From the perspective of the owners of this data, the US citizens and others that live in the country, this is very much a security breach; the data that was supposed to be secure is no longer secure.
I do not disagree with your sentiment though, but a little pedantry is needed here. It's not necessary for this to be a security breach to be bad. Given how poorly this data is being handled even among those who are "supposed" to have it, it's likely there will be a legitimate security breach soon enough.
If they are adversarial enough to justify such wresting from the grasp of the US government, is that not already a problem, compounded by the fact that if they are already in an adversarial position there's no reason to assume they are acting alone in that position? Why believe any claim by them if they are already taking pains to take a position as an adversary?
It's taking their say-so that they are a domestic adversary rather than a foreign adversary, as if that made all the difference. I can't agree that it makes as much difference as they claim it makes.
Did you say the cattle owns the ranch? Or you mean the cattle owns the feed?
No, the cattle owns nothing, you own nothing.
As for data being secure or not secure - how do you know any of this is true? Because journalists are good faith arbiters of truth without any conflicts of interest or personal bias?