STATE SECRETS: HOW AN AVALANCHE OF 

MEDIA LEAKS IS HARMING NATIONAL 

SECURITY

A Majority Staff Report of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman 

July 6, 2017 
1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Federal law prohibits the unauthorized release of certain information that could damage 

our national security. The protection of our nation’s secrets is essential to protecting intelligence

activities, sources and methods, preserving the ability of the President to effectively achieve 

foreign policy objectives, and ultimately to safeguard our country. In short, the unauthorized 

disclosure of certain information can cost American lives, and our laws protecting this 

information provide for harsh punishments when violated. Since President Trump assumed 

office, our nation has faced an unprecedented wave of potentially damaging leaks of information 

protected by these important laws. 

Under President Trump’s predecessors, leaks of national security information were

relatively rare, even with America’s vibrant free press. Under President Trump, leaks are flowing 

at the rate of one a day, an examination of open-source material by the majority staff of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs shows. Articles published by a 

range of national news organizations between January 20 and May 25, 2017 included at least 125 

stories with leaked information potentially damaging to national security. Even a narrow search 

revealed leaks of comparable information during the Trump administration that were about seven 

times higher than the same period during the two previous administrations. 

From the morning of President Trump’s inauguration, when major newspapers published 

information about highly sensitive intelligence intercepts, news organizations have reported on 

an avalanche of leaks from officials across the U.S. government. Many disclosures have 

concerned the investigations of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, with the world 

learning details of whose communications U.S. intelligence agencies are monitoring, what 

channels are being monitored, and the results of those intercepts. All such revelations are

potential violations of federal law, punishable by jail time. 

But the leak frenzy has gone far beyond the Kremlin and has extended to other sensitive 

information that could harm national security. President Trump’s private conversations with

other foreign leaders have shown up in the press, while secret operations targeting America’s 

most deadly adversaries were exposed in detail. 

As The New York Times wrote in a candid self-assessment: “Journalism in the Trump era 

has featured a staggering number of leaks from sources across the federal government.”1 No less 

an authority than President Obama’s CIA director called the deluge of state secrets “appalling.”2 

These leaks do not occur in a vacuum. They can, and do, have real world consequences for 

national security. To ensure the security of our country’s most sensitive information, federal law 

enforcement officials ought to thoroughly investigate leaks of potentially sensitive information 

flowing at an alarming rate.

 

1 Michael Grynbaum & John Koblin, After Reality Winner’s Arrest, Medial Asks: Did ‘Intercept’ Expose a Source?, 

N.Y. TIMES (June 6, 2017). 2 Brian Naylor, Former CIA Director Tells Lawmakers About ‘Very Aggressive’ Russian Election Meddling, NPR

(May 23, 2017). 
2 

FINDINGS

Under the direction of Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, majority committee staff examined media leaks 

between January 20, 2017, and May 25, 2017—President Trump’s first 126 days in office. The 

examination consisted entirely of publicly available news articles; no classified information was 

accessed or reviewed. The inquiry found: 

• The Trump administration faced 125 leaked stories—one leak a day— containing 

information that is potentially damaging to national security under the standards 

laid out in a 2009 Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama.

• Leaks with the capacity to damage national security flowed about seven times 

faster under President Trump than during President Obama’s and President 

George W. Bush’s first 126 days. 

• The majority of leaks during the Trump administration, 78, concerned the Russia 

probes, with many revealing closely-held information such as intelligence 

community intercepts, FBI interviews and intelligence, grand jury subpoenas, and 

even the workings of a secret surveillance court. 

• Other leaks disclosed potentially sensitive intelligence on U.S. adversaries or 

possible military plans against them. One leak, about the investigation of a 

terrorist attack, caused a diplomatic incident between the United States and a 

close ally. 

• Leaked stories appeared in 18 news outlets, sourced to virtually every possible 

permutation of anonymous current and former U.S. officials, some clearly from 

the intelligence community. One story cited more than two dozen anonymous 

sources.

• Almost all of the stories leaked during President Trump’s first 126 days were 

about the President or his administration. In contrast, only half of the stories 

leaked during the comparable period of the Obama administration were about 

President Obama or his administration; the other half concerned President Bush 

and his anti-terrorism tactics. 
3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1

FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 3

OVERVIEW OF LAWS ON NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION ................................... 4

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 6

LEAKS OF SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION DURING THE TRUMP 

ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................... 8

LEAKS OF SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION DURING THE OBAMA 

AND BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS ............................................................................................ 11

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 13

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 14
4 

OVERVIEW OF LAWS ON NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

 The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, in addition to its role 

as the chief oversight committee in the Senate, is specifically entrusted with two important 

responsibilities—to oversee our nation’s federal records and to examine “the effectiveness of 

present national security methods, staffing, and procedures as tested against the requirements 

imposed by the rapidly mounting complexity of national security problems.”3

 Nothing is more 

important to America’s national security than protecting its secrets. While the First Amendment 

must be respected and a free press is vital to an accountable democracy, the federal government’s 

foremost mission must be to keep Americans safe from harm. As Deputy Attorney General Rod

J. Rosenstein put it: “Releasing classified material without authorization threatens our nation’s 

security and undermines public faith in government.”4

 

While no single law governs unauthorized disclosures of national security information, a 

patchwork of statutes and presidential directives address the release of information that the 

executive branch deems potentially classified. The Espionage Act, a World War I-era law,

remains “one of the U.S. government’s primary statutory vehicles for addressing the disclosure” 

of sensitive national security information.5 The Act’s broadest prohibition is 18 U.S.C. § 793, 

which criminalizes the dissemination of various types of national defense information.6 With so 

many recent Russia-related leaks disclosing intelligence activities and information, one security 

studies expert, Angelo M. Codevilla,7

 decried the “patently obvious felonies that U.S. 

intelligence officials have committed each and every time they have informed reporters of The 

Washington Post and New York Times about the targets, functions and results of U.S. 

communications intelligence.”8

 Violations of the Espionage Act are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, as are 

violations of a separate statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1), which prohibits the communication of 

classified information retrieved from a computer if the information “could be used to the injury 

of the United States.”9

 The Obama administration laid out a zero-tolerance policy for leaks and the harm they 

cause. President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, wrote in a blunt 

2012 Intelligence Community Directive: “National intelligence and intelligence sources, 

methods and activities shall be protected. The integration of [counterintelligence] and security 

activities throughout the [intelligence community] is the primary method for neutralizing threats 

 

3 S. Rule XXV(k); S. Res. 62, 115th Cong. (2017). 4 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal Government Contractor in Georgia Charged With Removing and 

Mailing Classified Materials to a News Outlet (June 5, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-governmentcontractor-georgia-charged-removing-and-mailing-classified-materials-news. 5 Stephen P. Mulligan & Jennifer K. Elsea, Criminal Prohibitions on Leaks and Other Disclosures of Classified 

Defense Information, Cong. Research Serv. (March 7, 2017). 6 18 U.S.C. § 793 (2012). 7 See The Claremont Inst., http://www.claremont.org/crb/contributor-list/116/ (last visited June 20, 2017). 8 Angelo Codevilla, Punishing The Real Russia Crime: Leaking, AMERICAN GREATNESS (June 4, 2017), 

https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/04/punishing-real-russia-crime-leaking/. 9 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (2012). 
5 

by foreign powers, organizations, or persons, or their agents, or international terrorist 

organizations or activities.”10 President Obama also issued Executive Order 13526 in 2009 

governing classified national security information. Section 1.4 specifies the categories of 

information subject to classification because “unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be 

expected to cause identifiable or discernible damage to the national security.”11 The categories 

include “intelligence activities”; “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States”; 

“military plans, weapons systems, or operations”; and “scientific, technological or economic 

matters relating to the national security.”12

Prosecuting leakers is complicated and subject to case-specific factors, including criminal 

intent. This report is not meant to suggest that the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive 

information will always lead to criminal prosecutions. It is the responsibility of federal 

prosecutors and law enforcement officials to decide if cases should be brought. 

What is clear, however, is that the cascade of leaks may be unprecedented and is causing 

real harm. Susan Hennessey, a Brookings Institution scholar and former National Security 

Agency lawyer, said that recent disclosures of telephone intercepts are beyond anything in her 

experience. “This information is really, really sensitive,” she told The Washington Post.

13

Among those calling for a crackdown on leaks is former CIA director John Brennan. After 

criticizing President Trump’s reported decision to share sensitive information with Russian 

officials,14 Brennan recently told House members that his bigger concern was subsequent leaks 

disclosing that the information had been provided by a U.S. intelligence partner.15 “What I was 

very concerned about, though, is the subsequent release of what appears to be classified 

information purporting to point to the originator of the information, liaison partners,” Brennan 

testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “These continue to be 

very, very damaging leaks, and I find them appalling, and they need to be tracked down. So, that 

is where the damage came from.”16

It is also apparent that the arguments often used to justify leaks that are at odds with the 

Trump administration—that leakers are bringing to light potential illegality, unwise policies, or 

concerns about the President’s temperament—have no legal basis. According to the non-partisan 

 

10 U.S. OFFICE OF THE DIR. OF NAT’L INTELLIGENCE, INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DIRECTIVE 700 (June 7, 

2012),https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICD/ICD 700.pdf. 11 Exec. Order No.13526, 75 Fed. Reg. 2, 707 (January 5, 2010). 12 Id. 13 Margaret Sullivan, Of Course Washington is Plagued by Leaks. That’s a Good Thing, WASH. POST (June 4, 2017),

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/of-course-washington-is-plagued-by-leaks-thats-a-goodthing/2017/06/02/f6a8245c-46e7-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc story.html?utm term=.99d84e9c36df. 14 Greg Miller & Greg Jaffe, Trump Revealed Highly Classified Information to Russian Foreign Minister and 

Ambassador, WASH. POST (May 15, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumprevealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-

11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69 story.html?utm term=.dd6c1b5b4560. 15 Adam Goldman, Eric Schmitt & Peter Baker, Israel Said to Be Source of Secret Intelligence Trump Gave to 

Russians, N.Y. TIMES (May 16, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trumpclassified-intelligence-russia.html. 16 Video: Brennan: IC Leaks To Press Are Appalling And Need to Be Tracked Down, YOUTUBE (May 23, 2017), 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfguLYzgP U. 
6 

Congressional Research Service (CRS), no accused leaker “has ever been acquitted based on a 

finding that the public interest in the released information was so great that it justified an 

otherwise unlawful disclosure.”17 Instead, “courts have regarded such disclosures by government 

employees to be conduct that enjoys no First Amendment protection, regardless of the motives of 

the divulger or the value the release of such information might impart to public discourse.”18

METHODOLOGY

This examination of media leaks during the Trump administration consists entirely of 

publicly available news reporting. No classified information was accessed or reviewed for any 

purpose during this examination. As such, the report takes no position on the accuracy of the 

information as reported in the media. 

President Obama’s Executive Order 13526 served as the basis for this examination. The 

inquiry began with searches of Google and commercial databases for stories that ran in 

publications and/or were posted online between January 20, 2017 and May 25, 2017—President 

Trump’s first 126 days in office. Staff members used 36 search terms designed to identify

phrases typically used in anonymously-sourced stories, such as “Trump and U.S. officials,” and 

“Trump and people familiar with.” Articles were tagged if they: (a) had no named sources; (b) 

reflected the news outlet’s original sources;19 and (c) fell under a category in Executive Order

13526 as reasonably expected to cause damage to national security, such as “intelligence 

activities” or “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States.” This search resulted in 

125 stories that matched these criteria.20

To approximate the amount of national security leaks during the Trump administration 

relative to President Trump’s predecessors, searches were conducted using the Lexis database of 

news articles for the same time period of the Trump, Obama and Bush administrations.21 The 

same 36 search terms were used for each of these searches.

By necessity, these searches were not comprehensive, and this report required some 

judgement calls on which leaks could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national 

security. This analysis does not include a number of stories during the Trump administration that 

 

17 Stephen P. Mulligan & Jennifer K. Elsea, supra note 5. 18 Id (citing argument based upon U.S. v. Marchetti, 466 F.2d 1309 (4th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1063 

(1972); Snepp v. U.S., 444 U.S. 507 (1980)). 

19 “Original sources” means that the article contained a unique leak of the damaging information. The Washington 

Post, for example, broke a story in April 2017 that the FBI had obtained a secret order from the secret Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor the communications of a Trump advisor. See Ellen Nakashima, Devlin 

Barrett & Adam Entous, FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Monitor Trump Adviser Carter Page, WASH. POST (April 

11, 2017). Stories were only tagged from publications that confirmed the Post reporting with their own sources. 

Stories were not included if they ran: “The Washington Post reported that . . . .” 20 These articles are included in the Appendix. 21 Since a comprehensive Lexis search for President Trump’s first 126 days produced more than 10,000 hits, the 

Lexis inquiries for Trump and his two predecessors were limited to The Associated Press and five major 

newspapers: The New York Times; The Washington Post; The Los Angeles Times; The Boston Globe and The

Houston Chronicle. Even those narrower searches—of The Associated Press and five major newspapers—produced 

nearly 3,000 articles. Staff members pulled out those that met the same criteria listed above.
7 

could meet the criteria outlined in President Obama’s executive order but were considered 

borderline. The analysis also does not include examples of what could be called “palace intrigue” 

stories, such as a CNN report that President Trump was furious and lashing out at White House 

staff over the Russia investigation.22 Thus, this analysis represents a conservative estimate of the 

volume of leaks of information potentially damaging to national security during the Trump 

administration. 

 

22 Jake Tapper ET AL., Trump Angry and Frustrated at Staff Over Sessions Fallout, CNN (Mar. 6, 2017, 6:08 AM), 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/04/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-reince priebus/index.html. 
8 

LEAKS OF SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION 

DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

The broad search of Trump’s first 126 days in office yielded a total of 125 leaked stories 

that met the criteria for original sourcing and potential national security damage. The second, 

narrower Lexis searches of The Associated Press and five major newspapers found 62 such 

stories—about seven times more than the comparable numbers of stories under President Obama 

or President Bush. Of the 125 total stories, half were broken by The Washington Post or The New 

York Times. But leaks also flowed to 16 other news organizations, ranging from mainstream 

newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and wire services such as Reuters, to major 

television network websites, venerable magazines such as Foreign Policy, and relatively newer 

outlets like The Daily Beast. 

Many stories presented President Trump in a negative and often harsh light, with some 

seemingly designed to embarrass the administration. For example, a Mother Jones article 

detailed a memo telling intelligence analysts to keep President Trump’s daily briefings short and 

to avoid nuance;23 a Reuters piece reported on how the National Security Council frequently puts 

his name in briefings so he will keep reading;24 and The Washington Post wrote a story on how 

the President “badgered, bragged and abruptly ended” a phone call with the Australian Prime 

Minister.25 This Post story was one of several that quoted directly from President Trump’s 

private calls with foreign leaders, a rare occurrence under previous presidents. 

More than 70 leaked stories were attributed to “officials” in virtually every form the word 

can be used, including “U.S. officials”; “former U.S. officials”; “current and former U.S. 

officials”; “senior U.S. officials”; “former government officials”; “administration officials”; 

“intelligence officials”; “national security officials”; “Justice Department officials”; “law 

enforcement officials”; and “defense officials.” Other stories cited people “familiar with” or 

briefed on closely-held information such as classified intelligence; contents of wiretapped 

communications; national security forms, and internal administration deliberations. The sheer

volume and scope of the sources indicates that they are coming from across the government, with 

some clearly from within the intelligence community, given the large number of stories reporting 

on secret intelligence and how publications cite their sources. 

The stories about reported Russia-related intelligence are especially troublesome given 

the potential for disclosure of national security information. In recent months, the world has 

learned, reportedly, that U.S. intelligence agencies are routinely monitoring Russian officials, 

 

23 Ashley Dejean, Exclusive: Classified Memo Tells Intelligence Analysists to Keep Trump’s Daily Brief Short, 

MOTHER JONES (Feb. 16, 2017, 1:58 PM), http://www motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/classified-memo-tellsintelligence-analysts-keep-trumps-daily-brief-short/. 24 Steve Holland & Jeff Mason, National Security Officials Put Trump’s Name in Their Briefings As Much As 

Possible So He Will Keep Reading, REUTERS (May 17, 2017, 9:33 AM), http://www.businessinsider.com/rembroiled-in-controversies-trump-seeks-boost-on-foreign-trip-2017-5. 25 Greg Miller & Phillip Rucker, ‘This Was the Worst Call by Far’: Trump Badgered, Bragged and Abruptly Ended 

Phone Call With Australian Leader, WASH. POST (Feb. 2, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nationalsecurity/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-

30e57e57e05d story.html?utm term=.91af5709181e. 
9 

including “within the Kremlin”;

26 the communications channels being monitored; whose 

conversations have been picked up on telephone wiretaps; the contents of some of these 

communications; and, in at least one case, which agency is doing the monitoring.27 In one 

egregious example, current and former officials apparently gave Reuters the exact number of 

calls and electronic messages exchanged in a specific time period between Trump advisors and 

Russian officials.

28 These stories plainly could damage national security under the definition laid 

out in President Obama’s 2009 Executive Order. 

Equally clear is the potential damage from numerous leaks unrelated to Russia. A 

Bloomberg story in May 2017, for example, unveiled an intelligence community assessment 

about the U.S. resources that would be required to “stop the advance of the Taliban” in 

Afghanistan and “save the government in Kabul.”29 That leak alone appeared to violate three 

parts of the 2009 Executive Order: the prohibition on unauthorized disclosure of intelligence 

activities, another on revealing U.S. “military plans, weapons systems or operations,” and a third 

on disclosing information about “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States.” A 

number of recent stories about alleged terrorist plots or possible military action against a terrorist 

group could help undermine anti-terror activities, while another disclosing details of a secret 

cyber operation targeting a terrorist group constitutes potential harm under a provision of the 

2009 Executive Order prohibiting disclosure of “technological . . . matters relating to the national 

security.”30 Even a relatively short Washington Post piece in March 2017 that reported about 

Administration data that allegedly undercuts President Trump’s visa restrictions could fall under 

the Executive Order.31 By disclosing internal reports, including one reportedly drawn from 

closely-held FBI data, the article risks revealing “vulnerabilities . . . of systems, installations, 

infrastructures, projects, plans . . . relating to the national security”—because the administration 

argues the ban is necessary for maintaining that security.32

 Many of the most publicized leaks in recent weeks stemmed from President Trump’s 

removal of FBI Director James Comey and the documents Director Comey allegedly wrote 

detailing his communications with the President. In testimony before the Senate, Director Comey 

 

26 Matthew Rosenberg, Adam Goldman & Michael S. Schmidt, Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve 

Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 1, 2017),

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking html. 27 Michael S. Schmidt, Matthew Rosenberg, Adam Goldman & Matt Apuzzo, Intercepting Russian Communications 

Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 19, 2017), 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html. 28 Ned Parker, Jonathan Landay & Warren Strobel, Exclusive: Trump Campaign Had At Least 18 Undisclosed 

Contacts with Russians: Sources, REUTERS (May 18, 2017, 1:07 PM), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usatrump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106. 29 Eli Lake, Trump Has to Decide: 50,000 Troops to Afghanistan?, BLOOMBERG (May 17, 2017, 5:00 AM), 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-17/trump-has-to-decide-50-000-troops-to-afghanistan. 30 Ellen Nakashima, Cyber Operation Targeting ISIS Divided Obama Officials, WASH. POST (May. 12, 2017), 

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-washington-post/20170512/281724089472008. 31 Devlin Barrett, Abigail Hauslohner & David Nakamura, Internal Trump Administration Data Undercuts Travel 

Ban, WASH. POST (Mar. 16, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/internal-trumpadministration-data-undercuts-travel-ban/2017/03/16/9a2dc6b4-098e-11e7-93dc00f9bdd74ed1 story html?utm term=.e83c36a0261a. 32 Nat’l Archives Information Sec. Oversight Office, The President Executive Order 13526, 

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo html (last visited June 20, 2017). 
10 

said he deliberately wrote the memos in unclassified form and that he helped leak them to the 

media in hopes of getting a special counsel appointed.33 This report is not meant to question the 

motives of Director Comey. The release of these documents, however, could potentially harm 

national security under the 2009 presidential Executive Order if they concern foreign relations or 

counter-intelligence efforts. Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, for one, said the former 

director is still subject to laws “governing the disclosure of classified and non-classified 

information.” Professor Turley, who opined the memos should have been classified “even on the 

confidential level,” concluded that leaking them “is problematic given the overall controversy 

involving leakers undermining the Administration.”34 For these reasons, this report includes 

articles relating to leaks surrounding Director Comey’s conversations with the President. 

 

33 Devlin Barret, Ellen Nakashima & Ed O’Keefe, Comey: White House Lied About Me, FBI, WASH. POST (June 8, 

2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/comey-testimony-trump-senatehearing/2017/06/07/afadf87c-4bd0-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee story.html?hpid=hp hp-banner-main comey-845ahed%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm term=.23c811a98c4b. 34 Jonathan Turley, Did Comey Violate Laws in Leaking the Trump Memo?, JONATHAN TURLEY: RES IPSA 

LOQUITUR (June 8, 2017), https://jonathanturley.org/2017/06/08/did-comey-violate-laws-in-leaking-memo/. 
11 

LEAKS OF SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION 

DURING THE OBAMA AND BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS

 Compared to news reports containing potentially damaging national security information 

occurring during the Trump administration, there were a fraction of similar reports during the 

Obama and Bush administrations. The Lexis search of President Obama’s first 126 days in 

office produced 18 stories that met the criteria of anonymously sourced accounts reflecting 

original sourcing that could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security. A 

closer look, however, revealed that national security reporting in the early Obama administration 

was often focused on President Obama’s Republican predecessor. 

Soon after President Obama took office in January 2009, debate raged anew in 

Washington about years-old Bush administration tactics for fighting terrorism. Much of the 

media storm was fueled by President Obama’s authorized release in April 2009 of so-called 

“torture memos”—Justice Department documents authorizing enhanced interrogations of terror 

suspects after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Obama administration’s decision to make 

these documents public meant that 10 of the 18 stories identified in this analysis were actually

mostly negative pieces about the Bush administration, with headlines such as “A grim look at a 

key CIA method; Memos show sleep deprivation is harsher and more controversial than most 

realize” and “Debate over interrogation methods sharply divided the Bush White House.35 

Because these 10 stories were plainly not about the Obama administration, they were 

excluded from the analysis. That left a total of eight stories containing leaks of information 

potentially damaging to national security during the Obama administration, compared to 62 

stories found in the comparable Lexis search for President Trump. Those remaining eight Obama

administration stories reported on topics such as the new White House’s increasing reliance on 

foreign intelligence to detain terror suspects,36 a new missile test-fired by Iran,

37 and a hacking 

of the U.S. electric grid that exposed key vulnerabilities.38 While the leaks in all of these stories 

could be harmful to national security and are thus prohibited by law, none depicted President

Obama in a negative light.

The results from the search of stories in President Obama’s first 126 days in office

mirrored the search of President Bush’s first 126 days in office. A total of nine anonymously 

sourced stories met the criteria, including potential damage to national security. The topics 

reported by these stories included an intelligence estimate on Iraq rebuilding weapons factories, a 

confidential Pentagon review calling for new arms to counter China, and details about possible 

 

35 Mark Mazzetti & Scott Shane, Debate Over Interrogation Methods Sharply Divided the Bush White House, N.Y.

TIMES (May 3, 2009), http://www nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04detain html. 36 Eric Schmitt & Mark Mazzetti, U.S. Relies More on Aid of Allies in Terror Cases, N.Y. TIMES (May 23, 2009), 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/world/24intel.html. 37 Pamela Hess & Pauline Jelinek, S Officials: Iran Missile May be More Advanced, ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 20, 

2009, Washington Dateline. 38 Jordan Robertson & Eileen Sullivan, AP Source: Spies Comprised US Electric Grid, ASSOCIATED PRESS, April 9, 

2009, Domestic News. 
12 

arms sales to Taiwan. Even with the nation still healing from the divisive presidential election in 

2000, none of the stories targeted President Bush specifically or cast him in a negative light.
13 

CONCLUSION

The American institutions of a free press and honest, open government are among our 

most sacred traditions. Every citizen has an interest in the free flow of information so the 

American public can stay informed about public policy, make wise decisions, and hold its 

leaders accountable. Yet, it is critical to maintain a balance between these democratic

imperatives and the government’s most vital role: keeping our country safe. 

With the recent surge of harmful leaks of information potentially damaging to national 

security during the Trump administration, that balance is now under threat. It must be restored, 

as people on different sides of the debate are beginning to realize. Mark S. Zaid, a Washington 

lawyer known for representing national security whistleblowers, points out that “as a matter of 

law, no one who leaks classified information to the media (instead of to an appropriate 

governmental authority) is a whistleblower entitled to legal protection . . . . The law 

appropriately protects only those who follow it.”39 While reaffirming the need for 

whistleblowers to ensure accountability in government, Zaid adds: “It is a fact that the Trump 

administration has been besieged by leaks . . . at a level that far exceeds that of previous 

presidencies within the first 130 days.” 

This report confirms Zaid’s statement. President Trump and his administration have 

faced apparent leaks on nearly a daily basis, potentially imperiling national security at a time of 

growing threats at home and abroad. The commander-in-chief needs to be able to effectively 

manage U.S. security, intelligence operations and foreign relations without worrying that his 

most private meetings, calls and deliberations will be outed for the entire world to see. As Zaid 

concludes: 

“One day history will judge the consequences of these actions.”

 

39 Mark S. Zaid, Reality Winner Isn’t a Whistleblower – or a Victim of Trump’s War on Leaks, WASH. POST (June 8, 

2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/reality-winner-isnt-a-whistleblower-or-avictim-of-trumps-war-on-leaks/?utm term=.17d12882e932.