The Harris secrecy assessment

It’s likely Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris would be less secretive than her Republican rival, former President Donald Trump, but that is an almost nonexistent threshold.

While a Harris administration would likely be more transparent than a second Trump administration, maintaining transparency norms like publishing the White House visitor logs and releasing her tax returns, there are areas for concern, especially for whistleblowers.

Harris has not spoken explicitly about secrecy issues as vice president, but her time on the Senate Intelligence Committee provides insights on ways she could shape secrecy in the United States:

Espionage Act

Harris’ current position on persecuting journalists under the Espionage Act is not known.

In 2019, Harris didn’t clearly state if she thought it was constitutional to charge Julian Assange under the act. Instead she hedged, saying that if elected president, “The Justice Department should make independent decisions about prosecutions based on facts and the law. I would restore an independent DOJ and would not dictate or direct prosecutions.”

The silence on necessary reforms is remarkable considering that as vice president-elect (but still a senator), Harris herself could have been punished under the Espionage Act if she revealed classified information to President Joe Biden after he won the 2020 presidential election but before he received his security clearance. (The lack of reform is doubly remarkable considering that Biden may have broken the law for mishandling information the government purported to be classified.)

Press freedoms

As vice president, Harris has made few, if any, specific remarks on press freedoms beyond a social media post on World Press Freedom Day in 2021. She sat for limited interviews during her presidential campaign and hasn’t voiced her stance on the PRESS Act, a federal shield law protecting journalists and their confidential sources.

In 2019, as senator, Harris joined Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal, and then-Sen. Tom Udall in demanding the Department of Homeland Security stop Customs and Border Protection’s unconstitutional surveillance of journalists along the Southwest U.S. border.

In 2018, she condemned the shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland, stating, “Journalists play such a critical role in our democracy and too often face risk at home and abroad.”

Whistleblower protections

Several Senate Intelligence Committee hearings point to her support for whistleblower protections, including their right to share complaints with Congress. She also pressed agencies like the CIA to ensure they do not retaliate against whistleblowers.

However, during a 2018 Senate hearing, she alluded to the “damage” caused by “insider threats” at the National Security Agency, a clear reference to Edward Snowden, an important whistleblower regardless of his status under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

This demonstrates a concerning potential preference for whistleblowers only if they work within the government’s system, even though Harris knows it is a system rife with abuse.

Executive orders

Neither Biden nor Trump authored a new executive order on classified national security information, leaving the executive order signed by President Barack Obama, EO 13526, intact.

It’s possible a Harris administration would revive efforts to author a new EO. If it does, the Harris administration should both consult rights organizations and look at a recent Senate bill on classification that includes good ideas on how to reduce overclassification.

Surveillance and Section 702

The Biden administration expanded government surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a program that “incidentally” collects millions of Americans’ data, including that of journalists.

Harris was vocally in favor of surveillance reform and skeptical of the FBI’s authority to conduct warrantless searches under FISA when she served in the Senate. She also questioned what legal basis the intelligence community has for refusing to provide an estimate of the number of Americans who have been caught up in Section 702 surveillance. But she hasn’t commented on the campaign trail on intelligence agencies’ continuing failure to provide such an estimate.

Congressional oversight

Harris was stymied by agencies’ refusal to provide information to Congress under the Trump administration, going so far as to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department for information on Ukraine. She’s gone on the record stating executive privilege should not prevent “public scrutiny and oversight” of agency deliberations, noting Congress’ constitutional authority to access agency information.

Intelligence community secrecy and classification reform

One of Harris’ most memorable moments in the Senate came during Gina Haspel’s confirmation hearing to lead the CIA. Harris, who voted no on Haspel’s nomination, asked Haspel if she would recuse herself from declassification decisions about her own record, citing an obvious conflict of interest over her torture records. Harris suggested that the director of national intelligence would be the more appropriate declassification authority if a conflict of interest arose.

Harris did not attend a 2019 hearing on potential reforms to the declassification process, so her stance on specific reforms to the outdated classification system is not known.