The dossier, which compiles a list of the Ohio senator’s “vulnerabilities,” was initially sent to the likes of Politico, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, all of whom declined to publish its contents, instead writing stories about who was believed to be behind the leak. 

The Trump campaign said at the time it had been “obtained illegally from foreign sources hostile to the United States.”

But on Thursday, Ken Klippenstein, who formerly worked for the left-leaning outlet the Intercept, published what he said was the dossier on his Substack, saying he was doing so “because it’s of keen public interest in an election season.”

In his Substack post, he noted that the dossier highlights perceived weaknesses of Vance, including his opposition to providing assistance to Ukraine in its war with Russia. Vance was picked as Trump’s running mate in July, on the first day of the Republican National Convention.

Social media website X suspended Klippenstien’s account shortly after he posted a link to the published dossier and joked about never being able to work in media again.

The Trump campaign did not outright confirm the veracity of the document published by Klippenstein and said in a statement to the Washington Examiner that he was working to advance Iran’s interests.

“The terror regime in Iran loves the weakness and stupidity of Kamala Harris, and is terrified of the strength and resolve of President Donald J. Trump,” wrote Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign’s communications director. “It’s sad some reporters and media outlets have decided to do Iran’s bidding.”

Jeffrey McCall, a professor of communication specializing in political media studies at DePauw University, told the Washington Examiner that publishing hacked materials can be “very murky water for a journalist to navigate.”

“Although the documents might well be authentic, Klippenstein can’t be absolutely sure, and even if they are authentic, there is the matter of publishing information hacked by miscreants and basically doing the bidding of the miscreants who want to disrupt the rhetorical sphere,” he wrote. “It appears the documents don’t really have that much juicy stuff in them, which could well be why other media outlets have taken a pass on publication.”

Furthermore, McCall said he found Klippenstein’s explanation for publication “a bit thin,” as opposed to summarizing the documents “for their news value.”

“Klippenstein has now set an expectation or precedent for himself with regard to publishing hacked documents. He might have found the decision easy in this case because the documents involved Vance,” McCall continued. “But should he receive unverified material regarding the Harris-Walz campaign, it will be interesting to see if he is so eager to disseminate it.”

Journalists publishing stolen materials has been a source of contention in modern politics. During the 2016 presidential election, a Russian hack of Democrats’ emails was released in troves by WikiLeaks, with major outlets such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reporting on Hillary Clinton’s private conversations.

In 2017, BuzzFeed published a discredited opposition dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele alleging Trump’s ties to Russia. In the 2020 election cycle, the New York Post revealed the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. The story was throttled by social media companies and downplayed by Joe Biden as the product of a Russian disinformation campaign.

Thursday’s release of the Vance dossier set off another social media firestorm.

Ali Breland, a writer for the Atlantic, claimed to have been temporarily locked out of his X account for posting a screenshot of the published dossier.

“Notable how quickly they started enforcing the Vance dossier given how diminished the moderation team is and how they often don’t bother to handle a lot of things that otherwise violate the rules, or at least handle them quickly,” Breland added in a subsequent post on X.

Elon Musk, X’s owner, frequently defends the platform as a harbor for free speech and was quickly criticized for suppressing Klippenstein’s report despite the website’s stated policy on the publication of hacked materials. The Washington Examiner reached out to X for comment.

“Elon Musk, ‘free speech absolutist’, just suspended progressive journalist Ken Klippenstein after he reported on the JD Vance Dossier,” one self-identified “socialist and progressive” content creator wrote.

“If anybody still believes the delusional notion that Elon is some sort of free speech champion and not a total partisan hack, he suspended Ken for leaking the JD Vance dossier. Shameful and cowardly behavior,” added user “BirdRespecter.”