What classified information did Trump allegedly leak and when?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Across multiple episodes from 2017 through 2025, reporting and legal filings allege President Donald J. Trump disclosed sensitive national-security information: most prominently a May 2017 disclosure to Russian diplomats about an Islamic State threat, an April 2021 alleged conversation at Mar‑a‑Lago about U.S. nuclear‑armed submarines, retention and display of classified documents after leaving office (including an alleged fall‑2021 map), and 2025 controversies over sensitive military planning shared in a Signal group chat; each episode is disputed in detail and has generated competing legal and political interpretations [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. May 2017: the Russia meeting and ISIS intelligence
The first widely reported allegation dates to May 2017, when The Washington Post and other outlets reported that Trump disclosed highly classified intelligence about an Islamic State plot to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador during a White House meeting, a disclosure described at the time as “highly classified” and “troubling” by senators and national‑security figures [1] [6]. Reporting said the material had been provided to the United States by an ally and that the disclosure risked revealing sources and methods, though some spokespeople argued the president has broad authority over classification [6] [2].
2. April 2021: Mar‑a‑Lago discussion about submarines with Anthony Pratt
Another reported episode occurred after Trump left office: in April 2021, Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt met Trump at Mar‑a‑Lago and later told journalists and foreign officials that Trump had described details about U.S. nuclear submarines, a matter later of interest to federal prosecutors who interviewed Pratt in 2023 [2]. Media accounts flagged this as sensitive information shared outside official channels; legal scholars and politicians offered conflicting views about whether a former president’s statements outside office could constitute unlawful disclosure [2].
3. The classified‑documents prosecutions and the fall 2021 map allegation
Separately, federal prosecutors have built a criminal case centered on classified documents taken to and retained at Mar‑a‑Lago after Trump’s presidency: special‑counsel filings and reporting say boxes contained scores of classified items—ranging from SECRET to TOP SECRET and including materials marked as Sensitive Compartmented Information—leading to an indictment and an FBI search in 2022 [3] [7]. The indictment initially alleged Trump had also shown a classified military map in fall 2021 to a political‑operation representative, but a judge ordered that paragraph removed in June 2024 because it was unnecessary to the charged counts [4]. Court filings and timelines by prosecutors describe efforts to conceal or obstruct investigators’ recovery of those materials [3] [7].
4. 2025 Signal/group‑chat controversy over Yemen strike planning
In 2025, reporting about internal national‑security messaging highlighted another leak concern when senior officials discussed attack plans against the Houthis on a Signal group chat and accidentally included a journalist; the White House insisted the texts were not classified while Democrats and some observers said the content—detailing weapons systems and timing—looked like sensitive operational information [5] [8]. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s involvement and the public debate over classification underscored the recurring tension between what officials call “sensitive but unclassified” and formal classified material [5].
5. Legal arguments, disputes, and political context
Across these episodes, two disputes recur: one over whether the information met legal definitions of classified or restricted (with some asserting presidential declassification powers) and the other over whether off‑the‑record disclosures or retention of marked documents constitute criminal violations; scholars and politicians disagree, and courts have winnowed some allegations [2] [4] [3]. Reporting also documents internal anti‑leak efforts and aggressive leak investigations during Trump’s administrations, showing both the administration’s sensitivity to leaks and the broader institutional stakes in determining what was lawfully disclosed and when [9] [10]. Available sources do not settle every factual dispute; the record consists of media reporting, interviews, and court filings that present competing narratives and legal claims [1] [2] [3].