Historical Patterns of National Security Leaks and Their Modern Implications

The recent disclosure that senior U.S. national security officials utilized Signal to communicate classified battle strategies against the Houthis raised eyebrows when it emerged that Atlantic Magazine journalist Jeffrey Goldberg had access to their chat. This significant breach of security is alarming, yet it is not without precedent. As long as sensitive national security information exists in any tangible form, it holds the potential to escape into unwarranted territories.

One of the most infamous military leaks in U.S. history involves General Robert E. Lee’s Special Order 191. This document outlined Lee’s plans during the Confederate invasion of Maryland in 1863. Union soldiers stumbled upon the plans wrapped around a cigar box. These documents ultimately reached Union General George McClellan, who, upon discovering them, exclaimed, “Now I know what to do!” This knowledge allowed McClellan to intercept Lee’s forces, securing a crucial, albeit bloody, victory for the Union at Antietam.

While both instances of leaks mentioned were inadvertent, more often than not, modern leaks feature some level of intentionality. Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee recounted a notable incident involving President John F. Kennedy. He left a briefcase filled with classified documents with Post publisher Philip Graham, concerning America’s strategy in relation to French leader Charles de Gaulle. When questioned about the prudence of his actions, Kennedy reasoned that Graham had been loyal to him and the country, and he wished to assist him.

In time, Graham’s publication became embroiled in more substantial leaks, including the Pentagon Papers during Richard Nixon’s presidency. RAND Corporation analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who was critical of the Vietnam War, released documents detailing the government’s internal thoughts regarding Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

While these documents did not expose real-time U.S. military strategies, they revealed a growing skepticism among American officials regarding the nation’s escalating involvement in the war. The Nixon administration attempted to litigate against the New York Times to prevent publication of the documents. Ellsberg also shared the information with the Washington Post, which chose to move forward with the story. Following a trial concerning Ellsberg’s actions, the charges were ultimately dismissed.

Further significant leaks during the Nixon era originated from the elusive source known as Deep Throat, who provided vital information to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein about the Watergate cover-up. This political scandal eventually compelled Nixon to resign. The unveiling of Deep Throat’s identity in 2005, decades later, concluded years of conjecture surrounding the source’s identity, revealing that former FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt was behind the leaks.

Felt’s decision to leak information stemmed from his resentment of being overlooked for the director position of the FBI. He passed away three years after revealing his secret but faced no repercussions for his actions.

Echoing Felt’s controversial choice, other figures have leaked sensitive information from the White House to further personal agendas or policy preferences. In 1979, James Fallows, a former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, penned an article for the Atlantic, criticizing the very administration he once served and portraying Carter as a notorious micromanager.

Later on, in 1981, Ronald Reagan’s Budget Director David Stockman aired his concerns regarding Reagan’s fiscal policies to William Greider of the Atlantic. Stockman preserved his position at the White House only because Chief of Staff James A. Baker warned him that he would have to “eat humble pie” for his comments.

During the Clinton administration, George Stephanopoulos faced criticism for candid remarks made to Woodward, contributing to a narrative of chaos within the administration depicted in Woodward’s book, The Agenda. In these cases, motivations often intertwined with personal egos led to what are frequently termed “ego leaks,” where insiders divulge information to exhibit their closeness to power.

However, these ego leaks can also have serious implications for national security. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak amid an internal clash related to the Bush administration’s claims regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Armitage chose to remain silent during the ensuing investigation regarding the leak’s source, resulting in the conviction of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Though Libby’s sentence received a commutation from President Bush, he later received a pardon from President Trump.

In 2010, General Stanley McChrystal made headlines after disparaging Vice President Joe Biden in front of a Rolling Stone reporter, resulting in Obama demanding his resignation.

Unlike these historic leaks, the exchange within Goldberg’s chat group highlights a more contemporary twist in the realm of leaks. This particular incident aligns with other modern leaks perpetrated by figures like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, who utilized current technology to access and disseminate extensive classified information. While Manning’s prison sentence lasted seven years before President Obama commuted it, Snowden found asylum in Russia.

The Goldberg texts not only underscore the ability of national security officials to engage in immediate, real-time conversations but also emphasize the inherent risks of such exchanges being compromised by either carelessness, as observed in this case, or intentional malice, as demonstrated by Snowden and Manning.

The current administration is investigating the circumstances surrounding this lapse in security, as it rightly should. Although it appears that severe punishments may not be enacted for this unintentional breach, it is likely that revised protocols will be established for future communications.

It is crucial to acknowledge that any precautionary measures implemented will not eliminate the potential for future national security leaks. The allure of undisclosed governmental information will persist, guaranteeing ongoing interest in uncovering what lies beneath the surface.