I think the original framing is an example of the noncentral fallacy aka worst argument in the world. The prototypical example of "leaking classified information" is "reveal the identity of a spy, causing them to be killed" or "inform the target of a covert operation about it". However, what really happened was that we learned of a terrorist plot, then informed some but not all of our allies about it (presumably to reduce the chance of it leaking back to the terrorists). Trump judged it in our best interests to inform Russia as well, which he did under his authority as commander in chief.

This explains why the denials from the White House were "carefully worded" or "weaselly". Just like you can't respond to "Martin Luther King was a criminal" with "no, he's not", because he technically is, you can't say Trump didn't provide classified information to Russia, because he technically did. The only way to counter the headline is to say that he didn't leak anything that would actually be damaging to the US. (e.g. by leaking "sources, methods or military operations.")