Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: A wave of internal conflicts at the Pentagon surfaced publicly this week as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s inner circle experienced a dramatic shake-up, leading to the suspension of multiple aides. As tensions escalate, serious allegations loom over their careers and reputations.
Three prominent aides to Hegseth were placed on administrative leave after being implicated in an ongoing investigation concerning unauthorized leaks. The suspended aides include senior adviser Dan Caldwell, deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick, and Colin Carroll, chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg.
Additionally, a communications press aide, John Ullyot, departed the Pentagon under circumstances that hint at a conflict with leadership. He chose not to accept a role as the number two position in the communications office.
According to several defense officials speaking on condition of anonymity, the three aides were never informed of the specific allegations against them. They did not receive explanations regarding their rights, nor were they guided on whom they could communicate with throughout the investigative process. Surprisingly, they were also not required to surrender their cellphones, which raises questions about the seriousness of the probe.
At least one former employee is now seeking legal advice, yet none have been officially terminated. All remain in limbo as they await the investigation’s outcome.
Legal expert Sean Timmons emphasized that being placed on paid leave does not imply disciplinary action but instead serves as a procedural step to ensure a thorough investigation is conducted. He stated that if these individuals feel they are being unfairly treated, they will have opportunities to respond during the investigative process.
Despite the media spotlight on these personnel changes, such occurrences are not uncommon within federal agencies. Timmons noted that the current situation is largely considered a security measure, allowing the Pentagon to conduct an independent review without hindrance.
Pentagon officials firmly denied any notion that these leave placements stemmed from differing foreign policy perspectives, clarifying that no connections exist to their stances on issues concerning Iran and Israel. Speculation arose following reports that former President Donald Trump informed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Pentagon would not act to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran.
Selnick’s focus within the Pentagon encompassed operational and administrative matters, while Carroll primarily dealt with acquisitions. Caldwell, on the other hand, offered advice on European security affairs.
However, the underlying tension within Hegseth’s team appears to be rooted in interpersonal conflicts. According to a knowledgeable defense official, Joe Kasper, Hegseth’s chief of staff, harbored animosity toward the three aides. In late March, Kasper reportedly instructed the Pentagon to investigate unauthorized disclosures to the media, suggesting lie detector tests could be utilized if necessary.
This contentious environment was exacerbated by concerns raised by the trio regarding Kasper’s leadership style, which he interpreted as a threat to his position.
Reports indicate that these tensions escalated into verbal confrontations within the office. One Pentagon official asserted that claims linking the personnel changes to personal adversity are unfounded. They insisted there is concrete evidence supporting accusations of unauthorized leaking, highlighting the gravity of disclosing classified information.
As political appointees, the three aides are subject to at-will termination policies, meaning their positions could be forfeited regardless of the investigation’s findings. However, should the inquiry uncover wrongdoing, their security clearances could also be revoked.
Libby Jamison, an attorney with military law expertise, discussed the limited protections afforded to political appointees in contrast to career staff members. Within this context, federal authorities wield extensive discretion over administrative leave placements and reassignments.
If accusations of leaking are confirmed, protocol dictates that the Defense Information System for Security receives a report concerning the incidents, triggering an independent examination of their valid access to sensitive materials.
These employees will have a chance to defend their security clearance status, demonstrating their adherence to rules during the investigation, according to Timmons. Conversely, if evidence points to infractions related to leaking information, they could face criminal charges, termination, and revocation of security privileges.
Alternatively, should the review fail to produce substantial evidence linking them to any leaks, they may return to their positions unencumbered and retain their security clearances.
As for Ullyot, he expressed his intent to work closely with Hegseth from the outset. His temporary role as head of public affairs included significant operational changes, including policies addressing press access.
His tenure, however, faced challenges as his role evolved. Following the appointment of Sean Parnell as the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Ullyot stated he could not find a suitable position at the Department of Defense. He ultimately decided to resign at the end of the week but continues to express his strong support for Hegseth.
Outlook on the Investigation
The unfolding drama at the Pentagon exemplifies the complex interplay of politics, personal relationships, and national security interests that often characterize high-level government positions. As the investigation progresses, the implications for those involved, and the broader consequences for the Department of Defense, remain to be seen.
