Talk:Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information

New instance of revealing possibly classified info -- tweeting sensitive surveillance photos

I would bring to your attention this news article, and ask other editors more involved with this article if they want to incorporate additional info from this NPR news story into the article. https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755994591/president-trump-tweets-sensitive-surveillance-image-of-iran --Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

concern about misrepresentation of sources in article and whether incidents belong in article

@Volunteer Marek:

I'm a Wikipedia neophyte, but in reading this page, I was distressed to see how much the "Other disclosures of intelligence" section misrepresented the source articles and painted a totally false impression of the facts. Moreover, since NONE of them appear to actually involve "Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information", I really question why they're included here.

1. Main article: there are two opposing statements from Israeli officials, I thought it was important to explain how they differed and who exactly had made each statement. I think it's worth explaining that the sole source for the "two officials" was BuzzFeed and that they were speaking anonymously and not in their official capacities. As far as I can tell, I have only added context from the article -- how exactly have I "misrepresented" it?

2. August 30, 2019 incident: the source material never says the image was "reportedly classified" at all -- on the contrary, it states: "a small redaction in the upper left-hand corner suggests the intelligence community had cleared the image for release by the president." It adds context to explain that lower-resolution images had already been released -- because the issue isn't that the image was classified, but that it was acquired through unknown technology that *might* be classified. "Multiple concerns" seems a little heavy-handed for two people. The major point is that nowhere in the source is there any evidence that Trump shared anything classified -- and prior to my editing, the Wikipedia article very much gave that impression. Since there's no indication that Trump shared classified intel, why is this even part of the article? And moreover, how have I misrepresented the NPR source material?

3. April 29, 2017 phone call: the source materials make clear the distinction between nuclear-powered submarines (all US subs) and those carrying nuclear weapons. Generally a "nuclear submarine" means a nuke-powered one, and there's absolutely nothing in the source materials (or Trump's words) to suggest he was speaking about nuclear weapons. It's obviously important to point out that two (nuclear-powered, obviously) submarines had already been publicly reported in the area. The source also explain that in the case of nuclear-armed subs, Trump would have no idea where they were, and if he did, it would not be an issue of "classified information" anyhow because his comments were so unspecific. Again, the article misrepresented the sources, and I attempted to clarify it. Neither source suggests that Donald Trump disclosed any "classified information" -- so why is it even part of this page? Perhaps my work could be improved, but in what way did I misrepresent the sources?

4. May 24, 2017 incident: the article gave the impression that the US government leaked the images, but in fact an unknown person (of unknown nationality) leaked them to the NY Times. Donald Trump had nothing to do with the leak (as the source states), and indeed called for an investigation into the leaker -- so I'm not sure why it's even included in the Wikipedia page. But to say I misrepresented the source material -- and to revert back to a version rife with error that doesn't even acknowledge Donald Trump had nothing to do with the leak, is unhelpful. Why it's even part of this article is unclear, since Trump "disclosed" nothing. The original article completely "misrepresented" the source material -- can you explain how you believe I, in correcting it, have done so?

5. July 2017 incident: the Washington Post reported that an unnamed former official claimed Trump had confiscated the notes -- but Trump emphatically denied it, and no evidence has ever emerged that he did. I could elaborate, but suffice it to say that the article as it was not only misrepresents the facts, it has so little context as to be useless. Most importantly, nothing about the incident involves "Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information" -- so I'd appreciate your view on how it "seem perfectly germane" to the page.

Thanks and look forward to yours (and everyone's) input. And please forgive me if I'm making every error in the book -- just let me know and I'll fix it!

Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ekpyros:

1. I support this clarification to the two Israeli officials' claims.

2. The first sentence in the source NPR article states the image almost certainly came from a classified satellite: "President Trump has tweeted what experts say is almost certainly an image from a classified satellite or drone, showing the aftermath of an accident at an Iranian space facility." Further down: "Panda believes it was most likely taken by a classified U.S. satellite." A high-resolution image from a classified satellite is probably classified itself, especially when that image was used by amateurs to identify the location and identity of the satellite that took the photo. One of the two people quoted is an a scientist who specializes in satellite images: "Ankit Panda, an adjunct senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, who specializes in analyzing satellite imagery." Because the photo tweeted by Trump was clearly cropped (an incomplete upper-right corner), it's unclear if there were classification marks that were also removed from the top and bottom of the photo. To reduce confusion, an uncropped photo should have been released if any photos were to be released at all. I support keeping the wording as is.

3. You are correct that there is a distinction between the US Navy's nuclear-powered submarines and their submarines carrying nuclear weapons. The US Navy publicly tweeted the location of their submarines when they are docked (see https://twitter.com/INDOPACOM/status/857018463126142976), but they do not appear to tweet the location of those submarines while they are underway. I didn't see a reliable source on whether the location (even a vague location off the coast of a small-in-geographic-size country) of nuclear-powered US Navy submarines on a mission is classified, but I'm going to lean towards yes. I support keeping the wording as is, with a clarification added about the distinction between nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines.

4. Given that the United Kingdom said they would (temporarily) cease sharing information with US law enforcement in the wake of the leak, it seems clear that the UK felt that the US was responsible. I agree that it's unclear who leaked the information, but to claim that Trump had no part in the leak needs a reliable source. The mcclatchydc.com source says "Trump, who had no apparent role in the disclosures, called the leaks “deeply troubling.", emphasis on the 'apparent role'. I support keeping the wording as is, but adding Trump's statement about it being "deeply troubling."

5. There is an entire Wikipedia page on the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, so his emphatic denials of anything are not credible. The first line of the Washington Post article said current and former officials were their source, not a single official. The notes were of a private meeting with Putin, and Trump's reported removal of the interpreter's notes potentially containing classified information doesn't seem to be a "disclosure of intelligence". I don't think this would normally fall under the header, but since this reported action adds to the overall context of the page being Trump's sharing of information with Russian officials, I support keeping it in the article.

As for user feedback, I suggest addressing potentially controversial edits under a separate header on the article's Talk page. That would allow editors to address each item rather than all of them at once.

BoatSnack (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump transition's lack of concern for national security

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Russia Report described its concerns with secret meetings with Russians:

Finally, the Committee's bipartisan Report shows that almost immediately following Election Day in 2016, the Trump transition responded to Russia's election interference not by supporting punitive action, but rather by holding a series of secretive meetings and communications with Russian representatives that served to undercut the outgoing administration's efforts to hold Russia accountable. The transition's openness to this private Russian outreach prior to taking office, so soon after Russia's interference on Trump's behalf, combined with Trump publicly questioning Russia's involvement, signaled that there was little intention by the incoming administration to punish Russia for the assistance it had just provided in its unprecedented attack on American democracy."

The question is, does anyone know if this has been described as revealing classified information? It certainly revealed a treasonous mentality and lack of loyalty to the United States' interests and its national security. -- Valjean (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Donald Trump's mishandling of classified information

PackMecEng, I see that this got sorted out. I mistakenly thought that section dealing with following stuff also applied. Where would it be due?

Do we even have an article for all the declassifications he made? In this case, we have his actions that weakened our national security, endangered sources, made it harder to recruit new sources, and made our allies less willing to share info with our intelligence agencies, and it's not an isolated event. He improperly revealed classified info possibly leading to the death of sources, and he also improperly declassified info possibly leading to the death of sources. No wonder Putin loves him!

Is it time for an article entitled Donald Trump's mishandling of classified information? That would cover both situations. Ping User:Andrevan. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I give very little weight to a he said she said by a guy in an active legal dispute with the other. It's standard mud slinging and everything is quotes by him. There is no value to it that I can see and I don't see how it would fit in the suggested new article either honestly. I have no interested in the rest of your original research either. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

What multiple RS say is noteworthy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:VNOT. PackMecEng (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's sourced to Guardian and Reuters, it has due weight, and it's not OR either. It's just plain research. To elaborate a bit more: Trump declassifying the material isn't a disclosure of classified information, but it's certainly relevant to the article in my view. Andre🚐 22:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The OR is the whole second half of their first comment, not the sources. The article is about disclosure of classified information, which you state this is not. Could you elaborate on how it can be out of scope and still in scope? PackMecEng (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your objection. It's a related point. It's not strictly in article scope. But it's not automatically a coatrack because it involves somewhat related issues, and maybe the scope should be broadened or a 2nd article created and linked from here. I'm open on that. Andre🚐 22:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A discussion can be had about expanding the scope or another article. But until that happens it does not belong here. If it is hey I found some sources and think this is cool so let me stick it somewhere, then that fits coatrack. Also to note, you restored the content that was added yesterday saying it was restoring status quo, that is simply false. Finally why would you restore content that you know is out of scope for the article? PackMecEng (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It only seems OR to you because you are apparently not familiar with the RS which describe the incidents, some described in this very article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I know them well. That is why I know it's OR, pure bullcrap mostly. PackMecEng (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

PME, the "2017 Oval Office incident with Russia" is not bullcrap, and "Trump's disclosure endangered the life of a spy placed by Israel in ISIL-held territory in Syria." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it is not the status quo, since it was recently added; I got confused, like you did when you removed the wrong para the first time and I reverted and you acknowledged. Therefore, it is under discussion now for inclusion. Andre🚐 23:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good move target - let's do it, if you're thinking it's a better move. But let's not do it just to placate the dispute unless we truly think it's a better article title. This title is a bit more neutral. On the other hand, it's a neutral, Wikivoice NPOV fact that Donald Trump is currently in court for mishandling classified info per RS. Andre🚐 22:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of a move, but my suggested title could encompass both types of abuse of classified or previously classified info. While plenty of RS describe the issue as abuse/improper/suspicious and a clear national security threat, the title could be more neutrally worded as Donald Trump's handling of classified information (not just documents). The sources and consequences (in several cases the exposure and possible deaths of good sources) would speak for themselves.

We already have an existing parallel situation at FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents. That title is unduly neutral, and therefore inaccurate and a violation of NPOV because it does not accurately describe the contents, which describe his mishandling of documents. We may be nearing the time where that title should be updated so it's accurate. Ping Soibangla as they are an expert on these subjects and the creation of such articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, just his handling of classified information is probably the right title. Andre🚐 23:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Andre, this is really part of the meta-topic of Donald Trump as a threat to national security. That is also a legitimate article topic. There are plenty of RS, and especially the leaders of American intelligence agencies, that/who have pointed out how serious a threat he is to national security. His continued mishandling of classified documents and classified information shows he's still a threat. There are many good reasons why Biden took the unusual step of blocking him from access to security briefings, something all American former presidents have been privileged to have. Even a casual reading of this article makes plain it was the right decision. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that's more than a single article. That's basically an entire series of 4 or 5 articles. Andre🚐 04:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I get why PackMecEng believes that the declassification of the Steele dossier is not "mishandling" classified information or "disclosure" because it was legal declassification. It was still a piece of controversial handling of classified information, which to me, is reason enough to tack it onto here. I'm loath to remove informative, well-referenced and encyclopedic information especially such information that is relevant. PackMecEng has observed that the article title does not strictly encompass this info, which is an argument I'm willing to accept, but I don't believe the prescribed remedy is removal; we simply need to determine how best to treat this information which would maximize the educational value of this information for our users. Obviously, if there's a consensus to remove it, fine, but so far we have 1 user adding it, one removing it, and one restoring it. Andre🚐 23:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand PME's point, and I think we need to consider enlarging the scope or creating a new article. Part of our assigned mission here is to document the sum of all human knowledge as found in RS, so this information (found in many RS due to Trump's own actions and the Streisand effect) needs to go somewhere at Wikipedia, and likely more than one place. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)