News Outlets Received Trump Campaign Leaks But Decided Not to Publish

Confidential materials from within Donald Trump’s campaign have been delivered to at least three news organizations, including a detailed vetting report on potential vice presidential candidate JD Vance. However, each outlet has chosen not to disclose specifics about the content they received.

Sources indicate that Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post have opted instead to talk about a possible breach of campaign security, characterized in more general terms, reminiscent of the controversy during the 2016 election cycle.

In that earlier campaign, a Russian hack released a trove of emails related to Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta. Those documents were published by Wikileaks, drawing significant media attention. In contrast, the current situation has been treated with more discretion.

Politico reported that it received a batch of emails from an individual going by the name “Robert,” beginning on July 22. Among the materials was a 271-page document related to Vance, alongside a partial vetting report concerning Senator Marco Rubio, another vice presidential candidate. Both Politico and The Washington Post confirmed the authenticity of these documents through independent sources.

The New York Times remarked that many such vetting documents often contain statements that could potentially damage a candidate’s reputation, citing Vance’s previous remarks about Trump as an example.

The identity of the person who leaked the documents remains unclear. Politico has stated that it has no information on who “Robert” is. When questioned about their source, the supposed leaker notably advised caution in exploring their identity.

The Trump campaign has asserted it was hacked, alleging that the Iranian government was behind the breach, though this claim has not been substantiated. The allegations surfaced shortly after a Microsoft report revealed that an Iranian military intelligence group had attempted to compromise the email account of a former senior advisor to a presidential campaign.

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, stated that any news outlet publishing these internal communications is operating in favor of America’s adversaries.

The FBI confirmed that it is investigating the situation. Nevertheless, The New York Times has refrained from discussing its reasons for not publishing details regarding the internal communications. A representative from The Washington Post asserted that when evaluating received information, they consider the authenticity of the materials, the motivations of the source, and the broader public interest.

In response to the leaked documents, Politico officials acknowledged that the issues surrounding the origin of the documents were deemed more significant than the contents themselves. This decision came soon after Vance was announced as Trump’s vice presidential pick, prompting various news outlets to delve into his past criticisms of Trump.

Reflecting on the 2016 cycle, it was apparent that Trump and his team encouraged extensive coverage of materials hacked from Clinton’s campaign, often to great effect. Publications at that time produced sensational stories about the revelations contained within the hacked emails, drawing attention away from the ongoing discussions on Russian interference.

Unlike the 2016 situation where the hacked material was openly available, the current documents have not been so widely disseminated, which has allowed news organizations to deliberate their publishing choices cautiously. Some experts have expressed that the decision to hold back on publication this time is prudent, considering the uncertainty surrounding the source of the leaked documents.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor, expressed concern about potential manipulation by the Trump campaign, emphasizing the challenges posed by the misinformation era. On the other hand, Thomas Rid, who directs Johns Hopkins’ Alperovitch Institute for Cybersecurity Studies, aligns with the notion that the foreign interference threat is a more pressing story than the leaked documents themselves.

Yet, there are voices in the journalism community who believe the outlets may have missed an opportunity to inform the public. Jesse Eisinger, a senior reporter at ProPublica, argued that while certain details about Vance are publicly available, the vetting report could have provided insight into which statements were of particular concern to the campaign.

Eisinger concluded that once the accuracy of the material is verified, the story’s relevance should trump questions about the source.

Overall, the differing approaches taken by media outlets this cycle compared to 2016 reveal an evolution in practice as they navigate the complex dynamics of political campaigns, cybersecurity, and the dissemination of sensitive information.