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




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.