I may have a different definition than they appear to be using. If I'm understanding your link correctly, I'd say they were undisclosed. There would have been a paper trail and the data wasn't classified, correct?

If he were to resign and leak secret information, he'd be in legal trouble, yes?

Note: This is not meant to be read as approval, just a bit of contention at the language used.

I'd say the salient point about secrecy being this:

> But Mr. Trump has chosen to keep the waivers secret. He dropped a practice, in place during the Obama administration, that any waiver would be shared with the Office of Government Ethics and posted on the White House website or the ethics office’s website, or on both.

It certainly wasn't "top secret" in the classified sense but it was done with secrecy as if he had something to hide regarding the practice or, perhaps a more charitable reading was that he was ignorant of the precedent. From hiding the wh visitor logs to the ethics waivers to stopping the recording inside the wh press briefing room in my view they are actively trying to be less transparent in their dealings.

Maybe it is just my perspective but that reads very slanted to me. I was a freelance journalist that covered the political best and hard copy. This was back in my university days, but I'm not sure my editor would have put that through without changing it to something like the mentioned 'undisclosed.'

Secret, as a word, implies intent - at least to me. It may also imply legality. While certainly worthy of raising an eyebrow, I'm not sure we can make accurate claims of intent?

Ah well, it's largely immaterial. I do thank you for taking the time to explain.