In a sweeping move that has sent shockwaves through Washington and the intelligence community, the Trump administration announced on August 19, 2025, that it would revoke security clearances from 37 current and former national security officials. The decision, made public by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, marks the latest—and perhaps most dramatic—escalation in a long-running campaign by former President Donald Trump to target perceived adversaries within the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
The announcement came via a memo from Gabbard, who stated that the revocations were ordered directly by Trump. According to AP and BBC, the memo accused the targeted officials of "politicizing or weaponizing intelligence" to advance personal or partisan goals, failing to safeguard classified information, and committing "other detrimental conduct." However, critics were quick to point out that the memo offered no concrete evidence to support these accusations. Many of the officials affected had left government service years ago, some after serving in senior roles under Democratic administrations, and others in more obscure positions far from the public spotlight.
The list of those stripped of their clearances includes officials from a range of agencies, notably some who worked on issues that have long provoked Trump’s ire—such as the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit his campaign. Several of the targeted individuals also signed a 2019 letter critical of Trump, a document that was recently amplified on social media by right-wing activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer. Among those named is Joel Willett, a military veteran and former CIA officer who spent time in the White House Situation Room under President Barack Obama before leaving government a decade ago. Willett, speaking to AP, expressed his dismay: “I think there was a profound sadness and disappointment that this is what our country has become in 2025.”
The practical impact of the revocations remains unclear. As BBC reports, it is not known how many of the 37 individuals still hold active security clearances or require them for their current employment. For some, especially those working in the private sector in defense or aerospace, the loss of clearance could affect their livelihoods. For others, it may be largely symbolic. Still, critics argue the move is less about practical security concerns and more about sending a message. Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who found himself among those stripped of clearance, described the action as "unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action." He added, "It is hypocritical for the administration to claim these individuals politicized or weaponized intelligence."
Gabbard, for her part, defended the decision on social media, writing, “Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. 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.” She further accused the officials of abusing public trust by “leaking classified intelligence without authorization, and/or committing intentional egregious violations of tradecraft standards.” No specific evidence or individual charges were cited in the memo.
This is not the first time the Trump administration has wielded the revocation of security clearances as a tool against political foes. According to AP and BBC, Trump has previously revoked the clearances of former President Joe Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, along with dozens of other former intelligence officials. Many of these earlier actions targeted individuals who signed a 2020 letter suggesting the Hunter Biden laptop controversy bore the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation operation—a claim that Trump and his allies have repeatedly sought to discredit. Among those previously targeted were James Clapper, John Brennan, and Leon Panetta, all of whom served in top intelligence roles under President Obama.
The administration’s approach has not been limited to individuals. Trump also signed executive orders this year seeking to suspend security clearances for several prominent law firms over legal work he viewed as hostile or for their associations with attorneys he disliked. These orders threatened to bar firm attorneys from federal buildings and cancel government contracts. However, as AP notes, the affected firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block—successfully challenged the orders in federal court, leaving their clearances intact.
The broader context of these actions is a deepening distrust between Trump and the intelligence community. Since his first term, Trump has viewed many career intelligence officials as working against his interests, particularly those involved in the assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Multiple government investigations have confirmed that Russia engaged in a sweeping campaign, including hacking Democratic emails and deploying social media disinformation, to influence the outcome in Trump’s favor. Yet, Trump and Gabbard have dismissed these findings, with Gabbard recently leading efforts to revisit and declassify documents related to the 2017 intelligence assessment. They have described the intelligence community’s conclusions as a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine Trump’s electoral victory—a claim dismissed by Democrats as a political distraction, according to BBC.
The revocation announcement was accompanied by another major shake-up: Gabbard revealed plans to cut the staff of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) by nearly 50% and reduce its annual budget by $700 million. She argued that the agency had become “bloated and inefficient” over the past two decades, and that “serious changes” were needed to ensure ODNI fulfilled its mission of providing “objective, unbiased, timely intelligence.” Several units are being eliminated, including the Foreign Malign Influence Center, which tracked foreign efforts to sway U.S. public opinion, and groups monitoring weapons of mass destruction and cyber threats. Gabbard insisted that these functions would continue elsewhere within the intelligence community.
The move has sparked fierce debate. Supporters of the administration argue that security clearances are a privilege, not a right, and that those who breach the public trust should lose access to sensitive information. Critics, however, view the mass revocation as a thinly veiled act of political retribution, intended to chill dissent and discourage intelligence professionals from reaching conclusions that might conflict with the president’s preferences. As one former official told AP on condition of anonymity, many only learned of the clearance revocations from news reports and are now weighing possible legal action.
With the intelligence community in flux and the boundaries between national security and partisan politics increasingly blurred, the long-term ramifications of the Trump administration’s latest actions remain to be seen. What is clear is that the battle over who controls—and who can access—the nation’s secrets is far from over.
