- The Department of Homeland Security placed an employee on leave after she accidentally sent sensitive U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation details to a journalist. The employee, described as “mission-focused” and “apolitical,” faces potential security clearance revocation.
- DHS launched an internal investigation and asked the employee to take a polygraph test and surrender her cellphone.
- Critics argued the response was inconsistent with the administration’s handling of a similar leak involving top political appointees.
Full Story
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) placed and employee on administrative leave after she accidentally sent details of an upcoming Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation to a journalist in January.
The message, intended for internal distribution, included unclassified but sensitive information such as the time of the operation and possible home addresses of ICE targets in the Denver area.
After realizing the mistake, the employee called the journalist — who worked for a conservative Washington-based publication — and the journalist agreed not to publish the information.
The ICE operation proceeded without incident.
How did DHS respond to the mistake?
Despite the absence of any public fallout from the leak, DHS launched an internal investigation.
Officials asked the employee to take a polygraph test and surrender her personal cellphone.
When she declined, DHS notified her that it intended to revoke her security clearance. That action could prevent her from continuing her career in homeland security. She has 30 days to appeal the decision.
The employee, who has worked in various DHS roles since the George W. Bush administration — including through President Donald Trump’s first term — did not comment publicly.
Colleagues described her as “mission-focused” and “apolitical.”
How does this compare to the Signal chat incident?
Critics said the response contrasts the administration’s handling of another recent leak involving top political appointees.
According to The Atlantic, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed military plans for upcoming airstrikes in Yemen in a private Signal chat that included National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and, inadvertently, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief.
That Signal message included the timing of U.S. airstrikes against Houthi targets. The administration insisted no classified material was shared.
Trump dismissed the incident as a “witch hunt,” and neither Hegseth nor Waltz faced disciplinary action.
What have experts said about the disparity?
Legal and national security experts said the two incidents raise questions about inconsistent consequences for similar behavior.
Mary McCord, a former senior Justice Department official, criticized both incidents as “carelessness in the handling of highly sensitive information” and demanded equal treatment of the Signal chat breach.
Jason Houser, former chief of staff at ICE, argued the administration’s uneven response punishes career civil servants while shielding political allies.
“This isn’t just a double standard — it’s reckless and dangerous,” Houser told NBC News.
What’s next for the DHS employee?
If DHS revokes her clearance, the employee could lose her job and be barred from holding similar positions in national security.
One former DHS official urged the administration to reconsider the case in light of how it handled the Signal incident, calling the disparity in treatment “appalling.”
