Not All Leaks Are Created Equal

I was a Federal government whistleblower, revealing the failure of Iraq’s reconstruction at a time when everyone from President Barack Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was praising it as the solution to America’s nation-building expedition. I made public information that the government wished to keep quiet—though in my case everything was unclassified, albeit hidden away. I gained little from all this, instead being forced into early retirement by my employer, the State Department, ahead of being fired or prosecuted. I know from bitter personal experience the difference between whistleblowers, leakers, and spies, all of whom expose what the government wants hidden.

So it was with concern that I read in the New York Times that “the Iran war has significantly drained much of the U.S. military’s global supply of munitions, and forced the Pentagon to rush bombs, missiles and other hardware to the Middle East from commands in Asia and Europe. The drawdowns have left these regional commands less ready to confront potential adversaries like Russia and China.” The article is sourced around a few think-tankers, but uses unnamed officials and experts who are saying in broad daylight that the U.S. is running so low on critical munitions that not only is the war with Iran in danger of stumbling, but it has created a global vulnerability our adversaries might exploit. In other words, if you are reading this in Beijing, the U.S. might not be able decisively to shoot back in a scuffle.

Spies steal secrets. Imagine the espionage resources China and Russia devote to trying to learn about U.S. munitions stocks, one of the country’s most closely guarded secrets because of the advantage it gives an adversary. All those intelligence officers out there running ops against logistics soldiers and airmen, all those spy satellites counting delivery vehicles moving into storage facilities—who needs them? Somebody seems to have done the nasty work for them. Journalists should seek truth for public accountability. But when anonymous officials leak operational military vulnerabilities for domestic political agendas, the practical result can look dangerously similar to espionage. They act in the gray zone of our Venn diagram with circles drawn for whistleblowers, leakers, and spies.

Or maybe the Times made up the story based on speculation, taking the White House’s hard repudiation of the article as more “proof” it is true. But if not in this case, how about one of so many others given to the press by insiders that are damaging to the U.S.? How about the stories claiming most U.S. bases in the Middle East are damaged beyond use? Or that our sailors are not being fed properly? Or that U.S. casualties exceed government-released numbers? Or that the FBI is in chaos because Kash Patel is a day drinker, or the same at the Pentagon because Pete Hegseth is an alcoholic? Or the tales from the Oval Office that Trump is deathly ill, suffers from dementia, or had to be stopped from using nuclear weapons in the Gulf? What all those stories, many of them republished from X or conspiracy sites by America’s largest media outlets, have in common is that they are sourced from deep inside the American government, meaning either a whistleblower, leaker, or spy.

Whistleblowers are a special kind of government employee. They act on conscience, learning something due to their unique position that they believe after reflection is so important to the American people that it needs to be disclosed. I got to personally know through a common attorney people like Daniel Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers), John Kiriakou (who blew the whistle on CIA torture), Tom Drake, and Bill Binney (who disclosed NSA warrantless spying on Americans years before Ed Snowden). I learned through friends the motivations of whistleblowers Chelsea Manning and Snowden. Each person took a long, personal journey that led them to bring to light what our government was doing in our name. Their decisions were motivated by love of country and not personal gain. They were not political people per se, and did not seek revenge against some president or political party. Most importantly, they, as did I, all signed their real names to their disclosures, knowing that that act alone established credulity, albeit at the price of one’s job if not one’s freedom. They were patriots and had no need to hide behind anonymity.

Of course not all who claim to be whistleblowers are selfless patriots. In one example, a 2019 whistleblower complaint alleged President Donald Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, triggering the first impeachment. Interestingly, the whistleblower worked to remain anonymous in trying to bring down Trump. Critics later argued that the analyst was politically motivated, and the case remains controversial precisely because anonymity made it difficult to judge motives as clearly as with traditional whistleblowers who stand publicly behind their claims. The so-called whistleblower is now the subject of a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.

Leakers are a different breed, and Washington has always been rotten with them. It used to be that more journalists were taught to be skeptical of self-motivated leakers, and to judge the value of the information they provide against possible harm to others or the nation. They once understood conscience and judgment needed to be present alongside the First Amendment on the reporter’s side if not the source’s. Not so much anymore.

The key difference between leakers and whistleblowers is motivation. Whistleblowers seek to help the country—by telling the public, for example, that our government has torn up the Bill of Rights to spy on us. Leakers seek to help themselves by surfacing information, or just malicious watercooler gossip, to destroy a political enemy (the Kash Patel story) or further a political aim (resistance to the Iran war). Leaking often results from personal grievances or the desire to manipulate public opinion (for example, the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade). They do not care who gets hurt along the way, up to and including American troops facing an Iranian enemy empowered by the thought that America is running out of missiles. Indeed, hurting someone may be the whole point of the leak. Leakers by and large do not have the courage to stand publicly by what they say, and almost always hide as “anonymous sources.” They count on the drama of their leak to offer credibility, not their willingness to risk their lives, fortunes, and honor.

Leakers rely on anonymity because they seek effect, not accountability; whistleblowers accept accountability often at personal cost because truth, not political advantage, is their purpose.