The more we learn about former President Donald Trump’s apparent theft of documents from the White House, the worse the story gets. And not just for the legal jeopardy he has put himself in, but, more importantly, for the national security of the United States.
That is especially the case, in light of the recent revelations from Washington Post reporters Devlin Barrett and Carol Leonnig, that among the documents found in the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago were secrets pertaining to the nuclear program of a foreign nation. And there were other documents so highly classified that all but a small handful of U.S. government officials were denied the right to see them or even know about their existence.
The story, should it prove to be true, appears to confirm many of the worst fears national security experts have had with regard to the risks associated with Trump’s illegal relocation of the documents to his Florida home/country club. It makes it absolutely clear that this is not merely a dispute about “document storage”—as Republican defenders of Trump such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio would have you believe.
ADVERTISEMENT
Rubio, as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, ought to know better than to so willingly transform himself into a political parrot, demonstrating such little regard for the vital interests of the United States. The documents found at Mar-a-Lago are highly classified because they would cause grave damage to our country—and potentially to individuals working on our behalf—should they fall into the wrong hands. Storing them in Trump’s desk, or a closet at a country club that is already known to be a favored stop for foreign spies, certainly raises the likelihood that could have happened.
And that is to say nothing of the damage that could result had Trump—or anyone with access to the documents— shared them with the wrong people.
That is why it is vitally important that, contrary to the impulses of Judge Aileen Cannon, the last-minute Trump appointee whose ruling that the investigation be put on hold pending the appointment and review of a special master, is not only wrong-headed from a legal perspective as experts have argued, it is also profoundly dangerous.
Lives are at stake. We and our allies have been put at risk as a direct consequence of the actions of the former president. And we all will remain at risk until we know not just what he did—but why he did it.
Stealing documents like these is not an accident, not an oversight, not about a debate over whether they were Trump’s or not—which is how Trump’s defenders have sought to frame the discussion. There is simply no defense for this. The punishment for stealing such secrets (even if no one else ever saw them) is and should be severe.
The risk involved in taking these documents and then lying about having them is extraordinarily high. Therefore, the decision to do so must have been carefully made, even by a reckless narcissist like Trump. As such, there must have been a careful calculus made to take and hold these ultra-sensitive secrets.
It is essential that we find out why he took them, why he lied about having them, why he did not return them when subpoenaed, who may have seen them, whether copies were made, whether there are other such documents in his possession, and much much more. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Indeed, contrary to the measured pace of the investigation to date, when documents like these are stolen the issue must shift from caution and deference to a former president to swift containment of what could be a grievous national security breach. It is time for action and the severest penalties the law allows.
As a consequence, and given the gravity of Trump’s almost certain crimes, this moment presents a new and defining test for Attorney General Merrick Garland. It also presents one for President Joe Biden and for our justice system. There are no close calls here, and the costs of inaction, slow action, or tentativeness are incalculably high. Indeed, it is important to accept and acknowledge that these revelations, should they be true, make it clear that the “go slow” approach of the Department of Justice has proven to be ill-considered. Very ill-considered.
A police car is seen outside former US President Donald Trump's residence in Mar-A-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida on August 8, 2022.
GIORGIO VIERA/AFP via GettyMuch as Judge Cannon has erroneously argued should be done (a fact acknowledged even by Trump’s former Attorney General William Barr), the Justice Department has treated Trump as though he were due special treatment. The DOJ has gone slow. It has given him multiple opportunities to resolve the issues associated with these documents that would not be afforded to any of us.
Perhaps that would be understandable were Trump any other president. Perhaps that would be understandable had Robert Mueller not found a strong case to be made that Trump serially obstructed justice. Perhaps that would be understandable were Trump not responsible for a deadly coup attempt that culminated in an armed assault on the U.S. Capitol.
It seems far-fetched that such a man should be granted special courtesies, that his word and assurances should be accepted at face value, and that arguments that he had special prerogatives long denied other presidents by the courts should be considered. But once it became clear that he was likely in violation of the Espionage Act, likely obstructing justice, and likely putting the lives of our human intelligence assets at risk, it should have been clear that the time for deference to this one-man assault on our interests and values should have come to an end.
In the same way, any Republican leader who reads this story and does not immediately condemn Trump’s actions and demand full prosecution by the Justice Department has forever forfeited the right to comment on our national security—or to ever again assert their patriotism.
Predictably, the GOP response to these revelations has been to condemn the leaks that led to The Washington Post story and to question their credibility and the motives behind them. That is, of course, a deflection that should not be given credence by editors, producers, or the rest of us. But it is worse than that. It gives cover to someone who has shown a reckless disregard for his country and his oath of office.
We have, in the past, assumed the latest Trumpian outrage would be a turning point and, ultimately, lead to him being held to account for the damage he has done. If this particular case—egregious as it is and with so much clear evidence to support ongoing, grave wrongdoing on Trump’s part—does not prove to be that moment, we should not only lament the failure of our justice system, we should begin to prepare for the potentially severe consequences of his treachery.
