It happened on a Friday night, the classic time for a "news dump." President Donald Trump signed a memorandum that basically stripped away the security clearances of some of his most prominent political rivals. We’re talking about former Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
If you’ve been following the news lately, you know this isn't exactly a shocker, but the scale of the move is still pretty wild.
The White House memo, dated March 22, 2025, didn't mince words. It stated that the President had determined it was "no longer in the national interest" for these individuals to have access to classified info. Honestly, it’s a massive break from the way things usually work in D.C., where former high-ranking officials often keep their clearances as a professional courtesy.
Why Trump Revokes Security Clearances of Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton Now
The "national interest" is the official reason, but the list of names tells a different story.
It wasn't just Harris and Clinton. The order also hit former President Joe Biden, his entire family, and a long list of people who have been thorns in Trump's side for years. We're talking about Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and even Republican critics like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
Trump has been pretty open about feeling like the intelligence community was "weaponized" against him during his first term. By pulling these clearances, he’s basically cutting off his predecessors from the loop of state secrets.
✨ Don't miss: Removing the Department of Education: What Really Happened with the Plan to Shutter the Agency
"I hereby direct every executive department and agency head... to revoke any active security clearances held by the aforementioned individuals," the memorandum stated.
This move also rescinds their "unescorted access" to secure government facilities. So, no more popping into the State Department or the Pentagon for a quick chat without a handler.
The Legal Battle and the "Retribution" Label
Critics are calling this a "purge."
National security lawyer Mark Zaid, whose name was also on that March list, actually sued the administration. He argued the whole thing was "improper political retribution." Interestingly, a federal judge, Amir Ali, sided with him recently, issuing an injunction to restore Zaid’s clearance. The judge noted that the government seemed to be penalizing Zaid specifically for representing whistleblowers.
But for Harris and Clinton? Their situations are a bit different. As former high-level officials, their access is often tied to tradition rather than a specific job requirement.
🔗 Read more: Quién ganó para presidente en USA: Lo que realmente pasó y lo que viene ahora
Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, hasn't been shy about the administration's stance. She previously mentioned that revoking these clearances was, in her words, "fun." She also accused those on the list of abusing public trust for political gain.
Breaking Down the List
The sheer variety of people affected is what's really catching people off guard. It’s not just politicians; it’s the lawyers and investigators who worked on cases against Trump.
- The Prosecutors: New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg. Both led high-profile cases against the Trump Organization.
- The Witnesses: Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman. You might remember them from the first impeachment hearings.
- The Family: Trump specifically named Hunter and Ashley Biden, even stripping them of Secret Service protection around the same time.
Is This Even Legal?
Technically, yes.
The President has broad "Article II" authority over classified information. He is essentially the ultimate classifier. Under the Supreme Court case Department of Navy v. Egan, the judiciary usually stays out of security clearance decisions because they're seen as "sensitive judgment calls."
However, the recent win by Mark Zaid shows there might be a limit if the revocation looks like it's violating constitutional rights, like due process or free speech.
💡 You might also like: Patrick Welsh Tim Kingsbury Today 2025: The Truth Behind the Identity Theft That Fooled a Town
What This Actually Means for National Security
In the short term, not much changes for the average person. But for the "deep state"—the career officials and former leaders who maintain a network of information—it's a massive disruption.
Former presidents and VPs usually receive intelligence briefings to stay informed in case the current administration needs their advice. By cutting off Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton, Trump is signaling that he doesn't want their advice. He's closing the door on the old guard.
Some experts worry this makes the country less safe. They argue that having former leaders with "eyes on" helps maintain continuity during a crisis. Others say it’s about time the "revolving door" of D.C. insiders was slowed down.
What Happens Next?
If you're wondering what this means for the future of D.C. politics, here are a few things to keep an eye on:
- More Lawsuits: Following Zaid's lead, expect more individuals on the list to challenge the "summary revocation" in court.
- Agency Purges: Tulsi Gabbard has already indicated that more clearances for current and former officials are under review.
- Briefing Protocol: Watch to see if any Republicans on the list try to fight back through Congressional channels.
If you’re someone who works in a field requiring a clearance, the big takeaway here is that "suitability" is becoming a much more political metric. It’s a good time to double-check your own records and ensure your professional conduct is strictly by the book, as the standards for what constitutes the "national interest" are clearly shifting.