In recent developments in Washington, the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) is quietly urging Congress to expand a decades-old law designed to protect the identities of undercover intelligence agents. While aimed at bolstering national security, the proposed changes have sparked widespread alarm among press freedom advocates and government transparency groups, who warn that the new measures could severely restrict journalistic investigation and whistleblowing.

Background and Current Law

The law in question, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, currently criminalizes the unauthorized disclosure of covert officers’ identities—but only those of agents who have served abroad within the past five years. This limitation originally stemmed from concerns about the unique physical dangers faced by operatives stationed overseas.

Under the existing legislation, American citizens who serve as classified informants or agents on domestic soil are not protected by the statute. Consequently, their identities can be disclosed without the same legal ramifications that protect agents abroad.

What the C.I.A. Proposes

The C.I.A. is pushing for the law’s scope to be drastically widened. The agency proposes applying the statute indefinitely—not just to agents who have been overseas within the last five years, but also to individuals whose relationships with the intelligence community remain classified regardless of whether they operate domestically or abroad.

According to Timothy Barrett, C.I.A. press secretary, the agency has experienced hundreds of cases in the past five years where covert officers’ identities or affiliations were revealed unlawfully. Barrett emphasized that agents face risks “regardless of where they are based” and that protecting their identities from foreign adversaries remains critical.

The agency also argues that the original rationale limiting protection to overseas agents is no longer valid. It cites factors such as the rise of organizations like WikiLeaks, which have aggressively published government secrets, and fallout from revelations about the C.I.A.’s past torture program, which have fueled unprecedented leaks and disclosures.

Concerns and Criticisms

Despite these security concerns, critics say the proposed expansion is too sweeping and threatens important democratic safeguards. Emily Manna, a policy analyst with Open the Government, warned it would “seriously expand the felony criminal penalties that could be used against journalists, whistle-blowers, and public-interest organizations.” She highlighted the risk of the law enabling greater secrecy and abuse of power.

The proposal’s timing has also raised eyebrows. It coincides with ongoing Guantánamo Bay military commission proceedings, where defense lawyers seek to identify witnesses, including former detainees from C.I.A. black sites who might testify about alleged mistreatment. Critics fear the broad new protections could complicate efforts to hold intelligence agencies accountable in courts.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has publicly expressed skepticism, stating he is “not yet convinced this expansion is necessary” and worries it might be “employed to avoid accountability.” Other transparency experts note that while technological developments such as the internet may necessitate updates to the law, the C.I.A. has not provided adequate public justification for such sweeping reforms.

A Historical Perspective

The original 1982 law came in response to high-profile incidents, notably the 1975 assassination of Richard S. Welch, the C.I.A.’s station chief in Athens, after his covert status was exposed. At the time, lawmakers explicitly limited protections to those serving abroad, recognizing the special dangers they confronted. Importantly, they upheld the principle that the public should be able to openly discuss intelligence informants residing in the U.S., including those embedded in communities such as colleges, churches, the media, and political groups.

Expanding secrecy protections to include all classified agents on domestic soil and indefinitely could significantly restrict this public discourse around intelligence activities—a prospect that many view as a threat to democratic oversight.

Legal and Political Implications

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act is narrower and easier to enforce than the broader Espionage Act but has been sparingly used. Convictions under the law have occurred notably in 1985 and 2012, the latter involving a former officer, John Kiriakou, who disclosed the identity of a covert operative.

The proposed broadening could apply criminal penalties to outsiders—including journalists—who disclose classified identities “in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents.” This raises critical questions about press freedom, investigative journalism, and the public’s right to know.

The proposal is being considered as part of defense and intelligence bills currently moving through Congress. With a deadline looming for amendments to be submitted, the debate over balancing national security with transparency and accountability remains urgent.

Conclusion

The C.I.A.’s push to expand secrecy protections reflects heightened concerns about the safety of undercover operatives amid increasingly sophisticated leaks and digital threats. However, the sweeping nature of the proposed law risks unduly restricting press freedoms and government accountability. As lawmakers deliberate on this issue, the challenge lies in safeguarding national security without undermining the democratic principles of transparency and free expression that form the backbone of public trust.