Did Teixeira act ALONE? Here are the TOP 2 theories behind the leaked Pentagon documents EXPLAINED.

April 21, 2023

Digital Vision | Getty Images

Last week, 21-year-old Jack Teixeira was arrested at his mother’s home in North Dighton, Massachusetts after he leaked dozens of "top secret" intelligence documents through a Discord channel with 20 to 30 members. The documents contained sensitive intelligence pertaining the war in Ukraine, the U.S.'s involvement in training Ukrainian troops, and other intelligence about U.S. allies, such as Israel, South Korea, and others.

Since Teixeira's arrest, Glenn has been asking the glaring question that the media refuses to address: did Teixeira act alone? Glenn brought multiple defense experts on his show this week to get to the bottom of how a 21-year-old National Guardsman could have possibly accessed these documents with his clearance.

Glenn's guests included former head of intelligence Kash Patel, Glenn's head researcher and former defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, and The Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald. Each of Glenn's three guests demonstrated that the current media narrative has glaring holes and many more questions not only need to be answered, they need to be asked by our media in the first place.

With all of the news circulating around this story, it is often difficult to discern the core points you need to know to analyze the story for yourself. Below you will find the top theories behind the leaked Pentagon documents explained so YOU can come to your own conclusion. But first, some background.

Was Teixeira's security clearance sufficient to get him access to the documents?

In short, no.

Teixeira did hold "top secret" security clearance. However, this is not unique. In fact, millions of people within the defense and intelligence community possess "top secret" clearance. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out on Glenn's radio show today (4/20/2023), our government abuses its ability to deem relatively anything "top secret." For example, when Greenwald was investigating the Snowden documents, he recounted how even parking tickets and other "banal information" was labeled "classified" or "top secret." Labeling even seemingly insignificant documents "top secret" makes it a felony to publicly share that information, protecting the government from the probing eyes of the press.

Since millions of people within the defense and intelligence communities are given "top secret" clearance to access basic information, the defense created "top secret +" clearance for truly sensitive information. Glenn's head researcher and former defense intelligence analyst, Jason Buttrill, explained that the two types of "top secret +" clearance are "Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)" clearance and "Special Access Program (SAP)" clearance.

Buttril explained that Teixeira would not only need either SCI or SAP access, but he would also need a "need to know" permission to access that information specifically. Teixeira had none of these clearances, so it is relatively impossible that he would have been able to access these specific documents on his own.

How would someone get access to the leaked documents?

The New York Times simply reported that Teixeira used JWICS to access the classified documents. However, this is a blatantly generalized assessment of what is actually required to access the caliber of documents that were leaked. As Buttrill told Glenn, JWICS is the security network for defense agencies like Verizon, which is a network for millions of cell phone users. Most defense employees have access to JWICS, but as Kash Patel told Glenn, less than 0.5 percent of these people have access to the types of documents Teixeira accessed. In short, we need more information than what the New York Times is currently investigating.

So how would one of these 0.5 percenters get their hands on the leaked classified information? First, Buttrill said, they would need either an SCI or SAP clearance. Second, they would not only need knowledge that these documents actually existed, but they would know where they were located within the JWICS system. Both facts are kept secret except for those who are given a "need to know" clearance to the documents.

Patel told Glenn the following helpful illustration. Imagine if JWICS were a huge mansion with numerous rooms and chambers. Even if millions of people had the front door key, only a select few could access certain rooms. Even fewer would know the location of the family jewels and possess the key to unlock the safe. Teixeira possessed the key to open the front door, but he would not have known the location of the documents within the JWICS system nor have the SCI and SAP clearance to access them. So how did Teixeira access them?

How did Teixeira get the documents? Theory 1

Given the fact that Teixeira did not have the clearance to access the leaked documents, there are two leading theories to explain what happened.

The first theory is the "screw-up" theory. As Buttrill said on Glenn's show, someone with SCI or SAP clearance could have theoretically left his/her computer open with the documents visible, giving Teixeira the opportunity to view and print the documents. However, as Buttrill pointed out, there are several issues with this theory.

The first glaring issue is that there would have been a record of someone printing those particular documents from the person's computer. Buttrill said there is a record for every print job, particularly regarding documents with that level of security. The authorities would have easily been able to locate Teixeira and the owner of the computer. However, this does not seem to be the case: authorities said they located Teixeira from particular details in his posted online images, not through any print record.

Moreover, the second glaring issue is that, if this theory were true, the person who left highly classified documents open on their computer without their supervision is liable for prosecution. The fact that someone else hasn't been arrested either means the "screw up" theory isn't true, or that the true responsible party is being covered up by their respective agency.

If this theory is true, then the lesser of two evils would follow: namely, that our intelligence system is broken and is vulnerable to leaks. Patel said he hopes this is the case, but believes the second theory is much more plausible.

How did Teixeira get the documents? Theory 2

The second and more plausible theory is the "co-conspirator" theory, alleging that someone with SCI or SAP clearance aided Teixeira in getting access to the leaked documents. If the "screw-up" theory were true, there would be direct documentation linking Teixeira to the computer via the printer or some record of data exchange. As Patel suggested:

Somebody, either a DoD or someone in the intelligence community, either wanted this information out, or [Teixeira] found someone who wanted the information out, like he did and helped him with that process, and access.

This means that either Teixeira found someone within the DoD to give him the documents, or someone within the DoD wanted the documents leaked and used Teixeira as a scapegoat. If the latter is the case, then Teixeira is a pawn in the DoD's strategic plan.

What was the motive behind the leak?

There are several different theories speculating the motive behind the leak. Patel said:

Somebody either wanted this information out ... or our classification system is so broken and so destroyed that a rookie can walk in and harness our nuclear secrets.

Patel further said the main goal of the leak was to show the information in Ukraine, while the other intelligence leaks were aimed at throwing people "off the tracks" of the true motive. This further corroborates the theory, Patel said someone else with more knowledge about the Ukrainian conflict was involved.

Glenn Greenwald, on the other hand, said the "screw-up" theory is still possible alongside the co-conspirator theory, stating:

You would be surprised with how sloppy the U.S. government is, even with classified information.

However, Greenwald criticized the media's lack of transparency and curiosity over the investigation, accusing "media corporations of serving the U.S. security state above all else." Greenwald, Patel, and Buttrill all agreed there is much more to the story than meets the eye. The media needs to stop doing the bidding of the intelligence community and begin doing their job: investigating the truth.

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Stand with Voddie Baucham’s family in this time of loss

In the quiet aftermath of a profound loss, the Christian community mourns the unexpected passing of Dr. Voddie Baucham, a towering figure in evangelical circles. Known for his defense of biblical truth, Baucham, a pastor, author, and theologian, left a legacy on family, faith, and opposing "woke" ideologies in the church. His book Fault Lines challenged believers to prioritize Scripture over cultural trends. Glenn had Voddie on the show several times, where they discussed progressive influences in Christianity, debunked myths of “Christian nationalism,” and urged hope amid hostility.

The shock of Baucham's death has deeply affected his family. Grieving, they remain hopeful in Christ, with his wife, Bridget, now facing the task of resettling in the US without him. Their planned move from Lusaka, Zambia, was disrupted when their home sale fell through last December, resulting in temporary Airbnb accommodations, but they have since secured a new home in Cape Coral that requires renovations. To ensure Voddie's family is taken care of, a fundraiser is being held to raise $2 million, which will be invested for ongoing support, allowing Bridget to focus on her family.

We invite readers to contribute prayerfully. If you feel called to support the Bauchams in this time of need, you can click here to donate.

We grieve and pray with hope for the Bauchams.

May Voddie's example inspire us.

Overcoming loneliness: Connecting in a disconnected world

Loneliness isn’t just being alone — it’s feeling unseen, unheard, and unimportant, even amid crowds and constant digital chatter.

Loneliness has become an epidemic in America. Millions of people, even when surrounded by others, feel invisible. In tragic irony, we live in an age of unparalleled connectivity, yet too many sit in silence, unseen and unheard.

I’ve been experiencing this firsthand. My children have grown up and moved out. The house that once overflowed with life now echoes with quiet. Moments that once held laughter now hold silence. And in that silence, the mind can play cruel games. It whispers, “You’re forgotten. Your story doesn’t matter.”

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

It’s a lie.

I’ve seen it in others. I remember sitting at Rockefeller Center one winter, watching a woman lace up her ice skates. Her clothing was worn, her bag battered. Yet on the ice, she transformed — elegant, alive, radiant.

Minutes later, she returned to her shoes, merged into the crowd, unnoticed. I’ve thought of her often. She was not alone in her experience. Millions of Americans live unseen, performing acts of quiet heroism every day.

Shared pain makes us human

Loneliness convinces us to retreat, to stay silent, to stop reaching out to others. But connection is essential. Even small gestures — a word of encouragement, a listening ear, a shared meal — are radical acts against isolation.

I’ve learned this personally. Years ago, a caller called me “Mr. Perfect.” I could have deflected, but I chose honesty. I spoke of my alcoholism, my failed marriage, my brokenness. I expected judgment. Instead, I found resonance. People whispered back, “I’m going through the same thing. Thank you for saying it.”

Our pain is universal. Everyone struggles with self-doubt and fear. Everyone feels, at times, like a fraud. We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

We were made for connection. We were built for community — for conversation, for touch, for shared purpose. Every time we reach out, every act of courage and compassion punches a hole in the wall of isolation.

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling alone, know this: You are not invisible. You are seen. You matter. And if you’re not struggling, someone you know is. It’s your responsibility to reach out.

Loneliness is not proof of brokenness. It is proof of humanity. It is a call to engage, to bear witness, to connect. The world is different because of the people who choose to act. It is brighter when we refuse to be isolated.

We cannot let silence win. We cannot allow loneliness to dictate our lives. Speak. Reach out. Connect. Share your gifts. By doing so, we remind one another: We are all alike, and yet each of us matters profoundly.

In this moment, in this country, in this world, what we do matters. Loneliness is real, but so is hope. And hope begins with connection.