18 U.S.C. § 793 – Gathering/transmitting defense information

18 U.S.C. § 793 – Gathering/Transmitting Defense Information

18 U.S.C. § 793 is a law that makes it illegal to gather, transmit, or lose certain kinds of defense information without authorization. It’s part of the Espionage Act, which was passed back in 1917 during World War I. Let’s break down what this law actually says and what it means today.

What does the law say?

Well, the law has a bunch of different sections that cover different things. The main parts are:

It’s illegal to get defense information “with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States.”[1]
It’s illegal to copy, take, make, or obtain defense information like blueprints, photographs, or documents without authorization.
It’s illegal to receive or obtain defense information that you know has been illegally obtained.
It’s illegal to fail to return defense information to the government when you’re supposed to.

There’s a lot more specifics, but basically it makes it illegal to gather, transmit, or lose important defense information without the proper authorization. The penalties can be fines or prison time up to 10 years. [2]

What counts as “defense information?”

The law is focused on protecting information related to national defense. This includes things like: [3]

Military plans, weapons, or operations
Cryptographic systems and intelligence activities
Any confidential information that could harm the military

So basically any government secrets that are related to national security or the military. The information has to be closely held to count.

What’s the history behind this law?

The Espionage Act, which contains this law, was passed in 1917 during World War 1. The government wanted stronger laws to prevent spying, information leaks, and interference with the war effort. [4]

There was a lot of opposition to US involvement in the war, so the law also made it illegal to make “false statements” that interfered with the war effort. This was used to prosecute people for anti-war speeches, pamphlets, and protests.

Since then, the law has been used to prosecute spies and government insiders who leak classified information. This includes famous cases like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Edward Snowden. [5]

But it’s still controversial when used against government leakers and whistleblowers. There are concerns about overreach, free speech, and use of the law for political purposes.

How does this related to the Trump search warrant?

In the recent search of Mar-a-Lago, the FBI listed Section 793 of the Espionage Act as one of the reasons for the search warrant. [6]

We don’t know exactly what they were looking for or which part of 793 was relevant. But it seems they had evidence that classified information was improperly taken, handled, or stored at Trump’s residence.

This could mean prosecution for anyone involved in unlawfully gathering, transmitting, or losing that material. But some experts think Section 793 may not totally fit the circumstances here.

What are the key issues and debates?

There’s been a lot of debate over this law over the years. Some of the key issues are:

How to balance national security versus free speech and whistleblowing.
Whether the law is overbroad and vague when applying to media publishing leaks.
If it violates constitutional rights to use it against government insiders leaking information.
Whether it’s been misused for political purposes in some cases.

Civil liberties groups argue that the law has a chilling effect on free speech and allows overreach against journalists and whistleblowers. [5]

But others argue that leaks of classified information can legitimately harm national security and foreign relations in some cases. So there is a need for clear laws to deter this.

How to strike the right balance is something that lawmakers and the courts continue to wrestle with.

What are the implications moving forward?

With the Trump case putting Section 793 back in the spotlight, we may see renewed debate over use of the Espionage Act. Some issues that may come up: [6]

How Section 793 should be interpreted in cases involving former officials versus current staff.
If Congress needs to clarify or update the law’s scope.
How aggressive the DOJ will be in prosecuting these types of cases.
If the courts provide any new guidance on the law’s constitutional limits.

The Trump case could set new legal precedents in interpreting and applying this important national security law. Or it may fizzle out without resolution. Either way, expect Section 793 to remain controversial.

The debate over balancing secrecy versus transparency isn’t going away. And neither is the Espionage Act!