Though it was exactly one week ago that the Washington Post published an op-ed from a former CIA operative who claimed he quit because of President Trump, an eyebrow-raising clarification the paper later added to its story seems to have gone unnoticed by some readers.

So here's your "in case you missed it" update.

The Post published an opinion article on Feb. 20 titled, "I didn't think I'd ever leave the CIA. But because of Trump, I quit." It's exactly what it sounds like.

The author, Edward Price, claimed he quit the CIA because of Trump's policies and how the new president interacts with the intelligence community.

"[I] formally resigned last week. Despite working proudly for Republican and Democratic presidents, I reluctantly concluded that I cannot in good faith serve this administration as an intelligence professional," Price wrote.

He added, "This was not a decision I made lightly. I sought out the CIA as a college student, convinced that it was the ideal place to serve my country and put an otherwise abstract international-relations degree to use. I wasn't disappointed."

Price, who worked under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, stressed in the op-ed that his resigning from the CIA had nothing to do with politics. Rather, he explained, it's because he sees Trump as dangerous and untrustworthy.

"As intelligence professionals, we're taught to tune out politics. The river separating CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., from Washington might as well be a political moat. But this administration has flipped that dynamic on its head: The politicians are the ones tuning out the intelligence professionals," he wrote.

Price added, "The CIA will continue to serve important functions — including undertaking covert action and sharing information with close allies and partners around the globe. If this administration is serious about building trust with the intelligence community, however, it will require more than rallies at CIA headquarters or press statements. What intelligence professionals want most is to know that the fruits of their labor — sometimes at the risk of life or limb — are accorded due deference in the policymaking process."

"Until that happens, President Trump and his team are doing another disservice to these dedicated men and women and the nation they proudly, if quietly, serve," he concluded.

Shortly after the op-ed's publication, however, the Post attached the following clarification to the article:

This column should have included a disclosure of donations made by author Edward Price in support of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. In August, Price gave a total of $5,000 to the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.

There's nothing inherently wrong or unethical about a member of the CIA supporting a certain presidential candidate. That's not why I'm flagging this Post op-ed.

I'm flagging it because I suspect a not-insignificant number of readers would have liked to have known about Price's not-so-insignificant $5,000 Clinton donation from the get-go, rather than find out about it only after the op-ed's publication. Five grand for Hillary Clinton seems like an interesting bit of information for Price and the Post to omit from the original op-ed, no?