Following the dismissal of Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia this week, a Pentagon official shared details with media outlets claiming the high-ranking officer had failed three polygraph examinations during an ongoing probe. The disclosure, which surfaced shortly after reports of his ouster from the Joint Staff, has sparked significant concern among legal experts regarding potential violations of the Privacy Act of 1974. The revelation is unusual and raises questions about whether the disclosure violated federal privacy laws.
The Pentagon official also leveled accusations against Sylvia, alleging he repeatedly leaked classified information concerning Iran and the Russia-Ukraine war. The official claimed that Sylvia began meeting with journalists off-site after the Department of Defense implemented stricter policies requiring reporters to be escorted while inside the Pentagon. These allegations remain unverified, and no evidence was provided to support the claims. According to citing unnamed officials, The New York Times, Sylvia spoke to at least one journalist while on the Joint Staff but denied sharing any sensitive or classified information. Given their roles, presidents and defense secretaries can also commit UCI.
Sylvia, a decorated three-star general who served as the director of strategy, plans and policy for the Joint Staff—also known as the J5—has been awarded a Purple Heart and six Bronze Star Medals, including one for valor. He was removed from his post for what the official described as severe misconduct.
Legal professionals specializing in national security law warn that the public release of such sensitive personnel details may be illegal. Brad Moss, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, stated that the Privacy Act generally prohibits federal agencies from disclosing protected information from an official’s file without the individual’s consent. Moss argued that using protected personal information to accuse an employee of unauthorized leaks creates a problematic legal precedent. U.S. citizens included on DOJ list of 400 alleged noncitizens, Washington says. According to DOJ, Government developing plan to close D.C. golf course.
Echoing these concerns, Cody Harnish, a former Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer and current private defense attorney, labeled the incident a clear violation of the law.
Harnish explained that polygraph results are specifically protected records that the Pentagon routinely withholds from Freedom of Information Act requests. He added: “The statement discloses a lot more than polygraph results.
He noted that the disclosure went beyond simple test results, revealing the existence of a pending counterintelligence investigation and a referral to the Department of Justice.
While Frank Rosenblatt, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, disagreed that the polygraph disclosure itself constituted Unlawful Command Influence, he criticized the reliance on what he called unreliable information as a substitute for actual evidence. Meanwhile, two additional Pentagon sources confirmed to media that the firing was linked to the polygraph tests but disputed specific aspects of the official’s account. Or UCI, occurs when military commanders or senior officials improperly interfere with the military justice process, potentially undermining the fairness of an investigation or court-martial, unlawful Command Influence. Military courts have often described it as the “mortal enemy of military justice,” and UCI can be actual or apparent, meaning that even the perception that senior leaders are attempting to influence investigators, prosecutors, witnesses or military judges can raise concerns about the integrity and impartiality of proceedings. This unreliable junk information is being allowed to stand in for like actual evidence that he’s done something,” Rosenblatt said. And again, the investigation is ongoing and that will take time and when the evidence is produced it will go to DoJ … once a leaker, always a leaker … and if those people are exonerated, fantastic, but we don’t think, based on what we understand, it’s going to be a good day for a number of those individuals because of what was found in the, when you dismiss people who we believe are leaking classified information.
The Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment regarding the Privacy Act implications or the official’s specific statements. Lt. Gen. Sylvia could not be reached for comment. No reply was returned when reached out to Sylvia on Thursday.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has led an aggressive campaign to identify and address internal leaks. Has not seen or been able to verify the contents of the internal report. Admirals and civilian defense leaders have been fired or departed their jobs since Hegseth, the former Fox News host and National Guard veteran, became defense secretary at the beginning of the second Trump administration, more than 20 generals. Caldwell later rejoined the Trump administration to work for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
This recent development follows reports from last month that high-ranking U.S. military officials were subjected to polygraph testing as part of a broad investigation into leaks regarding munitions stockpiles. Hegseth has frequently alleged that officials were responsible for unauthorized disclosures, though some past investigations resulted in findings that those accusations were unfounded.
On Thursday morning, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell issued a statement on social media emphasizing the department’s zero-tolerance policy regarding the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. However, Parnell’s statement noticeably omitted the specific details and allegations previously provided by the official, marking a shift in the department’s public handling of the case. But separate from the allegations of leaking classified information is the statement that followed the breaking news on Wednesday.
