Dan Caldwell, a Marine veteran once tied to Pentagon controversy, has quietly been brought on in an administrative capacity under Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard amid an escalating conflict with Iran and widening fractures inside the national security team.

Dan Caldwell, who once served as a senior adviser to War Secretary Pete Hegseth, is back in government in an administrative role inside the intelligence community, according to a source familiar with the move. The hire follows a series of security screenings and is happening while he completes onboarding. The timing has raised eyebrows given recent events.

Caldwell reportedly passed a polygraph and several background and security checks and has entered the onboarding process, a news outlet has reported. He still holds his security clearance and is being given standard administrative access as he transitions into the office. No official statement from the Pentagon or Gabbard’s office has been released publicly.

Less than a year ago, Caldwell faced public accusations of leaking classified material, allegations that were never proven in public or in court. No charges were filed against him or the other aides who were implicated. The lack of public evidence and the absence of charges have left the episode unresolved in the public record.

The return happens at a combustible moment: the United States is now three weeks into a war with Iran and internal disagreements over the conflict are becoming more visible. That backdrop makes any staff moves inside the intelligence apparatus read as more than routine personnel changes. Officials on all sides are watching how the pieces fall.

Back in April 2025, Caldwell and two other senior Pentagon aides, Darin Selnick and Colin Carroll, were abruptly removed from the Pentagon amid a leak investigation. They were escorted out and their departures were announced as part of an internal probe. At the time, leadership said the matter was being investigated for potential leaks.

All three men denied leaking, and the public still lacks clarity about the probe’s findings. The Pentagon has not made clear whether the investigation is ongoing or closed, and the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations did not provide comment to reporters. That silence has kept questions alive about what really happened inside the building.

Hegseth repeatedly suggested there was evidence of wrongdoing by the aides and said the matter warranted investigation. His public remarks continued after their departures, framing the removals as necessary to uphold security and order within the department.

“Those folks who are leaking, who have been pushed out of the building, are now attempting to leak and sabotage the president’s agenda and what we’re doing. And that’s unfortunate.”

Caldwell offered a different explanation for the ousters, arguing their removal had less to do with classified material and more to do with internal power struggles and established interests. He has portrayed the episode as the product of bureaucracy defending itself against challengers. That counter-narrative matters because it reframes the event from a security breach to a political clash.

“We threatened a lot of established interests inside the building and outside the building.”

Reporting at the time noted clashes between the aides and other senior Pentagon staff, including Hegseth’s chief of staff, who was later removed as well. When both the accuser and the accused leave or are reassigned, the original story gets murky. The result looks less like a straightforward security sweep and more like a messy internal fight.

Caldwell’s new assignment sits in an office that coordinates intelligence across 18 agencies, a place where context and access matter every day. Tulsi Gabbard has kept a relatively low public profile on the Iran war even as she oversees the nation’s intelligence apparatus. Her record opposing regime-change interventions is well known, and that ideological stance frames how observers read this hire.

Caldwell focused much of his prior work on European issues and has been vocal against drawn-out U.S. military entanglements overseas. That alignment with Gabbard on intervention questions sends a political signal that resonates beyond the job title. Even if the position is administrative on paper, the personnel choice implies a stance.

Earlier this week National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent resigned, citing opposition to the Iran war and arguing Tehran posed no immediate threat to the homeland. His departure is the most visible sign to date of dissent inside the national security team. Public polling reflects the strain: a Quinnipiac survey found 53% opposed the military intervention while 40% supported it.

The combination of a high-profile resignation, a quietly rehired aide never charged with wrongdoing, and official silence about an internal probe creates a pattern people are watching. If the investigation had produced clear findings, the hiring would look different. If it produced nothing, the earlier dismissals demand explanation. For now, officials are being sorted into new alignments as the conflict proceeds and some are taking new positions inside the institutions they once clashed with.