OPINION: The biggest potential danger from the Hur report is the one no one is talking about.

Editor’s note: Gary Ross is director of intelligence studies at Texas A&M University’s Bush School in Washington, DC. Mr. Ross previously conducted and supervised criminal, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism investigations and operations for the Department of Defense, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Homeland Security, and oversaw the intelligence community’s national unauthorized disclosure program. His views expressed in this commentary are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Bush School.view more opinions On CNN.

CNN
—

Over the past year, there has been an alarming rise in the number of current and former government officials accused of failing to adequately protect classified information. This includes classified documents recovered from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago mansion in August 2022, and documents recovered from former President Joe Biden and former President Mike Pence between December 2022 and January 2023. Includes additional classified documents discovered and turned over at the Vice President’s home.

Media and public attention has focused almost entirely on two aspects of these cases: potential criminal charges and political liability. On the legal front, Trump has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of unlawful possession of national defense information and conspiracy to obstruct justice, although the decision was made not to file criminal charges against Biden and Pence. Legal experts and political strategists continue to debate the relative validity and fairness of these decisions by the Justice Department. Trump has denied all wrongdoing.

Questions also remain about the political influence of Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump, who are expected to be the major party candidates in the next presidential election. Since Special Counsel Robert Hur announced his decision not to indict Biden earlier this month, attention has focused on the potential damage to the sitting president. Although his report concludes that criminal prosecution for intentional retention of classified documents is unwarranted, in several passages it notes the president’s mental acuity, particularly when the report describes him as a “sympathetic and well-intentioned man.” He seems to be questioning the fact that he calls him an “older man.” “I have a bad memory” has attracted a lot of attention.

But as much as legal and political considerations come into play, there is also a need to address a third important area: the potential impact these incidents could have on U.S. national security. there is.

The United States declassifies classified information as classified, classified, and Designated as strictly confidential. All government employees granted security clearance receive training on procedures for storing classified materials. National security is at risk in many ways when sensitive information is not protected, whether it’s keeping documents in a home office or garage like Biden did or in the bathroom like Trump did. There is a possibility that

The most obvious threat is that adversaries will have easy access to sensitive materials and the sensitive information they contain. It is no secret that foreign intelligence services target the United States to gather information about our defense and intelligence capabilities and the intentions of our leaders. The documents recovered from both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump reportedly contain material classified at the Top Secret/Classified Information level and have special safeguards in place to prevent unauthorized access. must be stored in a classified classified information facility. A person’s home (or property attached to a private resort), even a home occupied by a current or former government official, is almost certainly no more secure than his SCIF. This increases the chances that an attacker will be able to successfully access sensitive documents stored in these locations.

If an adversary recognizes a pattern of high-level officials improperly storing documents, they may change tactics and target these less secure locations. For example, rather than attempting to conduct a covert operation to covertly infiltrate an embassy or other federal building, you could simply consider invading a private residence.

Besides the actual information contained in the report, one of the biggest concerns is the confidential sources and methods used to obtain the information. These include phone wiretaps, computer intrusions, images from satellites and drones, and the most sensitive source of information: recruited human assets. If an adversary’s counterintelligence agency can determine how the United States obtained certain information, that agency can take steps to prevent vulnerabilities to further collection in the future. This could mean removing eavesdropping equipment, hiding assets from aerial images, and, in a worst-case scenario, capturing and executing sources recruited by U.S. intelligence agencies.

In addition to the potential threat to existing intelligence sources, individuals considering risking their lives by cooperating with the United States may also have second thoughts. If potential wealthy individuals believe that the United States cannot protect their identities, they will be less likely to cooperate with agencies like the CIA. Human intelligence sources provide unique access and insight into enemy intentions. Calling into question our ability to protect their identities and reducing their numbers would be a significant self-inflicted blow to our national security.

Adversaries aren’t the only ones monitoring how we protect sensitive information. U.S. intelligence agencies regularly share information with allied intelligence agencies such as Britain’s MI6, Australia’s secret intelligence services, and other agencies of the “Five Eyes” alliance. In return, these partners provide the United States with information that helps advance joint national interests, such as counterterrorism. If our allies believe that our senior officials cannot adequately protect their information, they may reconsider their level of cooperation. Given today’s multiple threats, the United States cannot face it alone.

Finally, U.S. intelligence officials, bound by the same oath to protect classified information, may begin to question the gravity of their obligations. If the storage of confidential documents outside government-approved areas becomes the norm, and the perception that the effects of this are just a façade becomes widespread, the risk of new incidents will increase. This will only further weaken national security. While I am confident that the overwhelming majority of patriotic men and women in the U.S. intelligence community take seriously their duty to protect classified information, even a slight lapse in vigilance can have serious repercussions. There is sex.

Whether negligent or intentional, careless or criminal, we should expect more from our highest ranking officials.