By Marisa Taylor, Ted Hesson, Alexandra Alper, Helen Coster
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -When reports surfaced in the media that the federal government’s personnel office was planning to hire a driver to ferry around agency directors, officials quickly launched an investigation to find out who was leaking to the press, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Hiring a driver at the Office of Personnel Management hardly qualified as classified or top secret information: one official at the agency quipped to a colleague in a message seen by Reuters that the information would have needed to be made public eventually to advertise the position.
But the plans to hire a driver – first reported by Reuters – proved awkward for OPM and the White House at a time when the agency was spearheading efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency to slash the federal workforce, cutting hundreds of its own employees.
The incident underscores President Donald Trump’s determination to crack down on leaks to the press, even those involving unclassified information or the everyday workings of the government.
Reuters spoke to nine current and former federal government employees under the current administration who described a concerted effort to expose leaks of all kinds.
The investigations have a dual purpose – plugging leaks while also purging federal employees considered disloyal to Trump’s political agenda, four of the government employees said.
“President Trump has made it clear he will not tolerate federal government employees leaking to the fake news media. This is common sense,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Reuters.
“Government employees who spend their time leaking to the media instead of doing the job American taxpayers expect should be held accountable.”
In several government agencies – including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense – managers told employees they would have to undergo lie detector tests, or polygraphs, after unclassified information was reported in the media, six of the government workers told Reuters.
Polygraph results are rarely used as evidence in U.S. courts because of doubts surrounding their reliability.
At the DHS, managers told employees that they needed to undergo the tests – not necessarily because leaks had occurred, but because of suspicions that staffers might be talking to the press, according to four of the government workers.
The DHS employees were also told they could be fired if they don’t take the tests, the four said.
ATTENDEES POLYGRAPHED
After details of a DHS meeting in March involving Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the then acting FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton leaked to the press, DHS managers ordered polygraph tests on at least four meeting attendees, according to an additional two former Federal Emergency Management Agency officials. FEMA is part of DHS.
The attendees, including Hamilton, sat for polygraphs at the Transportation Security Administration headquarters in Virginia.
One FEMA staffer in the public affairs division was placed on paid leave after a polygraph came up inconclusive, the two former FEMA officials said, although it was unclear whether the test was tied to the meeting.
Reached by Reuters, the staffer on paid leave declined to comment.
One DHS employee told Reuters they resigned when asked to take a polygraph test because they feared being wrongly accused of leaking.
DHS workers were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements about the tests, the employee said.
When asked to comment, the DHS said it was “unapologetic” about its drive to root out leakers. “We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment, or status as a career civil servant – we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law,” a DHS spokesperson told Reuters.
OPM did not respond to a request for comment. The DOD said in March that it would use polygraph tests to expose leakers.
It is generally not a criminal matter to leak information – unless it is classified or otherwise protected, including national security leaks that can put people in harm’s way.
Some leaks – including those of unclassified information – may be in the public’s interest, historians and politics experts say. But the information can also frustrate a president’s policy agenda and make an administration less effective, they added.
“Not all leaks are helpful to peace, good government and constitutional liberty,” said historian Timothy Naftali, a former director of the Nixon Presidential Library in California.
‘TURN OVER EVERY STONE’
Beyond clamping down on staff, the administration is also seeking greater access to journalists’ records. In April the U.S. Justice Department made it easier for prosecutors investigating leaks to the media to subpoena records and testimony from journalists.
The directive by Attorney General Pam Bondi reversed departmental policy during President Joe Biden’s administration that barred prosecutors from seizing reporters’ phone and email records unless the journalist was a suspect in a criminal investigation unrelated to newsgathering or they had obtained information through criminal methods.
New regulations allow prosecutors in criminal investigations to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to compel “production of information and testimony by and relating to members of the news media,” according to a memo from Bondi.
Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the memo’s reference to non-classified leaks suggested a policy shift.
“That’s a pretty marked contrast to the leak-hunting under the first Trump administration where, for instance, the speech by Attorney General Jeff Sessions announcing a leak crackdown was quite focused on national security leaks.”
Critics of the Trump administration say leak investigations are a politicized tool to root out perceived disloyalty.
“The Trump White House is trying to make a very clear point here: they will turn over every stone and utilize every tool to crush any leaks regarding which they don’t approve,” said Brad Moss, a national security lawyer in Washington.
The first Trump administration referred more media leaks for criminal investigation in each of its four years than any of the previous 15 years, according to Department of Justice records obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group.
Both parties have sought to stem the flow of information. Democratic President Barack Obama had prosecuted more leak cases than all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Rottman, of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Trump prosecuted six leak cases by the time he left office after one term, putting him on track to exceed Obama’s record, according to Rottman.
(Reporting by Marisa Taylor, Ted Hesson and Alexandra Alper in Washington and Helen Coster in New York; Additional reporting by Nandita Bose and Sarah N. Lynch in Washington. Editing by Paul Thomasch and Suzanne Goldenberg)
Comments