Leaks of confidential government information are nothing new in Washington. But a recent spate of news stories about national security operations has emboldened advocates of new punishments for revealing classified information.

Some of these latter-day “plumbers” would target not just the leakers but also journalists. At the risk of seeming to defend our own vested interests, we would caution against such an escalation in the war on leaks.

At a recent hearing of a House Judiciary subcommittee, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., suggested that federal prosecutors should subpoena journalists and demand the names of their sources who provide classified information.

“Put them in front of the grand jury,” Gowdy said. “You either answer the question or you’re going to be held in contempt and go to jail, which is what I thought all reporters aspire to do anyway.”

In our system, government can and does strive to keep secrets. And in many cases, that’s reasonable: It’s hard to run an intelligence service or fight a war without holding back some information. But when confidential information does come into the possession of a free press, both the courts and the executive branch often (though not always) have recognized that legal action against journalists poses a threat to the First Amendment.

The Obama administration has been aggressive in pursuing alleged leakers, bringing civilian charges in five cases, in addition to a military charge against Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is suspected of providing classified material to WikiLeaks.

But the public has been well served by a policy of focusing on leakers, not reporters. In its agitation over the latest leaks, Congress shouldn’t disturb that balance.

 

Copy the Story Link