Re: the Secret Service agent placed on leave for leaking information about working on
@VP J.D. Vance's detail -- I have a nuanced opinion about it.
There's a very fine legal line between whistleblowing and leaking sensitive, classified information.
I'm offering this with caveats because I'm not a lawyer specializing in federal whistleblowing law.
That said, I have worked with Secret Service whistleblowers for more than a decade. I believe information about the vice presidential detail being overworked and stretched too thin in the story about VP JD Vance's Secret Service team that broke last week was protected whistleblowing speech, but there are other elements of that story that likely are just gratuitous griping and disclosures that do not constitute protected speech.
Because the agent has now been placed on administrative leave, the lawyers will hash it out. But when I write stories about the Secret Service, the military or other federal law enforcement agencies, I take special care not to disclose classified or sensitive scheduling issues and stick to reform issues that need addressing and actually jeopardize protectees and national security.
I've reported the same thing -- that the agents on Vance's detail are suffering serious morale problems -- for more than a year. This Secret Service leadership team, headed by Sean Curran, has spent an inordinate amount of time on witch hunts to find and punish my sources -- even dedicating one non-agent to the full-time task of trying to find them -- and polygraphing many agents and others at the USSS to try to ferret them out. This is a ridiculous use of government time and taxpayer funds -- especially when many reforms -- such as raising hiring and training standards for agents and UD officers -- are going unaddressed.
Yet, other details of the leak last week appear to be gratuitous partisan slams against Vance for being a very active and essential vice president and having young children that the USSS needs to protect. Kamala Harris did not travel internationally or domestically half as much as Vance does.
Yet, instead of placing more agents on the VP's detail to relieve the stress, the Secret Service leadership was simply ignoring a major morale issue. Of course, the agency has suffered manpower issues for years, so simply placing more agents on the detail is easier said than done. Still - there was a dire need for more agents on Vance's detail -- and the Secret Service leadership should have done whatever it takes to make that happen -- draw from Secret Service field offices around the country, DHS, and other federal agencies.
At the very least, Curran and his leadership team should have sat down with the vice president and the second lady and addressed some of the detail's concerns about Vance's frequent use of OTRs (quick, last-minute changes in scheduling known as off-the-records) and the burden that puts on the Secret Service.
Here's the gratuitous part of the leaks: Part of the story included information that Vance requested a Marine One trip to Joint Base Andrews for himself and his son so his son could get to a golf lesson. What public good did leaking that element serve?
And the reporters included an estimated hourly pricetag of $16,000 to $24,000 for operating Marine One -- that was just a partisan slam. Marine One has to be flown regularly every week -- what does it matter that Vance was planning to take it to Joint Base Andrews to accompany his son to his golf lesson? That should not have been leaked -- it was leaked to embarrass Vance - not to provide a public good.
After all, isn't Jennifer Siebel Newsom always pushing this idea that fathers need to take part in raising children far more than they typically do in the U.S.? Why should a USSS agent be disclosing the decision to use Marine One so Vance can accompany his son to a golf lesson - what public good is that serving?