Third Pentagon appointee placed on administrative leave amid ongoing investigation

CNN - Apr 16th, 2025

Colin Carroll, chief of staff for Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg, has been placed on administrative leave as part of an ongoing investigation into leaks, marking the third Pentagon official to be put on leave this week. Carroll's removal follows those of senior adviser Dan Caldwell and deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick, both linked to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The investigation appears to center around unauthorized disclosures and internal disagreements with Joe Kasper, Hegseth’s chief of staff. Carroll, who assumed his role in January, was escorted out of the Pentagon, indicating the seriousness of the ongoing probe.

The unfolding situation at the Pentagon highlights internal conflicts and potential power struggles within the Department of Defense. The removal of multiple officials in quick succession suggests a significant crackdown on leaks and dissent within the ranks. This development may signal a broader effort by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his team to consolidate control and eliminate opposition, potentially impacting the department's operations and morale. The implications of these investigations could be far-reaching, affecting future information handling and the dynamics among top defense officials.

Pentagon Pete Hegseth Colin Carroll Steve Feinberg Joe Kasper Administrative Leave Leak Investigation Dan Caldwell Darin Selnick

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and relevant account of high-level suspensions within the Pentagon, a topic of significant public interest due to its implications for national security and government transparency. It scores well in clarity and timeliness, effectively communicating the main events in an accessible manner. However, the story's balance and source quality are somewhat compromised by a reliance on unnamed sources and a lack of multiple perspectives. The narrative around a 'purge' due to disagreements lacks sufficient evidence and context, which affects the article's overall accuracy and potential impact. Greater transparency about sources and inclusion of official statements would enhance the article's reliability and depth. Despite these weaknesses, the story engages readers with its focus on sensitive and controversial issues, though its ability to sustain long-term engagement and influence public discourse may be limited by the absence of detailed evidence and diverse viewpoints.

Accuracy

The story claims that Colin Carroll, along with other Pentagon officials, has been placed on administrative leave due to an investigation into leaks. This is supported by multiple sources indicating that three officials were indeed placed on leave. However, the story lacks specific details about the nature of the leaks and the exact reasons for the suspensions, which are crucial for complete accuracy. The claim about a 'purge' due to disagreements with Joe Kasper is presented as a quote from a defense source, but further evidence or context is not provided. While the basic facts align with available reports, the story would benefit from more precise details and additional corroboration.

Balance

The article presents the perspective of a defense source suggesting that the suspensions are part of a 'purge' due to disagreements with Joe Kasper. However, it does not provide alternative viewpoints, such as official statements from the Pentagon or the individuals involved. This lack of balance could lead readers to accept the 'purge' narrative without considering other possible explanations, such as procedural or security-related reasons for the suspensions. Including more perspectives would enhance the article's balance.

Clarity

The article is relatively clear in its language and structure, making it easy for readers to follow the main events and claims. It succinctly outlines the sequence of events regarding the suspensions and the alleged reasons behind them. However, the lack of detailed background information and context about the disagreements and the nature of the leaks might leave some readers with questions. Overall, the article is straightforward but could benefit from additional context.

Source quality

The article cites 'two defense sources' and mentions a specific quote from one of them. While these sources suggest some level of insider knowledge, they are unnamed, which can affect the perceived reliability. The use of CNN as a source for information on Dan Caldwell's alleged unauthorized disclosure adds some credibility, as CNN is a recognized news outlet. However, the lack of named sources or official statements weakens the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the methodology behind its information gathering or provide context about the sources' potential biases or motivations. While it mentions that the information comes from defense sources, it does not explain why these sources are credible or what their relationship to the events might be. Transparency would be improved by clarifying the sources' backgrounds and any potential conflicts of interest.