Drips to Torrents: Leaks in Trump's White House

The almost-latest out of the Trump White House (news of James Comey's memo broke as I was writing this) is that the president gave classified information to Russian officials regarding the militant Islamic group ISIS. In and of itself, that is not a crime. But it could be highly damaging, as the revelation of that intelligence could compromise the source that provided it.

It has now been revealed that that source was Israel, which was warned by American officials to not share sensitive intelligence with Trump for this very reason. From an article from January, "the Americans recommended that until it is made clear that Trump is not inappropriately connected to Russia and is not being extorted – Israel should avoid revealing sensitive sources to administration officials."

President Trump with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.  Russian Foreign Ministry

None of this looks good and adds to the White House's woes. But in response, Trump focused on why this was even in the news in the first place:

"I have been asking Director Comey & others, from the beginning of my administration, to find the LEAKERS in the intelligence community."

Yes, leakers. We only know about this intel-passing to the Russians because someone leaked it to the media. So what about that? Leaks have plagued the Trump administration since the beginning of its nascent term, from National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's dealings with Russia to details about Trump's relationship with his staff.

But to what extent is it troubling that a cascade of information about Trump's actions have been made public by leakers in the administration?

Frank Bruni in the New York Times writes, "What we’re witnessing is astonishing. . . . This much leaking this soon into an administration explodes the norms of the White House every bit as much as Trump’s own conduct does." He argues that a leaky administration is a good thing:

"Be as cynical as you want about Washington — I certainly indulge myself — but there remain insiders with consciences, and some of them actually work for the president. . . . No small number of them have decided that discretion isn’t always the keeping of secrets, not if it protects bad actors. They're right. And they give me hope."

The United States has seen its share of big-time leaks. Some of the biggest that have made the government look bad include the following:

• In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked classified National Security Agency information, revealing numerous global surveillance programs.

Edward Snowden.  Reuters

• In 2005, leakers provided the New York Times with information about the NSA's program of eavesdropping on American citizens without first obtaining warrants.

• In 1986, Mehdi Hashemi, an Iranian Shi'a cleric, leaked information that the Reagan administration illegally sold arms to Iran to secure the release of seven American hostages.

President Ronald Reagan.  CORBIS

• In the early 1970s, Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein relied on information from a source calling himself Deep Throat (later revealed to be Associate FBI Director Mark Felt) to investigate the Watergate scandal.

Associate FBI Director Mark Felt.  AP

• In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, which revealed that the Johnson administration had lied about and secretly expanded the Vietnam War. (The full Pentagon Papers have since been declassified and released.)

Daniel Ellsberg.

• In 1848, New York Herald reporter John Nugent published a leaked copy of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican American War, before it was signed by either government or ratified by Congress.

John Nugent.

• In 1772, Benjamin Franklin obtained a set of letters written by Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson to the British government, which said that the colonists could be tamed by depriving them of their liberties. Franklin sent them to a friend in Boston, and soon after they were published in the Boston Gazette.

Benjamin Franklin.

Are leaks illegal? According to Politifact, "There isn't a single law that criminalizes all leaks of classified or privileged government information to the media."

However, when leaks relate to intelligence and investigations, there are two vaguely-written big ones: 18 U.S. Code 798 and the Espionage Act, though the Espionage Act is so broad, according to government secrecy expert Heidi Kitrosser, that "there is nothing remotely unusual about a Washington leak that technically violates the act. . . . Indeed, every day, major newspapers publish stories that technically violate the Espionage Act."

Political cartoon by Gary Varvel, 2013.

But are all leaks morally right? Could some leaks cause more damage than good?

Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics attempts to differentiate between a good leak and a bad leak:

"A good leak is the disclosure of information that expands public understanding of an issue of public interest - without harming anyone. A leak also can be good if it illuminates understanding of an important issue even if it harms someone, as long as the public interest at stake is significant-lives and health are at risk; a crime, such as fraud is being committed; public monies are being misspent.

"A bad leak is one that does harm and does not aid public understanding of an important public issue. A bad leak is also one that does too much harm as it tries to inform the public regarding an important issue. A leak may be bad if it violates an important commitment or trust one has as a board member, an employee, or even as a friend."

So where on the spectrum does this week's leak about President Trump's information-sharing fall?


I am currently working on a book about Ah Toy, the first Chinese brothel madam in gold rush San Francisco.

Want to read more? Click "Subscribe." Please feel free to share this post and your comments.