NBC News (“A DHS staffer faces serious punishment for accidentally adding a reporter to a group email“):
A federal worker accidentally includes a journalist on a detailed message in advance of a government operation.
While that sounds like the case of The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief being added to a group Signal chat by Trump’s national security adviser Michael Waltz, in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed military attack plans in Yemen, it’s not.
It’s what happened to a longtime Department of Homeland Security employee who told colleagues she inadvertently sent unclassified details of an upcoming Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation to a journalist in late January, according to former ICE chief of staff Jason Houser, one former DHS official and one current DHS official. (The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they do not want to endanger their current or future career opportunities.)
But unlike Waltz and Hegseth, who both remain in their jobs, the career DHS employee was put on administrative leave and told late last week that the agency intends to revoke her security clearance, the officials said.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has largely rallied around Waltz and Hegseth, with Trump on Wednesday calling it “all a witch hunt.”
[…]
The DHS employee who was put on leave did not speak to NBC News. The officials who did speak didn’t want to identify her out of fear she would face retaliation from members of the public who are pro-immigration enforcement.
The DHS employee told colleagues she accidentally added a reporter from a conservative Washington-based print publication to an email that included information about upcoming ICE operations in the Denver area. The officials said the information was not classified but considered law enforcement sensitive because it included the time of day for the operation and possible home locations where targets could be identified.
Realizing her mistake immediately, the employee called the reporter who agreed not to disclose the information, the officials said.
The ICE operation took place without incident, the officials said.
But another person on the email group flagged the blunder to higher-ups at DHS at a time when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and border czar Tom Homan were blaming leaks to the media for lower-than-expected arrest numbers during ICE roundups, the officials said.
Days later, the employee was placed on leave pending an investigation, the officials said. She was asked to take a polygraph test and surrender her personal cellphone, which she declined. She was then notified that the agency intends to revoke her security clearance, the officials said, which could keep her from working in the homeland security space again.
The employee has 30 days to appeal the revocation, one official said.
The employee has served in various agencies across DHS since President George W. Bush’s administration, including during the entirety of Trump’s first term, the officials said.
So, certainly a major fuck-up. My strong instinct is that, if it’s a first offense, it’s not deserving of ending a long career and possibly a loss of retirement benefits. But that’s a decision that can more readily be made by the chain of command, with access to more context. And, certainly, there is all manner of due process for the officer to present her case.
Naturally, there’s an elephant in the room:
Experts say it raises questions about unequal punishment for inadvertent leakers in the Trump administration.
Mary McCord, a former top official in the Justice Department’s national security division, which investigates the mishandling or leaking of classified information, said the two cases should be treated the same way.
“Both of these are examples of carelessness in the handling of highly sensitive information, the disclosure of which could put U.S. government employees or military members in danger,” added McCord, who is now a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “We should expect the Signal chat breach to be taken at least as seriously” as the DHS employee’s breach.
But, of course, “taken at least as seriously” is not the same as “treated equally.” Like it or not, senior officials are treated differently than junior employees. While “different spanks for different ranks” reeks of hypocrisy and sparks resentment, it’s often justified.
It gets more complicated still with political appointees. Those on the Signal chat—the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the National Security Advisor—are either elected officials; presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed Constitutional officers; or direct presidential hires. Barring impeachment, they serve at the pleasure of the President.* So long as the President retains confidence in them, their jobs are safe.
Would I prefer that people in the positions of highest trust in our government act with at least as much discretion as we demand of a private first class? Of course. But, ironically, none of the people on that chat** are required to undergo any of the training, valuable or otherwise, that the rest of us are.
Regardless, the examples are legion of senior officials escaping punishment for things that would ruin the careers—or even lead to jail time—for those at the bottom of the pecking order are legion. A combination of political clout, the ability to hire the best legal representation, and genuine regard for a lifetime of service all play a part in that.
________________
*Vance is in a special category; theoretically, he’s elected in his own right POTUS can’t fire him.
**Presumably SECDEF Hegseth took the training in his capacity as an Army and National Guard officer, but that’s happenstance.
