Dozens of top U.S. military leaders faced polygraph examinations this summer as the Pentagon intensified its hunt for those behind leaks of classified information on American weapons reserves, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from some officials caught in the probe.
Earlier this summer, several dozen U.S. military and civilian officials, including personnel from U.S. Central Command and other combatant commands, were ordered to take polygraph tests as part of an expanding national security leak investigation. The Pentagon’s extraordinary step targeted those with access to some of the nation’s most sensitive defense secrets, as officials sought to identify the source of leaks about U.S. weapons stockpiles and other classified matters. The push followed mounting frustration at the highest levels, three sources told CBS News that President Donald Trump was furious about the leaks and demanded aggressive action.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has made combating leaks a public priority, announced in July that the Pentagon and Justice Department had formed a joint task force to identify and prosecute those suspected of leaking classified government information to the media. Hegseth also granted the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel broad authority to demand records and cooperation from military officials for leak probes, and Pentagon personnel were instructed to respond to such requests within two days. These moves signaled a dramatic escalation in the federal government’s approach to internal security, raising the pressure on senior leaders across the Defense Department.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell underscored the seriousness of the effort, stating: “The Department does not comment on internal personnel or investigative matters but takes all leaks of classified national security information extremely seriously and investigates accordingly. Securing classified information is critical to ensuring the security of the United States and of our troops deployed around the world.”
Federal law gives the defense secretary authority to order polygraph tests as part of counterintelligence investigations, with 10 U.S.C. § 1564a setting specific rules and requiring that such exams be used “responsibly and effectively.” The FBI was reportedly not involved in the Pentagon’s polygraph campaign, which focused on military personnel and civilian officials within the department. Two sources told CBS News that no one failed the questions designed to determine whether officials had leaked to the press, and no arrests or formal charges have been reported.
While Pentagon leaders insisted that aggressive investigation was necessary, some of those swept up in the probe blasted the department’s tactics as heavy-handed and lacking basic transparency. Three high-ranking officials placed on administrative leave during the investigation, Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll, and Darin Selnick, publicly criticized the process, saying they were “incredibly disappointed” by how their service ended and had not been told “what exactly we were investigated for, if there is still an active investigation, or if there was even a real investigation of ‘leaks’ to begin with.” According to the Washington Examiner, all three were removed from their posts as the Pentagon investigated recent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive national security information and considered the use of polygraph exams.
The lack of clear communication and due process has become a flashpoint for criticism. The officials, Caldwell, an adviser to Secretary Hegseth; Selnick, the Pentagon’s deputy chief of staff; and Carroll, chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, said they were left in the dark about the substance and status of the investigation, with no explanation as to what conduct had placed them under suspicion. This sense of uncertainty has fueled broader concerns among career military and civilian leaders about the potential for overreach and reputational harm in the department’s new approach to leaks.
The Pentagon crackdown followed several headline-grabbing leaks of sensitive information, including reports on the pace at which the U.S. was expending advanced munitions in the Iran war and details about a classified briefing on China that had been arranged for Elon Musk. After the contents of that planned briefing appeared in the press, Hegseth reportedly lost patience with internal security lapses. In one exchange cited by CBS News, he told then-acting Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Christopher Grady, “I’ll hook you up to a f, ing polygraph!”, though Grady was ultimately not subjected to the test. Similarly, Lt. Gen. Doug Sims, director of the Joint Staff, was accused by Hegseth of leaking, threatened with a polygraph, and later passed over for promotion before retiring last September.
These incidents unfolded against a backdrop of leadership changes at the highest levels of the Pentagon. Gen. C.Q. Brown, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was ousted prior to the leak dispute over the Musk briefing. Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel, led by Earl Matthews, was given sweeping authority for the new leak investigations, with a mandate to demand cooperation from across the department.
Despite the aggressive tactics, the polygraph sweep does not appear to have identified any leakers. Two sources told CBS News that none of the officials tested failed the central questions about leaking to the press, and there have been no arrests or public charges stemming from the probe. The Justice Department later withdrew subpoenas for grand-jury testimony and phone records issued to several reporters, suggesting that the investigation has yet to produce the “actionable information” Hegseth called for at the outset.
Federal law requires the defense secretary to report on the use of polygraphs to Congress and to ensure the tool is used effectively and with safeguards. Pentagon officials have said the FBI played no role in the testing, keeping the probe inside military channels. But the episode has left lingering questions about transparency, due process, and how the department balances internal security against the rights of those who serve.
In a country built on constitutional principles and a military that prizes honor, the answer to leaks should never be a process that tramples fairness along the way.
