A significant upheaval has occurred within the Pentagon, triggered by internal disputes and allegations of unauthorized disclosures. Following a period of intense scrutiny, several key aides to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were placed on paid administrative leave – including senior advisor Dan Caldwell, deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick, and Colin Carroll, chief of staff for Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg.
Additionally, John Ullyot, a press aide, departed his role due to a reluctance to assume the second-in-command position within the communications department. This situation unfolded amidst investigations into potential leaks of sensitive information, though no formal charges have been made against any of the individuals involved.
The initial investigation centered on accusations that Caldwell, Selnick, and Carroll were not adequately informed about the nature of their alleged wrongdoing, deprived of legal counsel, and denied access to crucial evidence – specifically, their cell phones. A legal analyst, Sean Timmons, explained that such actions are typically a preliminary step in an investigative process, intended to allow for due process if individuals believe they are being unfairly targeted.
Timmons emphasized that the situation is largely viewed as a security protocol rather than immediate disciplinary action: “It’s just considered a security protocol step to suspend their authorization, suspend their access to their emails, and a full, thorough independent investigation can be conducted.”
Despite denials from Pentagon officials regarding any connection between the leave placements and differing foreign policy opinions – particularly concerning potential actions related to Iran or Israel – tensions were evident within the department. Sources revealed that Joe Kasper, Hegseth’s chief of staff, harbored significant animosity towards Caldwell, Selnick, and Carroll, leading him to initiate an investigation into unauthorized disclosures and even suggesting the use of polygraph tests.
These actions stemmed from concerns raised by the three aides regarding Kasper’s leadership style, which they described as marked by “shouting matches in the front office.” Another official steadfastly maintained that the situation was solely focused on the leak investigation itself, dismissing any notion of interpersonal conflict.
The individuals involved – all civilian political appointees – possess limited protections compared to career military staff. Their positions carry a significant risk of losing their security clearances if found guilty of unauthorized disclosure, potentially leading to criminal prosecution and termination of employment. Libby Jamison, an attorney specializing in military law, highlighted this disparity: “For appointees, there is very broad discretion to be placed on administrative leave or reassigned.”
The process typically involves reporting the allegations to the Defense Information System for Security, followed by an independent review of each individual’s eligibility for access to classified information. Timmons explained that if evidence establishes a violation of security protocols – encompassing both leaking sensitive data and potential personal misconduct – individuals could face criminal charges and have their clearances revoked.
Conversely, if the investigation yields no conclusive proof linking the aides to the leaks, they could return to their positions, retaining their security clearances. John Ullyot’s departure was attributed to his lack of interest in a senior role within public affairs, stating he “was not interested in being number two to anyone in public affairs.” Ullyot previously made controversial statements regarding former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley’s physique and supported the reassignment of media workspaces.
