How and Why Information Is Leaked From the White House

Last updated 3 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Far from being a rare breakdown of protocol, the leak is a constant and dynamic feature of the American political system, as an instrument of power, protest, and policy.

From hushed conversations in darkened parking garages to the instantaneous transmission of terabytes of data, the methods have evolved, but the tension remains the same. Every modern presidency has grappled with the struggle between the executive branch’s asserted need for secrecy to conduct the nation’s business and the democratic principle that a self-governing people have a right to know what is being done in their name.

This is the story of how and why information gets out of the White House, a chronicle of the motivations, methods, and profound consequences of breaking the seal of official secrecy.

The Anatomy of a Leak: More Than Just Spilled Secrets

To understand the world of White House leaks, one must first grasp its vocabulary, where words are often chosen for their political impact as much as for their precise meaning. The distinction between a “leak” and “whistleblowing” is not merely semantic; it carries significant legal, ethical, and rhetorical weight that shapes public perception and the fate of those who disclose information.

Defining the Terms: Leak vs. Whistleblower

At its most basic level, a leak is the unauthorized and voluntary disclosure of confidential or classified information to the public, typically through the media. The term is a broad umbrella covering a vast range of information, from political gossip and internal policy debates to sensitive national security secrets. The motivations behind a leak can be equally varied, ranging from a desire to influence policy to personal gain or revenge.

A whistleblower, by contrast, is a specific type of source with a more narrowly defined purpose and, crucially, a degree of legal protection. A whistleblower is an individual who discloses information that they reasonably believe is evidence of wrongdoing. This wrongdoing is specifically categorized as a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

The Legal Distinction That Matters

The most significant distinction lies in the legal framework. Whistleblowing by most federal employees is a legally protected act under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) of 1989, which was strengthened by the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) of 2012. This legislation shields non-intelligence federal workers from retaliation—such as being fired or demoted—for reporting misconduct through proper channels.

Importantly, these channels can include disclosures not just to an agency’s Inspector General but also externally to Congress and, in many cases, the press. Leaking, on the other hand, especially when it involves classified information, carries no such legal protection. It is often a violation of nondisclosure agreements and can be a criminal offense under federal law, exposing the source to severe legal consequences.

The Political Vocabulary: Weaponizing the Language

In the political arena, the distinction between “leaker” and “whistleblower” is often deliberately blurred. The public framing of a disclosure is not merely a reaction to an event but a proactive strategy of governance. An administration’s choice of language is a primary tool for controlling the narrative, managing public opinion, and justifying subsequent actions.

Those in power frequently use the term “leaker” as a pejorative to imply criminality and to delegitimize the person releasing the information, regardless of the information’s content or public value. This rhetorical move is a form of pre-emptive narrative defense. By successfully labeling a source a “leaker,” an administration can shift the public’s focus from the content of the disclosure to the act of the disclosure itself.

This transforms a potential policy or ethics scandal into a national security or law-and-order issue—a much more favorable political battleground for the executive branch. This conflation of legitimate whistleblowing with “leaking” can create a powerful chilling effect, deterring career civil servants who witness serious misconduct from coming forward.

The Leaker’s Gambit: A Spectrum of Motives

The reasons information flows out of the White House are as complex and varied as the people who work there. Leaks are rarely a simple matter; they are driven by a spectrum of motivations that range from the strategic and high-minded to the petty and self-serving. The dominant type of leak at any given time can serve as a powerful barometer of an administration’s internal health, revealing its level of discipline, cohesion, and loyalty.

The Leak as a Policy Tool: The “Trial Balloon”

One of the most common and strategic forms of leaking is the “trial balloon.” In this maneuver, an administration official deliberately and anonymously provides information about a potential policy or appointment to the media to gauge the reaction from the public, Congress, and other influential groups.

The term is a direct translation of the French ballon d’essai, which refers to the small, unmanned balloons adventurers once sent up to test air currents before a manned flight.

The anonymity of the leak provides crucial plausible deniability. If the public and political reaction to the proposed idea is strongly negative, the White House can simply disavow the story, claiming it was mere speculation, and abandon the policy without suffering significant political damage.

For example, during the Obama administration, supporters floated a trial balloon to see if Hillary Clinton could be a viable Supreme Court nominee, an idea the White House quickly shot down after it failed to gain traction. In another instance, a series of leaks made it clear that President Obama favored Larry Summers to be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. This trial balloon ultimately popped when three key Democratic senators publicly announced they would not vote to confirm him, forcing the administration to change course.

The Principled Disclosure: Leaking as Conscience

Some of the most historically significant leaks are driven not by political calculation but by an individual’s conscience. In these cases, a source with access to sensitive information comes to believe that a government policy or action is so profoundly wrong—morally, ethically, or legally—that their duty to the public outweighs their obligation to secrecy.

Case Study: The Pentagon Papers

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst who had worked on a top-secret Department of Defense study of the Vietnam War, decided he could no longer remain silent. Believing the war was unwinnable and that four successive presidential administrations had systematically lied to the American public about its scope and progress, Ellsberg surreptitiously photocopied the 7,000-page report.

He leaked it to The New York Times, motivated not by personal gain or a desire to aid a foreign enemy, but by a conviction that the American people had a right to know the truth about the war being waged in their name. The Nixon administration’s attempt to block the publication of what became known as the Pentagon Papers led to the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. United States, which established a high constitutional bar against government censorship of the press.

Case Study: Edward Snowden and the NSA

More than four decades later, National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden executed one of the largest leaks of classified information in history. He provided journalists with a massive trove of documents detailing the vast scope of global surveillance programs run by the NSA and its allies, which collected data on millions of ordinary citizens.

Snowden stated his motivation was that he could not “in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.” His actions ignited a fierce global debate on the balance between national security and individual privacy, but also resulted in him being charged under the Espionage Act and forced to live in exile.

The Political Dagger: Leaks as Internal Warfare

Leaks are a time-honored weapon in the brutal internal power struggles of Washington. Officials and aides may leak information to sabotage a policy they oppose, undermine a bureaucratic or political rival, settle a personal score, or elevate their own importance and influence within the administration.

For example, a trove of over 900 emails from senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller was leaked to the Southern Poverty Law Center by a former writer for the hard-right website Breitbart. The emails showed Miller promoting white nationalist articles and conspiracy theories, and the leak appeared designed to expose the extremist ideology underpinning the administration’s hardline anti-immigration policies.

The early days of the Trump administration were particularly notable for a torrent of leaks that seemed aimed at harming the president and revealing a White House in a state of chaos. Details of contentious phone calls between President Trump and the leaders of Australia and Mexico were leaked, as were the circumstances that led to the resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Observers noted that this pattern of leaking, which amounted to direct criticism of a sitting president from within his own administration, was “somewhat unprecedented” and did not appear to be strategic, but rather dangerously chaotic.

The Accidental Revelation: Leaks by Mistake

Not all leaks are the result of a deliberate plan. In the high-pressure, fast-moving environment of the White House, simple human error, technological incompetence, or a lack of basic security protocols can lead to the inadvertent disclosure of highly sensitive information.

A dramatic example of this occurred during the Trump administration in an incident dubbed “Signalgate.” In a catastrophic security failure, senior officials, including the president’s national security adviser, accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to an encrypted Signal group chat. Inside this chat, the officials were casually discussing highly sensitive operational details of forthcoming military strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The incident, which triggered bipartisan outrage, exposed a shocking disregard for established security protocols and may have constituted a violation of both the Espionage Act and federal records laws, as the messages were set to automatically delete.

The Digital Drop: How Information Gets Out in the 21st Century

The mechanics of leaking have been revolutionized by technology. The iconic image of the Watergate era—a source, “Deep Throat,” meeting a reporter in a clandestine parking garage—has been largely replaced by encrypted data transfers and anonymized digital drop boxes. This shift has fundamentally changed the scale, speed, and security of how information gets out, creating a new landscape for both sources and the journalists who report their stories.

The Modern Leaker’s Toolkit: A Guide to Secure Communication

For a potential source inside the White House or any government agency, operational security (OPSEC) is the paramount concern. The first and most critical rule is to conduct all leak-related activities on personal devices and networks, completely separate from the workplace. Government and corporate networks are often monitored, and using a work computer, phone, or Wi-Fi network to research journalists or contact them can leave a digital trail for investigators to follow.

To transmit information securely, sources now have access to a sophisticated toolkit of privacy-enhancing technologies:

Anonymous Submission Systems: The gold standard for secure leaking is a whistleblower submission system like SecureDrop. Maintained by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, SecureDrop allows a source to upload documents and messages to a news organization’s server anonymously. To access a news outlet’s SecureDrop page, the source must use the Tor Browser, a specialized web browser that conceals a user’s identity and location by routing their internet traffic through a global network of volunteer-run relays.

Encrypted Messaging Apps: Applications like Signal have become a popular tool for sources and journalists. Signal provides end-to-end encryption for text messages and voice calls, which means the content is scrambled and can only be read by the sender and the intended recipient. The app also includes features like disappearing messages, which can be set to automatically delete after a certain amount of time, leaving no record of the conversation.

Low-Tech Resilience: Despite the advances in digital security, some of the most secure methods remain decidedly low-tech. Sending physical documents or a memory card through the U.S. mail, dropped in a public mailbox in an unfamiliar neighborhood and with no return address, is an effective way to avoid digital surveillance.

This dynamic represents an asymmetric technological “arms race.” The government possesses immense and sophisticated surveillance capabilities designed to monitor communications and prevent leaks. However, the proliferation of free, powerful, and user-friendly encryption and anonymization tools has dramatically lowered the barrier to entry for secure leaking.

The democratization of this technology means that the power to disclose information securely is no longer limited to sophisticated state actors. It is available to nearly any individual with a smartphone, creating a permanent and evolving challenge to government secrecy.

The Reporter’s Dilemma: The Ethics of Publishing

For journalists, receiving leaked information, particularly classified material, triggers a complex ethical calculus. Their decisions are guided by principles codified by organizations like the Society of Professional Journalists, which stress four key tenets: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent.

First, a journalist’s primary obligation is to verify the authenticity of the leaked information. Publishing false or misleading information, even from a well-intentioned source, would be a grave professional failure.

Second, they must weigh the public’s right to know against the potential for harm. If publishing a piece of information could endanger lives, compromise intelligence sources, or damage national security, journalists must carefully consider whether the public interest value of the disclosure is significant enough to justify the risk.

This often involves a difficult balancing act and may include consulting with government officials to understand the potential consequences, though the final editorial decision remains with the news organization. Finally, protecting the identity of a source who has been promised anonymity is a sacred trust. Journalists and their organizations will often fight legal battles and risk jail time for contempt of court rather than reveal a confidential source.

The Aftermath: The High Stakes of a Broken Seal

A White House leak is never just a story; it is an event that can have profound and lasting consequences. The fallout can reshape political careers, alter the course of foreign policy, erode public trust in government, and, in the most extreme cases, change the course of history.

National Security at Risk

The most immediate and tangible danger of a leak involves national security. Federal law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of classified information precisely because it can cause serious, and sometimes irreparable, damage to the country. Leaks can:

Expose Sources and Methods: Revealing how the U.S. gathers intelligence—whether through human sources, satellite imagery, or communications intercepts—allows adversaries to develop countermeasures, effectively blinding American intelligence agencies. In one instance during the Trump administration, the president revealed highly classified information in an Oval Office meeting with Russian officials, a disclosure so damaging that it reportedly forced the CIA to extract a key intelligence asset from Moscow.

Damage Diplomatic Relations: The disclosure of private conversations between the president and other world leaders, or of sensitive diplomatic cables, can create deep mistrust and damage alliances. A leak during the Trump administration concerning the investigation of a terrorist attack in the United Kingdom caused a significant diplomatic incident with a close ally.

Endanger Lives: Leaks that reveal ongoing military operations or the identities of intelligence operatives can directly endanger the lives of American soldiers, intelligence officers, and foreign nationals who are cooperating with the U.S. government.

Political and Personal Fallout

The political consequences of a leak can be seismic. For individuals, a leak can end a career. The 2017 resignation of President Trump’s first National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, was a direct result of leaks revealing that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

For an administration, a major leak can trigger a full-blown scandal that consumes its political capital, derails its policy agenda, and defines its legacy. The Watergate scandal, which began with leaks from a high-level FBI official known as “Deep Throat” (later revealed to be Mark Felt), spiraled into a constitutional crisis that ultimately forced President Richard Nixon to resign in 1974.

Internally, a culture of pervasive leaking is corrosive. It destroys the trust necessary for candid policy debate, as officials become paranoid that their colleagues will use their words against them in the press. This creates a dysfunctional work environment where loyalty is questioned and decision-making can become paralyzed.

Erosion of Public Trust

While leaks that expose genuine wrongdoing can serve as a vital check on power, a constant barrage of disclosures revealing incompetence, infighting, and deception can contribute to the long-term erosion of public trust in government.

This trend has been underway for decades. In 1958, about 75% of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing most of the time. That trust began to plummet during the 1960s and 1970s, fueled by the revelations about the Vietnam War in the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandal.

Since 2007, public trust has rarely risen above 30%. A 2024 survey found that only 23% of Americans trust the federal government. When leaks reveal that the government has systematically misled the public, as the Pentagon Papers did, they strike at the very foundation of the consent of the governed.

A Century of Consequential Leaks

Plugging the Dike: The White House War on Leaks

The battle against leaks is a perpetual feature of every modern presidency. Despite the fact that leaks can sometimes be used strategically by an administration, the overwhelming presidential posture is one of hostility toward unauthorized disclosures, which are seen as a threat to executive control and national security.

A Bipartisan Presidential Frustration

The war on leaks is a bipartisan tradition. Presidents from both parties have publicly and privately raged against the practice. President Dwight Eisenhower deplored leaks from the Defense Department, which he believed turned policy debates into public arguments. President John F. Kennedy called leaks from the National Security Council “unfortunate” because they lessened its effectiveness.

President Lyndon B. Johnson complained about “cocktail columnists” gathering whispers from his cabinet departments and declared that the State Department “leaks everything they got. I’ve got about as much confidence in them as I have in a Soviet spy.” This historical consistency shows that the problem is institutional, rooted in the inherent tension between a president’s desire for message control and the reality of a sprawling government bureaucracy.

The Counter-Leak Arsenal

To combat leaks, administrations deploy a range of tactics, from technological barriers to legal threats:

Technological and Physical Controls: The White House has implemented strict policies like banning personal cell phones and other electronic devices from the West Wing. Staffers may be required to leave their personal phones in lockers upon entering the building. For highly sensitive discussions, officials are supposed to use secure facilities known as SCIFs (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities), which are designed to prevent electronic eavesdropping.

Personnel Actions: A potent weapon is the power to revoke security clearances. Administrations can punish critics and suspected leakers by stripping them of the clearances necessary for their jobs, effectively ending their careers in national security.

Legal Threats and Prosecutions: The most aggressive response is to launch a criminal investigation. The Trump administration, in particular, dramatically escalated this approach. The number of criminal leak referrals sent from federal agencies to the Department of Justice surged to an average of 104 per year in 2017 and 2018, compared to an average of just 39 per year during the Obama administration.

Restricting Information Flow: In a move that can undermine democratic oversight, a White House may respond to a leak by restricting the flow of information to other government bodies. For example, after an intelligence document was leaked that contradicted the administration’s claims about military effectiveness, the Trump White House announced plans to limit the classified information it shared with Congress.

The Paradox of the Crackdown

Despite these efforts, no administration has ever succeeded in stopping leaks. In fact, aggressive anti-leak campaigns can be counterproductive. Publicly threatening leakers and launching widespread investigations can create a climate of fear and paranoia. This atmosphere can actually encourage more leaks from individuals who feel they have no other avenue to express dissent or expose what they see as wrongdoing.

Furthermore, the details of the crackdown itself can become the subject of new leaks, as when news of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s phone checks on his own staff was promptly leaked to the press, reinforcing the public narrative of an administration in chaos.

The Law of the Leak: The Espionage Act vs. The First Amendment

The legal landscape surrounding White House leaks is a complex and contested terrain, defined by a fundamental constitutional conflict between the government’s power to protect its secrets and the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press. This tension is most acute in the application of a century-old law originally designed to combat spies.

The Espionage Act of 1917: A Century-Old Weapon

There is no single, all-encompassing statute that criminalizes the act of leaking. Instead, prosecutors rely on a “patchwork of statutes,” the most powerful of which is the Espionage Act of 1917. Enacted during World War I to punish spies and saboteurs, the law has been adapted over the decades to prosecute government employees and contractors who provide “national defense information” to anyone not authorized to receive it—a category that includes journalists.

The Obama administration used the Espionage Act to charge more individuals for leaking to the media than all previous administrations combined, a trend that signaled a newly aggressive stance.

A Constitutional Collision Course

The government’s use of the Espionage Act against sources who speak to the press creates a direct collision with the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and the press. This conflict was famously tested in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States.

The Supreme Court ruled against the Nixon administration’s attempt to exercise “prior restraint”—that is, to stop the newspapers from publishing the classified study. The Court set an exceptionally high bar for such censorship, ruling that the government must prove that publication would “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people.”

The Unsettled Question: Can Journalists Be Prosecuted?

While the Pentagon Papers case protected the press’s right to publish, it did not settle the question of whether journalists could be criminally prosecuted after publication for disseminating classified information. Historically, the Department of Justice has pursued the leakers—the government sources—but has not used the Espionage Act to prosecute journalists for publishing the information they receive.

This long-standing norm, however, is not legally guaranteed. The 2019 indictment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for his role in publishing a vast trove of classified military and diplomatic documents was seen by many press freedom advocates as a grave threat. They argued that the charges created a dangerous precedent that could be used to prosecute traditional news organizations and reporters in the future.

This legal ambiguity creates what legal scholar Geoffrey R. Stone has described as a “seemingly awkward, even incoherent, state of affairs” that is nonetheless vital for a functioning democracy. The government maintains broad authority to punish its own employees for unauthorized disclosures of classified information. At the same time, the press enjoys a constitutionally protected right to publish that same information if it is newsworthy.

This fragile, unwritten balance allows the press to serve its watchdog function and hold the government accountable, without completely stripping the government of its ability to protect legitimate national security secrets.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.