Speaker 1: From Bloomberg News and iHeartRadio. It's the big take. I'm
Speaker 1: West Ksova today. The suspect in the classified documents leak
Speaker 1: maybe in custody, but the global fallout is far from over.
Speaker 1: The US intelligence community can breathe a small sigh of
Speaker 1: relief with the arrest of Jack to Shah, the Massachusetts
Speaker 1: Air National guardsmen suspected in one of the most damaging
Speaker 1: breaches of classified material in years, but sealing the leak
Speaker 1: won't be enough to satisfy the UK, Israel, and other
Speaker 1: close US allies.
Speaker 2: The State Department is downplaying the conversations it's having with
Speaker 2: foreign governments about the leaks, but that's not what we're
Speaker 2: hearing from foreign capitals.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's Courtney McBride reports that the Biden administration is working
Speaker 1: fast to calm anger that so many shared secrets were
Speaker 1: made public and explained to allies how a low ranking
Speaker 1: twenty one year old could have gotten access to such
Speaker 1: sensitive files in the first place. Court There's been a
Speaker 1: whole lot of reporting about these leaks and what's in them,
Speaker 1: and it's still moving pretty quickly. Can you just give
Speaker 1: us a brief sum up about what they contained?
Speaker 2: Well, The leaks include a lot of documents that appear
Speaker 2: to come mostly from the Pentagon and include US assessments
Speaker 2: of Ukraine's prospects in its defense against Russia, as well
Speaker 2: as some intelligence that the US appears to have collected
Speaker 2: on its own allies and partners. Some of the information
Speaker 2: on partners in particular has caused some diplomatic consternation, and
Speaker 2: the State Department is trying to help to repair some
Speaker 2: ties may have been a bit freed.
Speaker 1: And that's really what we're talking about today, is that
Speaker 1: it's one thing for this information to come out, but
Speaker 1: it's another thing or what it means for the US's
Speaker 1: relationship with all these other countries and the kind of
Speaker 1: trust that they have in each other when it comes
Speaker 1: not just as spying, but the keeping track of that
Speaker 1: information so it doesn't go public.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I think several of the foreign officials with whom
Speaker 2: we spoke said that it was not particularly surprising that
Speaker 2: the US was doing this kind of data collection, but
Speaker 2: what was really concerning was that it didn't manage to
Speaker 2: keep that information private. So there's certainly concerns about the
Speaker 2: intelligence that allies and partners might share with the United
Speaker 2: States perhaps being compromised because the US is not being
Speaker 2: as cautious as it ought to be, and there's a
Speaker 2: lot of fence mending that seems to be happening behind
Speaker 2: the scenes.
Speaker 1: Can you describe a little bit about what other governments
Speaker 1: have come forward to say so.
Speaker 2: Some have expressed concern learn that the US assessments of
Speaker 2: Russia's prospects against Ukraine and of Ukraine's own shortcomings in
Speaker 2: the cases of air defense and ammunition are particularly damaging
Speaker 2: that they could embolden Russia to seize on those weaknesses
Speaker 2: in Ukraine's abilities. I think one of the most damaging
Speaker 2: elements of the leak, particularly in the view of a
Speaker 2: lot of the US allies and partners who are along
Speaker 2: with Washington providing extensive support to Ukraine as it attempts
Speaker 2: to defend against Russia, was this sense that the US
Speaker 2: does not have a lot of confidence in Ukraine's ability
Speaker 2: to continue to hold off the Russian onslaught. They pointed
Speaker 2: to specific information about Ukraine's lack of air defense, capability
Speaker 2: to intercept incoming Russian missiles, and just the shortage of ammunition,
Speaker 2: which has been fairly widely reported. But this really validated
Speaker 2: some of that reporting in a way that the US
Speaker 2: government and has avoided.
Speaker 1: Doing, Courtney. Aside from the information that is in these
Speaker 1: leaked documents, there's been a big conversation about the danger
Speaker 1: of adversaries finding out how this information got out.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I think the level of detail contained in the
Speaker 2: documents about Russia in particular puts at risk what the
Speaker 2: intelligence community refers to as sources and methods, and so
Speaker 2: the fear is that US intelligence sources, whether they're spies
Speaker 2: or Russian officials, are at risk that Moscow could find
Speaker 2: them and take them out of Commission Courtney.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk a lot more about that in
Speaker 1: a minute, but let's take a moment and talk about
Speaker 1: the suspect in the case, Jack to Sharah, and what
Speaker 1: he's alleged to have done. And I should point out
Speaker 1: here that everything we're talking about here that he's alleged
Speaker 1: to have done are just that there are allegations. None
Speaker 1: of this has been proven.
Speaker 2: Jack to Shara is a twenty one year old member
Speaker 2: the Massachusetts Air National Guard whose specialty was in the
Speaker 2: information systems area. He had a security clearance as part
Speaker 2: of his role, and so he would have had access
Speaker 2: to at least some sensitive information and.
Speaker 1: The way he allegedly leaked these documents was kind of unusual.
Speaker 2: Yes, Instead of going to a journalist as some leakers
Speaker 2: have done in the past, Tashera initially shared these very
Speaker 2: sensitive documents on discord, which is a platform that's used
Speaker 2: by gamers, in a small group that he was unofficially leading.
Speaker 2: And in this discord chat group, in addition to video games,
Speaker 2: the members would talk about patriotism, about God, about guns,
Speaker 2: and as the investigation proceeds, this may factor into to
Speaker 2: share his alleged motives for leaking the information.
Speaker 1: Oftentimes it takes a long time to identify a leaker,
Speaker 1: and they found him if he is indeed the person
Speaker 1: who leaked these documents, pretty quickly they did.
Speaker 2: It was definitely a usual in these types of cases.
Speaker 2: He does not seem to have covered his tracks, perhaps
Speaker 2: as well as past leakers have done, and so it
Speaker 2: was very quick process for journalists, law enforcement, and even
Speaker 2: other independent investigators to identify and locate him.
Speaker 1: There's one thing that I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: find curious, which is that some of the numbers having
Speaker 1: to do with war casualties in Ukraine appear to have
Speaker 1: been doctored to show that there were more Ukrainian casualties
Speaker 1: and fewer Russian casualties.
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean, I think that has been really the
Speaker 2: discrepancy between presumably the original documents and those that have
Speaker 2: been shared that a lot of folks have seized on.
Speaker 1: Does that suggest that perhaps there might have been some
Speaker 1: Russian involvement here.
Speaker 2: In our reporting, officials have told us that they have
Speaker 2: not ruled out the possibility that Russia was involved. We've
Speaker 2: spoken to some intelligence experts who said that there's a
Speaker 2: concern that the Russian security Service could have used Americans
Speaker 2: as unwitting pawns in an effort to obtain and disseminate
Speaker 2: our very sensitive information.
Speaker 1: You right about how there are some pretty awkward conversations
Speaker 1: going on behind the scenes. Joe Biden was recently in
Speaker 1: the UK and South Korea's president's coming to Washington later
Speaker 1: this month, and he's got some explaining to do, doesn't he.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I think beyond the content of the leaked documents,
Speaker 2: the real challenge is what it shows about the US's
Speaker 2: ability to secure its information and the information of its
Speaker 2: allies and partners. There are some uncomfortable conversations happening in
Speaker 2: the US and foreign capitals as these governments really try
Speaker 2: to understand what happened. But at the same time, as
Speaker 2: we've reported, so many of these countries rely very heavily
Speaker 2: on US intelligence collection, and so while they can express frustration,
Speaker 2: they can seek assurances from the US that this sort
Speaker 2: of thing will happen again. They're in something of a
Speaker 2: tough spot and that they have to continue to rely
Speaker 2: on the US and trust that this won't happen again.
Speaker 1: Can you describe some of those uncomfortable conversations. What do
Speaker 1: we know about what US diplomats, even the President may
Speaker 1: be telling their counterparts in other capitals.
Speaker 2: So the State Department is downplaying the conversations it's having
Speaker 2: with foreign governments about the leagues, but that's not what
Speaker 2: we're hearing from foreign capitals. In fact, many of them
Speaker 2: are deeply frustrated. This goes beyond embarrassment. This is a
Speaker 2: real breach in their view, not just a breach of trust.
Speaker 2: I think it comes as no surprise to most observers
Speaker 2: of the national security environment that the US conducts surveillance
Speaker 2: on even its closest friends, But the fact that this
Speaker 2: information got out I think is particularly troubling for many
Speaker 2: One example, is Israel, one of the US's closest allies,
Speaker 2: has expressed concern over the apparent US surveillance of Mosad,
Speaker 2: it's intelligence agency, and.
Speaker 1: What did the documents have to say about that?
Speaker 2: Israel has been experiencing popular protests over proposed changes to
Speaker 2: the country's judicial system, and the documents leaked from the
Speaker 2: US indicate agency support for popular protest. So the understanding
Speaker 2: that we have from our reporting is that the Israelis
Speaker 2: are not necessarily bothered so much by the content of
Speaker 2: the leaks, but the fact of the CIA's surveillance of Mosad.
Speaker 1: When we come back all the other countries that are
Speaker 1: demanding answers from the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: On the intelligence leaks, what I can tell you is this,
Speaker 3: we have engaged with our allies and partners since these
Speaker 3: leaks came out, and we you've done so at high levels,
Speaker 3: and we have made clear our commitment to safeguarding intelligence
Speaker 3: and our commitment to our security partnerships. What I've heard
Speaker 3: so far, at least, is an appreciation for the steps
Speaker 3: that we're taking, and it's not affected our cooperation. I
Speaker 3: just haven't seen that.
Speaker 1: That Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln trying to put his
Speaker 1: best foot forward in a difficult situation. Courtney, we talked
Speaker 1: about leaks involving two US allies, Ukraine in Israel. What
Speaker 1: about the UK, which is of course probably the United
Speaker 1: States most important ally.
Speaker 2: So part of the US UK special relationship involves a
Speaker 2: considerable amount of intelligence sharing, and we understood from the
Speaker 2: UK that this was a particularly troubling incident for them
Speaker 2: and that they were going to press it with the
Speaker 2: United States. That being said, the White House has claimed
Speaker 2: that the leaks did not even come up during a
Speaker 2: conversation between President Biden and Prime Minister Sunak.
Speaker 1: And so even though the White House and the State
Speaker 1: Department are kind of downplaying it, it's clear that they're
Speaker 1: burning up the phone lines here. And you're right too
Speaker 1: that there are other allies involved that may not have
Speaker 1: gotten sensitive material leak, but who nevertheless don't want to
Speaker 1: be named in a classified trove.
Speaker 2: Of course, you know, there are any number of allies
Speaker 2: and partners who feed information into the US and benefit
Speaker 2: from US intelligence collection, whether it's Washington alerting them of
Speaker 2: threats abroad or at home, and the leaks covered US
Speaker 2: allies and partners around the world from France to Egypt
Speaker 2: to South Korea. South Korean president is coming to Washington
Speaker 2: to meet with President Biden for a previously scheduled meeting
Speaker 2: that now will have an additional complicated element.
Speaker 1: And China also made an appearance in the documents.
Speaker 2: Yes, there are reports that the documents include information on
Speaker 2: additional Chinese spy balloons, as well as details about China's
Speaker 2: military capabilities and readiness.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Egypt, and that was one of the leak
Speaker 1: documents that made me sit up in my chair. What
Speaker 1: exactly did that contain?
Speaker 2: So that document suggested that Egypt was planning to sell
Speaker 2: weapons to Russia, and this was something that Egyptian President
Speaker 2: Abdel Fatal Cisi vehemently denied. But that was, as you said,
Speaker 2: one of the more surprising elements of this trove, because.
Speaker 1: That would be a big deal. Egypt has been an
Speaker 1: alley of the US and receives quite a bit of
Speaker 1: annual foreign aid from the United States.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and Russia, of course, is subject to all manner
Speaker 2: of sanctions and arms purchasing restrictions.
Speaker 1: Courtney, this term five Eyes has been coming up in
Speaker 1: connection with these leak documents. This is a very well
Speaker 1: known organization inside the intelligence and foreign policy community, but
Speaker 1: I think a lot of US don't really know very
Speaker 1: much about it. What is Five Eyes?
Speaker 2: Five Eyes is a particularly intensive intelligence sharing alliance involving
Speaker 2: the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This
Speaker 2: is sort of the closest intel relationship that the United
Speaker 2: States has.
Speaker 1: And what does this organization.
Speaker 2: Do exactly what it sounds like, share intelligence that the
Speaker 2: various agencies in each respective country collect about threats and
Speaker 2: other relevant information around the world.
Speaker 1: And so what is your reporting telling you about? What
Speaker 1: the conversation among the Five Eyes nations has been since
Speaker 1: these documents have come to light.
Speaker 2: So this is perhaps the most awkward set of conversations
Speaker 2: because these are the closest US intelligence partners. These countries
Speaker 2: are providing particularly sensitive information, and the risk posed by
Speaker 2: a leak from the United States is not just a
Speaker 2: reputational or an informational risk for the United States, but
Speaker 2: it's also for those countries that may have been the
Speaker 2: sources of some of that information.
Speaker 1: A courtney, I suppose it's easy to criticize this leak
Speaker 1: sitting from another capital when it's not yours, But I imagine
Speaker 1: these other countries too, know that they could one day
Speaker 1: be the ones having to explain an intelligence leak.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I mean, it's happened before, and unfortunately, it probably
Speaker 2: will happen again. All of these countries recognize that they
Speaker 2: too are vulnerable to both human error or human leaks,
Speaker 2: and perhaps technological hacking. And so while they are privately
Speaker 2: rebuking the United States and seeking those assurances that the
Speaker 2: US is taking all appropriate measures to prevent it from
Speaker 2: happening again, they recognize that they could be in this
Speaker 2: position themselves.
Speaker 1: After the break. Will these leaks blow over or will
Speaker 1: they cause lasting damage in America's relationships with its allies?
Speaker 1: Are you concerned about the League?
Speaker 4: Well, I'm not concerned about the League because and I'm
Speaker 4: concerned and it happened, but there's nothing contemporaneous, so I'm
Speaker 4: aware of that is of Great Counselorence Accordney.
Speaker 1: At first, there was a lot of discussion about how
Speaker 1: someone so junior could have access to this material, but
Speaker 1: it seems that it's fairly common for that to happen.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: You know, there are roughly three million people with security
Speaker 2: clearances according to our reporting, and very young members of
Speaker 2: the US military require access to sensitive information in order
Speaker 2: to do their jobs.
Speaker 1: And I imagine they go through quite extensive background.
Speaker 2: Checks, yes, and there are periodic reviews of security clearances
Speaker 2: to ensure that people are not compromised financially or otherwise.
Speaker 1: And yet, as we've learned and over the years, and
Speaker 1: we're learning again now, that isn't always enough.
Speaker 2: That's right, And you know, I think investigators are going
Speaker 2: to dig very very deeply into potential motives in this case,
Speaker 2: and you know that could affect the way that they
Speaker 2: assess clearances going forward.
Speaker 1: You had said, how all these countries know it could
Speaker 1: happen to them, and so that sort of tempers what
Speaker 1: they want to say publicly in criticizing the US. The
Speaker 1: nature of this leak, though, seems so different from other
Speaker 1: national security breaches, where perhaps you would have a long
Speaker 1: time spy who had been caught a senior person. This
Speaker 1: was allegedly a young man twenty one years old who
Speaker 1: very casually was able to get this stuff and share
Speaker 1: it on a platform for gamers. Is the way this
Speaker 1: information came out. One of the things that's alarming other
Speaker 1: nations that it was just so easy apparently for this stuff,
Speaker 1: this very sensitive stuff, to come to light.
Speaker 2: You know, I think there are a lot of questions
Speaker 2: about the level of access this person appears to have had,
Speaker 2: the number of supervisory officials who who may have dropped
Speaker 2: the ball, and I think that as part of the
Speaker 2: Justice Department investigation, which is a criminal inquiry, and the
Speaker 2: Defense Department's own internal assessment, we may hear quite a
Speaker 2: bit more.
Speaker 1: I mean, talk a little bit about how information this
Speaker 1: sensitive is usually handled, who's allowed to see it, and
Speaker 1: how someone like this could possibly ever even come into
Speaker 1: contact with it. There are a.
Speaker 2: Lot of protocols that go into handling of classified documents.
Speaker 2: There are escalating levels of classification, and thus a smaller
Speaker 2: number of people have access to it, and many of
Speaker 2: these documents are clearly marked, numbered, tracked very carefully, so
Speaker 2: that raises a lot of questions about the ability of
Speaker 2: this person to not only access, but perhaps remove these
Speaker 2: documents from a secure facility.
Speaker 1: The other thing that's very interesting about this was how
Speaker 1: many countries and different sorts of intelligence this encompass, so
Speaker 1: that it wasn't as though this person had limited access
Speaker 1: to something he should or stumbled across it, but seemed
Speaker 1: to have access to a very wide range of classified material.
Speaker 2: There are a lot of different sources of intelligence in
Speaker 2: the United States. There are eighteen different organizations that make
Speaker 2: up the US intelligence community, and of.
Speaker 1: Course the government generates a lot of reports, and so
Speaker 1: that means a lot of classified documents out there and
Speaker 1: a lot of people who are cleared to see them.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Our reporting indicates that there are about three million
Speaker 2: people in the United States with security clearances.
Speaker 1: One thing that's gotten a lot of attention was that
Speaker 1: some of these documents had classification markings on them that
Speaker 1: said that they weren't to be shared with foreign allies.
Speaker 2: Yes, the Defense Department and the intelligence community used a
Speaker 2: variety of different designations, not necessarily always on classified materials.
Speaker 2: Sometimes there's are contracting documents that indicate that they should
Speaker 2: not be shared with foreign nationals. It's not necessarily about adversaries.
Speaker 2: But there are certain documents that, for whatever reason, are
Speaker 2: deemed sensitive enough that they should be viewed and handled
Speaker 2: only by US citizens.
Speaker 1: So it's not necessarily a significant thing that those markings
Speaker 1: were on there, that there were specially sensitive.
Speaker 2: Not necessarily, but you know, there are any number of
Speaker 2: additional markings that could indicate that they are.
Speaker 1: We've talked a lot about this investigation, both to find
Speaker 1: the leader and also to find out how we got it.
Speaker 1: And really the point there, I suppose, is to seal
Speaker 1: the leaks so it can't happen again. What usually happens
Speaker 1: in a situation like this, How do they then review
Speaker 1: what they're doing and try to tighten the screws on intelligence?
Speaker 2: Well, there are different avenues of the investigation. As we said,
Speaker 2: the Justice Department has the lead on the criminal investigation,
Speaker 2: but the Defense Department and different constituent organizations are really
Speaker 2: going to look at their own processes, whether it is
Speaker 2: look at who was supervising this person in the particular unit,
Speaker 2: you know, how much information the unit itself had access to.
Speaker 2: All of those protocols are going to be examined, and
Speaker 2: often individuals have to go through a periodic review of
Speaker 2: their own security clearance and you may see additional sort
Speaker 2: of follow up investigations of individuals.
Speaker 1: Is there something that the US is going to have
Speaker 1: to do to win back trust?
Speaker 2: I don't know that there's necessarily going to be a
Speaker 2: quid pro quo. I think there will certainly be some
Speaker 2: mea culpas issued. But you know, as our reporting found,
Speaker 2: many countries both understand that the shoe could be on
Speaker 2: the other foot, but also know that there is no
Speaker 2: substitute for the intelligence that they gain from the United States,
Speaker 2: and so they have to assume a certain amount of
Speaker 2: risk in order to benefit from that.
Speaker 1: Stories like this are always fascinating to read. You get
Speaker 1: a glimpse behind the curtain into this secret world. We've
Speaker 1: talked about these kind of difficult conversations that the US
Speaker 1: now has to have with allies. But ultimately does this
Speaker 1: cause real damage or is it just a moment of
Speaker 1: sort of excitement that dissipates over time.
Speaker 2: I don't know that it necessarily causes severe damage to
Speaker 2: the alliance on partnership relationships, but there are serious risks
Speaker 2: for Ukraine in the publication of confidential US assessments of
Speaker 2: the war situation, you know, one analyst suggested that the
Speaker 2: US has now increased the risk to Ukraine by allowing
Speaker 2: its assessments of Ukraine's weaknesses to become public, and so
Speaker 2: it should, as a result, increase assistance to help Ukraine
Speaker 2: to mitigate that risk, whether that's additional air defense capability
Speaker 2: or some other measures that they really need to help.
Speaker 1: Courtney mcbriene, Thanks so much for coming on the show,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me, Thanks for listening to us here
Speaker 1: at The Big Take. It's a daily podcast from Bloomberg
Speaker 1: and iHeartRadio. For more shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. And we'd love to
Speaker 1: hear from you. Email us questions or comments to Big
Speaker 1: Take at Bloomberg dot net. The supervising producer of The
Speaker 1: Big Take and the producer of this episode is Vicky Bergalina.
Speaker 1: Our senior producer is Katherine Fink. Raphael M. Sely is
Speaker 1: our engineer. Our original music was composed by Leo Sidron.
Speaker 1: I'm West Kasova. We'll be back tomorrow with another Big Take.