Several news organizations, including Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, have received confidential information from within the Donald Trump campaign. This material reportedly includes a vetting report on JD Vance as a potential vice presidential candidate. However, these outlets have chosen not to disclose specific details about the information they received.
These news organizations have instead focused on reporting the possibility of a breach in the Trump campaign and discussed the information in general terms. This approach contrasts sharply with the 2016 presidential campaign, during which Russian hackers exposed emails related to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which were then widely covered by mainstream media.
Politico reported over the weekend that it began receiving emails on July 22 from a person identified only as “Robert.” These emails included a 271-page document related to the campaign’s vetting of Vance and a partial report on Senator Marco Rubio, another potential vice-presidential candidate. Both Politico and The Washington Post verified the authenticity of these documents through independent sources.
The New York Times described the Vance report as containing potentially embarrassing or damaging statements, including comments by Vance that were critical of Trump.
The identity of the individual responsible for leaking the material remains unknown. Politico stated that it could not verify who “Robert” was, and when questioned, the leaker advised them not to inquire about the source of the documents.
The Trump campaign has claimed that it was the target of a hack, suggesting that Iran might be responsible. This allegation followed a Microsoft report detailing an attempt by an Iranian military intelligence unit to access the email account of a former senior advisor to a presidential campaign, though the report did not specify which campaign was targeted.
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, accused media outlets of acting on behalf of “America’s enemies” by publishing or discussing the leaked documents.
The FBI has confirmed that it is investigating the matter, but details remain sparse. The New York Times declined to comment on why it chose not to publish the details of the internal communications, while The Washington Post explained that it carefully considers the authenticity of the material, the motives of the source, and the public interest before deciding what to publish.
Politico’s spokesperson, Brad Dayspring, mentioned that the origins of the documents and how they were obtained were deemed more newsworthy than the content of the documents themselves. This decision was underscored by the fact that once Vance was announced as Trump’s running mate, various media outlets quickly uncovered past statements he made that were unfavorable to Trump.
Reflecting on the events of the 2016 election, it’s noteworthy that Trump and his team at the time encouraged the coverage of documents related to Clinton’s campaign that were released by Wikileaks. This led to widespread media attention, with some outlets focusing on trivial details, which experts believe played into the hands of the hackers.
In contrast, this year, the leaked materials were not widely disseminated, reducing the pressure on news organizations to publish them. Some media outlets, however, were criticized for potentially overcorrecting from the lessons learned in 2016 by not reporting more on the leaked Trump campaign material, despite its authenticity.
Experts like Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Thomas Rid argue that the news organizations made the right call in withholding the details, given the uncertainty around the source and the possibility of being manipulated during an age of widespread misinformation. However, some journalists believe that the media could have shared more without compromising their integrity.
