Edward Snowden was charged with three federal crimes for leaking classified National Security Agency documents in June 2013: theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641, and two violations of the Espionage Act of 1917 under 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) and § 798(a)(3). Each count carries up to ten years in federal prison. The criminal complaint was filed on June 14, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but Snowden left the country before it was unsealed and has never stood trial.1Knight First Amendment Institute. Criminal Complaint re: Edward Snowden, United States v. Snowden, No. 1:13-cr-265
Theft of Government Property
The first charge accuses Snowden of violating 18 U.S.C. § 641, which prohibits stealing, embezzling, or knowingly converting any record or thing of value belonging to the United States. It applies to digital files on government servers the same way it applies to physical objects.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 641 – Public Money, Property or Records
When the value of the stolen property exceeds $1,000, the offense is a felony carrying up to ten years in prison. Below that line, it drops to a misdemeanor with a one-year maximum. The intelligence files Snowden copied and removed far exceeded the threshold, so this count is a felony. The maximum fine for a federal felony is $250,000 under the general sentencing statute.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 3571 – Sentence of Fine
The theory here is straightforward. Snowden took files that belonged to the federal government and passed them to people with no authorization to see them. The government treats classified records as property it has the exclusive right to possess and control.
Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information
The second charge invokes 18 U.S.C. § 793(d), a provision of the Espionage Act. The statute targets anyone who lawfully has access to national defense information and willfully hands it to someone not authorized to receive it, when the person has reason to believe the information could harm the United States or benefit a foreign nation.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 793 – Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information
Prosecutors argued that Snowden, as an NSA contractor with a top-secret clearance, plainly had lawful access to the files and understood their disclosure could damage national security. By handing documents to journalists for publication, he communicated national defense information to unauthorized recipients. The maximum penalty is ten years and a $250,000 fine per count.
The word “willfully” carries most of the weight in this statute. The government does not need to prove Snowden intended to harm the country, only that the disclosure was deliberate rather than accidental. His motives, however sympathetic they may sound in public debate, are legally irrelevant. That gap between motive and intent sits at the center of criticisms of using the Espionage Act against leakers.
Disclosure of Classified Communications Intelligence
The third charge, under 18 U.S.C. § 798(a)(3), makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully share classified information about communication intelligence activities. The statute defines “communication intelligence” as the procedures and methods used to intercept communications and extract information from them.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 798 – Disclosure of Classified Information
This count is narrower than the § 793 charge because it zeroes in on the methods and technical systems used to gather intelligence, not the intelligence product itself. The leaked documents reportedly included details about the NSA’s surveillance architecture and how it intercepted foreign communications. Once those techniques become public, targets can change their behavior to avoid detection, and that is the specific harm the statute was written to prevent.
The penalty matches the other counts: up to ten years and a $250,000 fine. If Snowden were convicted on all three and the sentences ran consecutively, the exposure would reach 30 years.
Why He Could Not Argue Public Interest
The Espionage Act does not allow defendants to argue their leaks served the public interest. If Snowden returned to face trial, he could not tell a jury that the surveillance programs he exposed were potentially unconstitutional, that the public deserved to know about them, or that his disclosures led to reforms. None of that is a recognized defense.
This is not theoretical. In the 1985 case of Samuel Morison, a Navy intelligence analyst convicted of leaking satellite photos to a magazine, the Fourth Circuit rejected both a public interest argument and a First Amendment defense. The court held that a sympathetic motive does not cancel out the intent element the statute requires. No defendant has ever been acquitted under the Espionage Act based on the public value of what they disclosed.6Congressional Research Service. Criminal Prohibitions on Leaks and Other Disclosures of Classified Defense Information
Snowden has pointed to this rule as the reason he has not voluntarily returned, saying the government has refused to guarantee what he calls a “fair trial” that would let him explain why he acted.
Why Whistleblower Protections Did Not Apply
Federal whistleblower laws do protect intelligence community employees and contractors, but only when they raise concerns through designated internal channels, such as the Inspector General of the relevant agency or the Intelligence Community Inspector General. The law does not protect disclosing classified information directly to journalists or the public.7Congressional Research Service. Intelligence Community Whistleblower Provisions – A Legislative History
Snowden has said he raised concerns internally before going to the press, but no official record confirms complaints were filed through the channels that would have triggered legal protections. Even if he had used the proper channels, those protections would have shielded him from workplace retaliation like termination or demotion. They would not have authorized him to copy classified files and hand them to reporters. Whistleblower law covers the act of reporting wrongdoing to the right people, not the act of publishing secrets.
The Civil Case Over His Book
Snowden also faced a separate civil action. In 2019, the Department of Justice sued him, arguing that his memoir, Permanent Record, violated nondisclosure agreements he had signed with the CIA and the NSA. Those agreements required him to submit any writings related to his intelligence work for prepublication review, which he did not do. A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled for the government, holding that Snowden had breached his secrecy agreements and that the government was entitled to the book’s profits.
The government also moved to recover more than $1.2 million in speaking fees he had earned abroad. This civil claim is independent of the criminal charges and does not depend on a conviction. It rests on contract law: Snowden signed agreements promising not to disclose classified information without authorization, and the government argued he broke that promise.
Where the Case Stands
The three criminal counts remain pending. Snowden left the United States before the complaint was unsealed, was stranded in the Moscow airport after his passport was revoked, and received temporary asylum from Russia on August 1, 2013. He was later granted permanent residency and Russian citizenship in 2022. Russia has no extradition treaty with the United States, so no trial has taken place. The charges stay on the books, and Snowden stays outside U.S. jurisdiction.