Iran’s nuclear program. This has reportedly caused concern and frustration within the White House.
As a result, President Trump has signaled a reduction in military briefings to Congress, citing distrust in how information is being handled and shared.
Press Briefing at the Pentagon
At a press conference held at the Pentagon, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, addressed the situation. He confirmed that U.S. forces had evacuated certain regional bases after receiving intelligence that Iran was preparing retaliatory strikes.
General Caine emphasized that safety protocols were enacted swiftly and that early warnings had allowed military personnel to take necessary precautions.
Secretary Hegseth, speaking at the same event before being placed on leave, questioned recent news reports that cast doubt on the effectiveness of the U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear sites. He noted that the intelligence assessments being cited were still preliminary, had low confidence, and had not been coordinated across all intelligence agencies.
“This report has serious gaps in information,” Hegseth said. “It includes assumptions that, if wrong, call the entire conclusion into question. It was leaked to paint a certain picture that doesn’t reflect the full reality.”
What Happens Next?
The Pentagon has not officially confirmed whether any charges will be brought against those under investigation. The internal report and final decisions are expected in the coming weeks. In the meantime, questions continue to swirl around the source and intent of recent leaks, the role of senior defense officials, and how national security information is managed inside the U.S. government.
As tensions remain high overseas and scrutiny grows at home, the Department of Defense is under pressure to demonstrate transparency while preserving the security of its most sensitive operations.