The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it is revoking the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials, continuing its pattern of punitive measures targeting public servants within the federal intelligence community.
A memo from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accuses the affected individuals of engaging in the “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” to advance personal or partisan interests, failing to safeguard classified information, neglecting to “adhere to professional analytic tradecraft standards,” and other unspecified “detrimental” behavior. The memo, however, did not provide evidence to support these claims.
Many of those targeted left government service years ago, holding both senior and lower-profile positions. Some were involved in assessments that have long frustrated Trump, such as the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Others expressed concerns about Trump by signing a critical 2019 letter, which was recently highlighted on social media by right-wing provocateur and close Trump ally Laura Loomer.
The move is part of a broader Trump administration effort to use governmental authority against perceived adversaries, reflecting the president’s ongoing distrust of career intelligence officials he believes are opposed to his interests. Critics argue that revoking clearances has become a preferred tactic, potentially discouraging dissenting viewpoints within an intelligence community that traditionally relies on diverse perspectives to form its assessments.
“These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action,” said Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer whose own clearance was previously revoked by the Trump administration. He called the move hypocritical, noting the administration’s claim that these individuals politicized or weaponized intelligence.
Gabbard defended the decision, stating that it was directed by Trump. “Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,” she wrote on X. “Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.”
The clearance revocations come as Gabbard and other Trump administration officials revisit the intelligence community’s 2017 assessment of Russian election interference, including by declassifying older documents that critics say aim to challenge the credibility of the findings.
Multiple government investigations have confirmed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including through a hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails and a social media campaign designed to influence public opinion. Yet Trump has consistently disputed the assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin acted in his favor, and the Justice Department has authorized a grand jury investigation that could bring renewed scrutiny to Obama-era officials.
Security clearances are vital not only for current government employees but also for former officials whose private-sector work relies on access to sensitive information. Stripping these clearances can hinder their ability to perform certain jobs, though it is unclear how many of the former officials still require clearance.
On his first day in office, Trump moved to revoke the clearances of more than four dozen former intelligence officials who signed a 2020 letter claiming the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the marks of a “Russian information operation.” He has also revoked the clearances of former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, and attempted to do the same for lawyers at major law firms, though federal judges blocked those actions.
Some of those affected in the latest round were part of Biden’s national security team. Many only learned of the action through news reports on Tuesday, according to two former officials who spoke on condition of anonymity while considering potential legal challenges.
