Executive Summary

Security clearances, initially designed to protect sensitive government information and uphold national security, have increasingly been used as tools of political leverage and retribution under President Trump’s second administration. This report examines the growing trend of revoking security clearances for political purposes. Beyond mere political signalling, these actions directly affect the livelihoods and reputations of former government officials who depend on active clearances for post-government employment in critical sectors. Such politicisation threatens to undermine the integrity of the security clearance system and may ultimately weaken national security by alienating experienced professionals and politicising access to sensitive information.

Key Judgements

KJ-1. The Trump administration has employed the revocation of security clearances as a means of retaliation against perceived political adversaries.

1. In March 2025, President Trump rescinded clearances and access to classified information from many Democrats and political opponents. This included former President Joe Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Hillary Clinton. This week, former CISA leader Chris Krebs and ex-DHS official Miles Taylor have also lost their security clearances. [source] [source]
2. Soon after, the President signed executive orders targeting the security clearances of law firm attorneys involved in legal actions opposing the administration’s policies. The move is widely perceived as an attempt to dissuade legal opposition. [source]
3. President Trump explicitly stated that he revoked security clearances of individuals he did not “respect” and those he personally believed–without offering proof–had come close to breaking the law. [source]
4. In January 2025, Trump revoked the clearances of 50 former senior intelligence officials. Prior to the 2020 election, they had signed a letter stating that the Hunter Biden laptop story had earmarks of past Russian information operations. White House statements claim the revocation addressed “abuses of the public trust” due to former officials’ “misleading and inappropriate political coordination.”  [source, source]

KJ-2. The revocations will likely hinder former officials’ post-career employment prospects and the ability of Washington-based attorneys to work with many types of government, military, and federal law enforcement clients. This, in turn, may affect their immediate income.

1. Former high-ranking officials and career federal employees often rely on security clearances to conduct contract and consulting work with government and military entities. Loss of access to classified buildings and information can translate directly to a loss of income and future job prospects. [source, source, source, source]
2. Attorneys and law firms operating in the nation’s capital rely on security clearances to be able to work with many clients, according to a longtime intelligence community employee with whom we spoke. Clients include entire agencies and individuals with personal legal needs intersecting with their classified work, requiring cleared legal representatives.

KJ-3. The politicisation of clearances, exemplified by retaliatory revocations, risks undermining the integrity of the clearance system and harming national security at a time when concerns about intelligence politicisation have rekindled.

1. The reciprocal revocation of security clearances between President Biden (regarding former President Trump in 2021) and President Trump (regarding former President Biden in 2025) illustrates a trend of using clearances as political counterstrikes. This is irrespective of the legitimacy of claims of improper handling of classified material by both parties. 
2. A report by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that senior CIA officials were aware of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails” by the former officials prior to its publication. Subsequently, this raises concerns about the potential politicisation of the intelligence community. [source]
3. According to the House Permanent Select Committee press release, CIA officials then recognised the Hunter Biden statement as political. They warned it would negatively impact the Agency, underscoring the risks of involving the intelligence community in domestic political narratives. [source]
4. The Trump administration’s executive orders targeting law firms associated with political adversaries raised major concerns. Specifically, that military reservist lawyers employed by these firms might have their security clearances suspended. This risks hindering their ability to perform their duties and ironically weaken national security despite being issued under its guise. [source] 

Statement on Analysis

This analysis is based on government records, executive orders, and intelligence findings. It thus provides a well-supported assessment of the politicisation of security clearances. While some uncertainties remain—such as the long-term effects on national security and the lack of transparency in clearance decisions—the evidence strongly indicates a pattern of retaliatory revocations. This trend risks undermining trust in the clearance system and deterring qualified professionals. Future legal challenges or policy shifts may influence the issue. Current actions, however, set a concerning precedent that warrants close monitoring to assess broader implications for governance and national security.

Intelligence Cut-off Date: 10 April 2025