Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Your Take: Securing top secret documents

Your Take: Securing top secret documents

With all the whirlwind media coverage about classified documents turning up where they should not, we asked our readers:

How might we provide a more secure process for documents marked classified, such that when administrations leave, they don’t accidentally or on purpose, take classified information with them?


We appreciate everyone who sent us their take. Overall, there was broad agreement that libraries handle checking in and checking out books, videos, etc. effectively, with due dates and fines. People asked why don't the archives, intelligence services and defense department meet this minimal level of record keeping? We heard from several former officials and government contractors with experience handling classified documents, noting that elected officials seem not to be bound by classified document basic protocol. Is it a training issue? Additionally, there is also some general agreement to review which documents become classified in the first place. When people working within the government stop to ask “should this be classified,” there is a strong tendency to do so, “just in case.” This might be an overabundance of caution to protect themselves, as well as the important information contained in the document.

Several people also suggested the use of RFID computer chips to track documents, which is intriguing to think about. Other sentiments fell into comparisons between alleged intentions between the two cases before the public. And others, like me, wondered how often this has happened, historically? Finally, one submission noted that we seem to handle classified documents amongst elected officials on an honor system. Unfortunately, given the lack of honor in our body politic today, it appears more rigor is needed.

Here are a selection of your takes, lightly edited for clarity and length.

As a former high-ranking government official, I did not have any problem identifying what was marked classified. I would suggest the following because I feel this is largely due (at least in Biden's case) to sloppy staff work. First, all staff handling these documents should be well-trained in records management requirements and procedures. Second, someone at Archives or the records lead at the White House should review and sign off on any release of documents to a private citizen who was formerly a president or other high-ranking official. Third, (National) Archives or another oversight organization should do periodic audits to ensure that the proper security and due diligence has been done with the documents. Lastly, Congress needs to take a look at the whole classification process. Government employees tend to err on the side of over classification to protect against disclosures of "sensitive" information. As a result, some material that shouldn't be classified is and gets the same treatment as material that actually is sensitive. As part of that Congressional review, a GAO audit of the current process should be done. ~Tony Trenkle

First, thank you for taking a preventive cut at this touchy subject. Your approach reminded me of my days as a Marine officer’s wife. When it was time to move we packed nothing except overnight bags and one box of papers (birth certificates, passports, insurance stuff, etc.) Granted, if there was trash in a waste basket it was packed as well, but if a representative of the Federal Archives were added to the mix, I don’t think there would be many mistakes. ~Jeanene Louden

While it seems to some that the following would be overkill, it seems that every document that is maintained in the administrative offices should be reviewed by archivists (whether a panel or employees of the National Archives, with the appropriate security clearances) before being packed up for transition to either a location selected by the exiting occupants or the National Archives. Classified documents would be subject to a more serious review, with a determination made as to whether they should remain classified or if they can be declassified. One way in which this process can be expedited would be to review classified documents annually and separate them out for maintenance in an appropriate secured site. The exiting occupants would need to sign off on the transition of the documents, and note that they are aware of the process and have complied with the requirements of the review. ~scmhughes

Our local library knows who has borrowed material, and when it is due to be returned. Why can't the GSA as well...? In the case of government documents, anyone who borrows that material must have proper clearance to see those documents. (Right?) Given that, is it so difficult for the GSA to know who has what documents? And why can't they simply give an outgoing administration a list of what's "due to be returned"? ~John Wright

Until science and funding catch up, better day-to-day accountability is a must! Including items flushed down a toilet. In the future, printable micro-chips and associated strategically placed detectors/alarms would help prevent human error. It costs money and takes extra time. Are we up to it? ~Roland Herwig

Perhaps we could learn a lesson from the library system in America. What if classified documents had to be signed out. The person who signed them out would be solely responsible for their security until they were returned, with sanctions applied if they were not. In order to be eligible to sign these documents out, you would need an access card, with various levels of access based upon your security clearance. Each copy of each classified document would have an individual Identification code, such as a bar or QR code. That way, if a document was discovered in an unsecure location, there would be a way to track exactly whose copy it was and hold them accountable. ~Jeffery S. Ward Sr.

I agree that there is a systemic problem here. Maybe there needs to be an officer in charge of the classified materials, especially very sensitive ones so they are not allowed to leave the White House or Pentagon or wherever that is supposed to be. Maybe when the President and VP leave office someone needs to specifically screen their belongings to make sure classified documents don’t leave. I wonder if this might be a problem in the military as well? ~Sheri Bortz

Based on my 36 years in the military, and 30 years as a DOD Civilian holding various security clearances and being involved in watching the "Classification creep," I suggest the question is beyond "how to secure" and must include discussion on WHO and WHICH various items are "Classified or Over Classified." The misuse of various pieces of the security apparatuses has played a large part in how "Black budgets" continue to spiral out of control. Adding to the problem has been the use of the "I Gotcha" (politics), enabled by the Media, and a loss of protection for whistleblowers. Tactics that give the appearance of a democratic process while actually avoiding discussing issues that could point to the hypocrisy and lack of a workable plan on ALL and behind both sides. ~Michael Marthaller

What is surprising about the handling of classified documents is the apparent lack of a strict protocol of custody. We seem to have some kind of 'honor system' that permits officials or staff to receive the material, remove it from the secure location, without any persistent daily routine or follow up on where it is stored, under what conditions, and who else is present when the material is being consulted. ~Robert Whitman

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less