I know one of the guys who was kicked out of the Pentagon last week.
His name is Dan Caldwell, and for more than a decade, he’s been one of Pete Hegseth’s most trusted advisors. I’ve known Dan for about that long too. We’ve disagreed—vehemently—on some of the most important questions facing the veteran community. That includes the future of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the privatization agenda pushed by his former employer, Concerned Veterans for America (CVA). But despite our fundamental ideological differences, I’ve always found Dan to be a principled person, and someone who treats others with honesty and respect.
That’s why I was genuinely shocked to hear that he—and a small group of other longtime Hegseth allies—were marched out of the Pentagon by security, accused of leaking sensitive national security information. The media firestorm that’s followed their departure has revealed something much bigger than just an internal HR dispute. It’s exposed the cracks inside a chaotic and deeply factionalized Defense Department, where power struggles are escalating and national security is taking a backseat to petty rivalries, ideological purges, and influence games involving Elon Musk.
These are not routine personnel shuffles. They represent a breakdown in the basic functioning of the civilian leadership of the U.S. military. When experienced advisors are removed under murky circumstances, when investigations are launched and concluded without transparency or due process, and when the media narrative is driven by anonymous leaks rather than public accountability, the integrity of the Pentagon is put at risk.
Let’s be clear: something is deeply wrong at the Pentagon.
These aren’t routine personnel shuffles—they’re ideological purges with national security consequences.
A Veteran With Principles—Even If We Don’t Agree
Despite our fundamental ideological differences, I’ve always found Dan to be a principled person.
Dan Caldwell is a Marine Corps veteran who deployed to Iraq. After his service, he worked on Capitol Hill, became a prominent policy staffer at CVA, and later advised Defense Priorities, a think tank that advocates for restraint in U.S. foreign policy. I first got to know him while I was a student veteran trying to pass legislation to expand education and healthcare access. He was, at the time, part of the government affairs team for CVA.
My opposition to CVA’s mission—especially its efforts to privatize the VA—is no secret. I’ve testified against it. I’ve written about it. I’ve protested it. But unlike some of the figures who cycled through that organization, Dan always struck me as someone motivated by principle. His support for veterans’ choice wasn’t just a libertarian reflex—it came from a deep distrust in large, inefficient institutions, a belief system I don’t share but at least respect for its internal logic.
Over the years, I saw how he remained steady in his beliefs while the political winds shifted around him. He could have chased a Fox News career. He could have reinvented himself as a political consultant. But he didn’t. Dan Caldwell stayed focused on policy, on ideas, and on his belief in what was best for the country—even when I strongly disagreed with his conclusions.
And unlike Pete Hegseth—who, in my view, used CVA as a stepping stone to a Fox News contract and a political career—Dan stayed in the weeds. He did the hard policy work. He tried to build bridges across political divides. That counts for something.
So when I heard that he’d been fired from the Pentagon and accused of leaking classified information, my first reaction was disbelief. And the more we’ve learned since, the more it looks like this wasn’t about national security at all—it was about power. It was about control. And it was about silencing dissent.
On Offense with Kris Goldsmith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The Timeline of a Purge
Caldwell was fired alongside Darin Selnick (Hegseth’s deputy chief of staff) and Colin Carroll (chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg). All three had long histories with Hegseth and had helped shape the Trump administration’s veterans and military policy for over a decade. They were known quantities, deeply trusted by Hegseth, and aligned with his original political trajectory.
The public rationale for their removal was an investigation into leaks—reportedly involving U.S. military plans for the Panama Canal, a second carrier heading to the Red Sea, and a proposed intelligence pause related to Ukraine. Yet as reporting from Politico, Reuters, AP, and Responsible Statecraft has made clear, these allegations remain entirely unsubstantiated. The Pentagon never even conducted polygraph tests. > “None of the three men have been told what they were specifically being investigated for.”
None of the three men have been told what they were specifically being investigated for.
In a joint statement, Caldwell, Selnick, and Carroll said:
“We are incredibly disappointed by the manner in which our service at the Department of Defense ended. Unnamed Pentagon officials have slandered our character with baseless attacks on our way out the door... At this time, we still have 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.” Source
Meanwhile, the individual most responsible for initiating the investigation—Joe Kasper, Hegseth’s chief of staff—is also reportedly on his way out after internal disputes and mounting criticism from within the building. According to Politico, there were clear signs of a power struggle, with one defense official stating: “Joe didn’t like those guys... it was a personality clash.”
Musk, Yemen, and the Signal Chats
The internal warfare at the Pentagon might have stayed hidden if it weren’t for what came next: the Signal chat leaks.
First came The Atlantic's bombshell revelation that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz had included journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in an unclassified Signal group where top officials, including Hegseth, were discussing U.S. airstrikes in Yemen in real time. That same thread named Dan Caldwell as the go-to staffer for coordinating with the National Security Council—hardly the behavior of someone trying to leak classified info to the press.
Then The New York Times revealed that Hegseth shared additional operational details about Yemen in a separate Signal chat that included his wife and brother. These revelations have triggered an inspector general investigation into whether the Defense Secretary himself violated the Federal Records Act and endangered national security.
That these messages were leaked is bad enough. That they were sent in unsecure chats including people with no clearance—like Hegseth’s spouse and lawyer—is a catastrophic breach. National security protocols exist for a reason. And the fact that someone like Caldwell is being scapegoated while these breaches are brushed aside is deeply telling.
They’re scapegoating restraint advocates while ignoring actual breaches by the Secretary of Defense himself.
And yet it was Caldwell—a known restraint advocate who had publicly called the Iraq War a "monstrous crime"—who got escorted out of the building last week.
A Fight Over War and Peace
This isn’t just about office politics. What we’re witnessing is an internal war over the future of American foreign policy.
Caldwell has long opposed the "forever wars" and costly interventions. He was skeptical of U.S. military aid to Ukraine (another thing he and I have tremendous disagreements about) and warned against confrontation with Iran and China. He is part of a camp of "realists" in the GOP who believe in restraining U.S. military power and focusing on diplomacy.
That has put him in direct conflict with the more hawkish neoconservative faction within Trump’s coalition. Responsible Statecraft reported that other restraint-oriented voices—like Elbridge Colby and Daniel Davis—have also been marginalized or attacked in recent months. And it’s worth noting that Elon Musk, whose influence over national security decisions has grown dramatically, stands to benefit from having those realists purged.
So while some pundits frame this as just another round of Trumpworld infighting, it may actually be something more dangerous: an effort to silence dissenting voices and centralize influence over the Pentagon in the hands of Musk, Hegseth, and a loyalist inner circle.
The end result of this ideological battle could reshape the U.S. military’s posture for years to come. And if the factional victors are more interested in loyalty than competence, in performative masculinity over diplomacy, and in billionaire influence over constitutional process, the consequences will be dire—not just for the troops, but for the country and the world.
Why This Should Alarm You
Even if you disagree with Dan Caldwell’s views, you should be alarmed by what’s happening.
We’re watching a Defense Department abandon norms, purge experienced public servants, and allow personal vendettas to dictate national security decision-making. Civilian control of the military is being eroded in favor of personal loyalty. Strategic restraint is being cast as subversion.
The most powerful military on Earth is being run like a group chat drama.
And it’s clear that personal loyalty, not public service, is now the dominant currency inside the Pentagon.
These developments don’t exist in isolation. They follow the firing of top uniformed leaders like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the head of U.S. Cyber Command, and the U.S. military representative to NATO. They reflect a coordinated effort to centralize power, weaken oversight, and undermine the chain of command. And they portend a future where war and peace are decided not by deliberation, but by ego, ideology, and signal threads.
I never thought I’d be writing in defense of someone from CVA. But this isn’t about policy anymore. It’s about whether we can trust the people running our military to act with integrity, transparency, and a basic respect for democracy.
Right now, the answer is no. And that should scare the hell out of all of us.
What You Can Do
This isn’t just political infighting. It’s a breach of national security and a breakdown of public trust.
If you want to take action, 5Calls has launched a campaign demanding accountability for Hegseth, Waltz, and other Trump administration officials involved in the unsecured Signal chats that revealed U.S. military strike plans.
📞 Click here to contact your representatives and demand real accountability.
Thanks for reading On Offense with Kris Goldsmith! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Get full access to On Offense with Kris Goldsmith at onoffense.substack.com/subscribe
