Trump revokes security clearances of key Democrats including Harris, Clinton and Biden Family
US President Donald Trump has formally revoked the security clearances of key Democratic figures, including Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and several members of Joe Biden’s administration and family. The decision, which Trump justified as being in the “national interest,” was outlined in a memorandum released on March 21. This move follows his earlier announcement in February that he would immediately rescind Biden’s access to classified information and end his intelligence briefings.
The memorandum lists over a dozen individuals affected by the measure, including former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, former National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and Republican critics Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both of whom were part of the House committee investigating Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol events.
Trump’s decision bars these individuals from accessing classified intelligence reports, including the President’s Daily Brief, and prohibits them from entering secure government facilities without authorization. According to the document, the president directed all government agencies to “take all necessary actions to revoke any active security clearances held by the aforementioned individuals and to immediately rescind their access to classified information.”
The White House has defended the move as a necessary step to protect national security, arguing that these former officials no longer require access to classified information. However, critics view it as a politically motivated attack aimed at undermining Trump’s opponents.
The decision to revoke Biden’s clearance was foreshadowed in February when Trump cited Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report, which portrayed Biden as having a “poor memory” and suggested he could not be trusted with sensitive information. Trump used this argument to justify barring Biden from classified briefings, a courtesy usually extended to former presidents.
The revocation of Harris and Clinton’s clearances also raises eyebrows, particularly as Clinton has not held public office for years. Critics argue that this move is a continuation of Trump’s long-standing animosity toward the former Secretary of State, dating back to the 2016 election.
The revocation of Biden’s clearance is particularly significant given his role as the leader of the Democratic Party. Although he withdrew from the 2024 presidential race due to health concerns, Biden remains actively involved in Democratic politics. NBC News reported that the 82-year-old former president has pledged to raise funds, campaign, and assist his party in its efforts to regain ground lost to Republicans during his tenure.
The move also affects members of Biden’s family, though the memorandum does not specify which relatives are included. Given the ongoing investigations into Hunter Biden’s business dealings, some analysts speculate that this decision may be an attempt to limit access to sensitive information that could be used in legal proceedings.
Unsurprisingly, Trump’s decision has been met with both praise and condemnation. Supporters argue that it is a necessary step to prevent leaks and ensure national security. They cite past controversies, such as Clinton’s email scandal and Biden’s handling of classified documents, as justification for revoking access.
Critics, however, view this as a blatant act of political retribution. Several Democratic lawmakers and legal analysts argue that the move sets a dangerous precedent, wherein a sitting president can selectively revoke security clearances to weaken political opponents. Former government officials have also expressed concern that such actions could discourage experienced professionals from serving in public office due to fears of post-administration retaliation.
Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both vocal critics of Trump and former members of the January 6 committee, also had their clearances revoked. Cheney responded on social media, calling the decision “an abuse of power,” while Kinzinger stated that it was “further proof of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies.”
While Trump is not the first president to revoke security clearances, his decision is unprecedented in its scope and targeting of high-profile political rivals. In 2018, Trump revoked the clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent critic of his administration. At the time, Trump faced backlash from intelligence officials, who warned that such actions could be seen as punitive rather than based on legitimate security concerns.
Legal experts suggest that affected individuals could challenge the revocation in court, arguing that it was done for political rather than national security reasons. However, courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch on matters of national security, making legal challenges difficult to win.
The revocation of security clearances marks yet another escalation in the deepening political divide in the United States. It underscores the extent to which national security decisions are increasingly being weaponized for political purposes. This development could set a precedent for future administrations to retaliate against political opponents in similar ways, further eroding trust in the political system.
For Trump, this decision aligns with his broader strategy of consolidating power and marginalizing opponents. As he prepares for what is expected to be a highly contentious election season, such moves reinforce his narrative of taking decisive action against those he perceives as threats.
For Democrats, this action serves as a rallying cry. Many within the party see it as an example of Trump’s disregard for democratic norms, and it may serve to mobilize voters who are concerned about his approach to governance.
Trump’s revocation of security clearances for Harris, Clinton, Biden, and others is a bold and controversial move that has sparked significant debate. While the White House insists it is a necessary step to protect national security, critics view it as a political maneuver designed to weaken opposition figures. Regardless of one’s perspective, this decision further deepens the already stark political divisions in the United States and raises important questions about the balance of power, the use of national security as a political tool, and the long-term implications for democratic governance.
As the 2024 election cycle unfolds, this decision is likely to remain a major talking point, fueling both Trump’s supporters and his detractors in what promises to be another highly polarized contest for the presidency.
Tajul Islam is a Special Correspondent of Blitz.
This post was originally published on here
