Honestly, the whole saga of Trump revoking security clearances feels like a fever dream from a political thriller that just won’t end. If you’ve been following the news lately—especially with the flurry of executive orders coming out of the White House in early 2025—you know this isn’t just some dry, bureaucratic paperwork issue. It is a full-blown power struggle over who gets to keep the keys to the kingdom’s secrets.
Security clearances are basically the "golden tickets" of the professional world in D.C. They aren't just about reading top-secret folders; they’re about careers, consulting gigs, and, frankly, prestige. When a president decides to yank them away, it’s a big deal.
The Original 2018 Spark: John Brennan
Let's go back a bit to where this all really kicked off. In August 2018, the White House announced it was stripping former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance. The reason? The administration cited "erratic conduct and behavior" and "frenzied commentary." Basically, Brennan was on TV a lot, and he wasn't saying nice things about the president.
It was wild because, historically, former heads of intelligence agencies kept their clearances. Why? So their successors could call them up and say, "Hey, what did you think about this specific situation in 2014?" It was a professional courtesy. Trump broke that mold. He argued that the risks of Brennan’s "outbursts" outweighed any benefit of consulting him.
Interestingly, for a long time, it wasn't even clear if the revocation actually went through. Brennan mentioned months later that he hadn't received any formal notification. But the message was sent: if you criticize the commander-in-chief, your access is on the chopping block.
✨ Don't miss: Why the Air France Crash Toronto Miracle Still Changes How We Fly
The 2025 "Retribution" Wave
Fast forward to January 20, 2025. Day one. President Trump didn't waste any time. He signed a massive executive order titled Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information.
This wasn't just about one guy anymore. This time, the target was a group of 51 former intelligence officials. These were the folks who signed that famous 2020 letter suggesting the Hunter Biden laptop story had the "classic earmarks" of a Russian disinformation operation.
The administration’s logic? These officials "weaponized" their former status to influence an election. Names like James Clapper and John Bolton (who also got hit because of his tell-all memoir) were right at the top of the list. By August 2025, the number of revocations had ballooned. We’re talking about dozens of current and former officials—some high-profile, some just career staffers who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Can He Actually Do That?
You might be wondering: is this even legal? Well, it’s complicated. Kinda.
🔗 Read more: Robert Hanssen: What Most People Get Wrong About the FBI's Most Damaging Spy
Under Executive Order 12968, which has been the rulebook since the Clinton era, there’s usually a process. You get a written explanation. You get a chance to appeal. You might even get a hearing. But here’s the kicker: the President is the ultimate "classifier-in-chief." His authority comes from Article II of the Constitution.
Most legal experts, like those at Lawfare, note that the courts are usually very hesitant to tell a president who he can or cannot trust with secrets. However, we're seeing some pushback in 2026.
- The Mark Zaid Case: In January 2026, a federal judge, Amir H. Ali, blocked the administration from revoking the clearance of attorney Mark Zaid. Zaid is a guy who specializes in national security law and has represented whistleblowers. The judge basically said, "Look, you can't just strip a clearance solely as a way to punish someone for their legal work or their speech."
- The "Enemies List" Concern: Critics argue this creates a "political enemies list" reminiscent of the Nixon era or even the McCarthyism of the 1950s. If clearances become a tool for reward and punishment, does the whole system lose its integrity?
The Impact on the Ground
This isn't just about ego. It has real-world consequences for the "Deep State"—a term the administration uses frequently.
When you lose your clearance, you basically lose your job if you’re a contractor or a consultant in the defense space. It’s a career-killer. For the 37 officials revoked in late 2025 (as reported by Al Jazeera and others), it meant they couldn't work on the very projects they had spent decades mastering.
💡 You might also like: Why the Recent Snowfall Western New York State Emergency Was Different
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard defended these moves, saying these individuals "abused the public trust." The administration's stance is that they are "cleaning house" and ensuring that nobody uses their secret-access status to play politics.
What Most People Get Wrong
A lot of folks think a security clearance gives you an all-access pass to every secret the government has. It doesn't.
Even with a Top Secret/SCI clearance, you still need a "need to know." You can't just go browsing through files like you’re on Wikipedia. Revoking a clearance is less about stopping someone from reading a specific file today and more about stripping their professional credentials and their ability to stay relevant in the national security conversation.
Actionable Insights: What to Watch For
If you’re working in the federal space or just interested in how this affects the balance of power, here are a few things to keep an eye on:
- The "Interim" Loophole: The administration also signed orders allowing the White House Counsel to grant "interim" clearances more easily. This means they can bring in their own people quickly while stripping the old guard of theirs.
- Court Precedents: Watch the Zaid case and similar lawsuits from the "51 officials." If the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, it could redefine presidential power over the bureaucracy for the next fifty years.
- The 90-Day Reports: The 2025 executive orders required the DNI to submit reports on "inappropriate activity." These reports often lead to more revocations.
The tension here is between the President’s right to control sensitive info and the First Amendment rights of the people who serve the country. It's a messy, high-stakes game of "who do you trust?" and in 2026, the answer seems to depend entirely on which side of the political aisle you’re standing on.
Next Steps for You: If you or someone you know is facing a clearance review, don't panic, but do get a lawyer who specializes in national security law. The standard "human resources" route doesn't apply when a presidential memorandum is involved. You’ll want to document every interaction and stay updated on the latest rulings from the District Court in D.C., as that is where the frontline of this legal battle is currently being fought.