Pentagon Infiltration! Hegseth’s Top Aides Escorted From Building in Secret Leak Probe!
A senior advisor to Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was escorted out of the Pentagon and placed on administrative leave, according to a Defense Department official.
Dan Caldwell was suspended over an “unauthorized disclosure” of information amid an ongoing investigation into leaks from within the Pentagon.
Advertisement
Caldwell, a foreign policy realist, previously worked with the restraint-oriented think tank Defense Priorities and Concerned Veterans for America, which was formerly led by Hegseth.
He has been a vocal advocate for significantly reducing the U.S. military presence in Europe and withdrawing troops from Iraq and Syria.
Advertisement
Politics (Right)
Geographic Reference
Political commentary service
The Pentagon recently announced an effort to identify leakers from within the Defense Department regarding “recent unauthorized disclosures of national security information.”
Advertisement
The announcement said that the DoD would use polygraph exams to identify who was allegedly leaking sensitive or secret data.
“The use of polygraphs in the execution of this investigation will be in accordance with applicable law and policy,” DOD Chief of Staff Joe Kasper wrote in a memo. “This investigation will commence immediately and culminate in a report to the Secretary of Defense.”
“The report will include a complete record of unauthorized disclosures within the Department of Defense and recommendations to improve such efforts,” the memo said.
The memo also noted that “information identifying a party responsible for an unauthorized disclosure” would be referred for criminal prosecution.
Caldwell’s close ties to Hegseth were highlighted in a leaked Signal chat about U.S. strikes on the Houthis, in which Hegseth identified him as the Pentagon’s point of contact for the operation.
The private conversation was exposed after National Security Advisor Mike Waltz accidentally added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to the group.
Advertisement
Political party analysis
Government
Courts & Judiciary
This leak is separate from the one involving someone leaking classified U.S. intelligence about the bombs dropped on Iran.
Days of vehement opposition to reporting by CNN and the New York Times suggest that Trump is angrier than normal about the leak of a study claiming that a dozen 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs achieved nothing to halt Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.
Trump has pointed fingers at members of Congress and claimed that the White House will no longer provide as frequent briefings on military operations.
Advertisement
Arabs & Middle Easterners
Time & Calendars
Democratic party updates
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Dan Caine are having a press conference at the Pentagon. I’ll bring you any news updates here.
General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that on Monday morning, they received “indications and warnings that Iran intended to attack US bases in the region” and evacuated the majority of their people.
Advertisement
“I want to read some of the assessment and assessments provided. Whether fake news, CNN, MSNBC or New York Times, there has been fawning coverage of preliminary assessment. I have not had a chance to read it, every outlet reported on preliminary assessment from DIA. I’m looking at it right now, preliminary, day and a half after the actual strike, it admits it requires 82s weeks to aaccumulate necessary data, it is preliminary,” Hegseth said.
“It points out it is not coordinated with the intelligence community at all, there is low-confidence in this report, its there are gaps in information and says multiple linchpin assumptions are what this is, that means your entire premise is predicateod a linchpin. If you are wrong, everything else is wrong. This report acknowledges likely severe damage. Leaked because someone had agenda to muddy water and make it look like this historic strike wasn’t successful. Get to the chairman in a moment, he will layout the particulars for you based on his professional military experience,” Hegseth added
JUST IN - MISSOURI REDISTRICTING BATTLE
KAVANAUGH REJECTS MISSOURI GOP STAY REQUEST - BUT FEDERAL JUDGE TEMPORARILY REVIVES TRUMP-BACKED MAP
The U.S. Supreme Court action was real, and Missouri's high court said a citizen referendum suspended the new districts. But a federal judge issued a conflicting 14-day order minutes later, so the claim that Missouri will definitely use its old map in November is no longer settled.
STATUS UPDATE - September 8, 2026: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' emergency stay application. Later the same evening, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark temporarily ordered the state to use the newer map. Further appeals were expected.
WASHINGTON / JEFFERSON CITY, MO. - A fast-moving legal fight over Missouri's congressional districts produced two sharply different court orders on September 8, leaving the map for the November 2026 midterm election uncertain even after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant Republican state officials emergency relief.
The first part of the viral claim is accurate: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency application filed by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins seeking to pause a Missouri Supreme Court decision that had blocked the state's Trump-backed 2025 congressional map. The U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 26A304, records the application as denied by Kavanaugh on September 8. The order did not include an explanation and was not a merits ruling on the underlying redistricting dispute.
However, the statement that Missouri therefore "will now use its previous congressional districts in November" became outdated almost immediately. Minutes after Kavanaugh acted, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri officials to use the newer map for the time being. His order is set to last 14 days while the federal case proceeds, creating a direct practical conflict with the Missouri Supreme Court's earlier command.
What Kavanaugh Actually Denied
Missouri Republicans did not ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling on the legality of the map. They asked for emergency relief - a stay of the Missouri Supreme Court's judgment - so the state could continue using the districts enacted in 2025 while litigation continued. Under the Supreme Court's circuit-assignment system, the application was submitted to Kavanaugh, who handles emergency matters from the Eighth Circuit.
The official docket says simply that the application was denied. That is enough to say the Supreme Court did not give Missouri officials the emergency relief they requested. But it is more precise to write that Kavanaugh denied the emergency stay application than to imply that the full Court issued a detailed final judgment against the map.
Supreme Court docket 26A304: "Sep 08 2026 - Application (26A304) denied by Justice Kavanaugh."
Missouri Supreme Court: The Referendum Suspended the New Map
The state-court ruling that triggered the emergency application was sweeping. The Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the referendum petition challenging House Bill 1 was legal, sufficient and timely. Because the petition was filed before the law's effective date, the court held that HB 1 never took effect and could not take effect unless Missouri voters approved it in the November 2026 general election.
The state high court ordered Secretary Hoskins to certify the referendum petition and put it on the November ballot. It also said the congressional districts enacted in 2022 remained in force for the general election. That decision reversed a lower state court and rejected the secretary's earlier conclusion that the referendum could not be used to challenge congressional redistricting legislation.
More Than 300,000 Signatures - With an Important Qualification
Opponents of the 2025 map, led by People Not Politicians Missouri, submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025 to force a statewide referendum on House Bill 1. The number refers to signatures submitted by the campaign, not a claim that every signature was individually valid. The legal question was whether the petition contained enough valid signatures and complied with state law.
By September 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court had resolved that issue in the petitioners' favor, declaring the referendum petition sufficient and timely. The state's official petition system identifies 2026-R004 as the referendum challenging House Bill 1, and the court directed that the measure be placed before voters in November.
Why the New Map Matters Politically
Missouri currently sends six Republicans and two Democrats to the U.S. House. The 2025 map was drawn during a special legislative session after President Donald Trump urged Republican-led states to pursue mid-decade redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. The most consequential changes target the Kansas City-area 5th Congressional District represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver II.
By splitting portions of Kansas City among neighboring Republican-held districts and extending the remainder of the 5th District farther into more Republican territory, the new configuration was designed to improve Republican chances of winning an additional House seat. That is why the map is often described as potentially producing a 7-1 Republican delegation. The phrase "could give Republicans seven of eight seats" is reasonable as a description of the map's partisan objective, but it should not be presented as a guaranteed election result.
The Twist: A Federal Judge Reinstated the New Map - For Now
The most important correction to the original account came later on September 8. U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri to use the 2025 map despite the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. Clark emphasized that Missouri had already conducted its August congressional primaries under the newer districts and warned that switching maps between the primary and general election could create candidate, voter and administrative confusion.
Clark wrote that using a different map for the general election would "wreak havoc on the fairness and orderliness of Missouri's congressional elections."
The federal order is temporary. It lasts 14 days pending further proceedings and does not erase the state Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri's referendum law. The competing orders instead created a new layer of litigation over federal election administration, state constitutional authority and the consequences of changing district boundaries after a primary has already taken place.
As a result, the most accurate status is not that the old map has definitively won or that the new map has definitively survived. The map for November remains contested, with additional litigation and appellate review capable of changing the answer again before ballots are finalized.
A Setback for Trump's Redistricting Push - But Not Yet a Final Defeat
Kavanaugh's denial was a setback for Missouri officials and Republican organizations that had asked the Supreme Court to preserve the Trump-backed map. It also reinforced, at least temporarily, the Missouri Supreme Court's conclusion that citizens could use the referendum process to suspend the redistricting law pending a statewide vote.
But the later federal restraining order means it is premature to describe the episode as a final defeat for Trump's broader mid-decade redistricting strategy. The Missouri dispute is one part of a national fight in which both parties have pursued new congressional maps in multiple states, often with control of a narrowly divided U.S. House in mind.
Conclusion
The core breaking-news claim was substantially correct at the moment Kavanaugh acted: Missouri Republicans failed to obtain the emergency Supreme Court stay they requested, and the state Supreme Court had ruled that a valid citizen referendum prevented the 2025 map from taking effect without voter approval. Organizers had submitted more than 300,000 signatures, and the new map was designed to give Republicans a better chance of expanding their six-seat share of Missouri's eight-member House delegation.
The final sentence of the original version, however, is no longer reliable. Missouri cannot yet be described as certain to use the previous congressional districts in November. A federal judge temporarily ordered use of the new map minutes after Kavanaugh's denial, and the legal battle is continuing. For publication, the safest headline is therefore one that reports the Supreme Court denial while making clear that the November map remains unsettled.
