Why arguments against WaPo’s Oval Office leaks are wrong

Coverage Type: 

[Commentary] The Washington Post made waves on Aug 3 when it published the full transcripts of President Donald Trump’s erratic phone calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia that occurred just after he was inaugurated. Despite their clear news value, some journalists and pundits questioned whether the leaked transcripts should be published.

Far from being criticized for publishing these leaked transcripts, The Washington Post should be commended. The Trump Administration has spent the last few months trying to cut off all avenues of transparency to the White House, refusing to release visitor logs, keeping Trump’s schedule opaque, limiting the information in readouts of calls to foreign leaders, refusing to hold a presidential press conference since February, and even demanding journalists do not record the administration’s daily press briefings. The Trump Administration may complain all day about leaks, but leaks are increasingly the only way the American public can learn what the administration is really doing. And the news value of these transcripts could not be more obvious: They showed Trump did not know basic facts, that he asked a foreign leader to lie to the press for him, that he knew from the start that his signature campaign promise to “make Mexico pay for the wall” was bogus, and that he has no sense for how allies should cooperate with each other.

[Trevor Timm is the executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation.]


Why arguments against WaPo’s Oval Office leaks are wrong