On August 19, 2025, the Trump administration, through Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials—a move that has sent shockwaves through Washington’s intelligence and political circles. The announcement, made in a memo posted on social media and quickly circulated across government agencies, accused the targeted officials of “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” for personal or partisan goals, failing to safeguard classified information, and violating professional analytic tradecraft standards. Yet, the memo, as reported by CNN and the Associated Press, offered no specific evidence to support its sweeping accusations.
Many of those affected had long since left government service, having held positions ranging from senior posts in the State Department, CIA, NSA, and Defense Department to less visible roles far from the public eye. Among the most notable is Sam Vinograd, former assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security and a national security contributor for CBS News. According to CBS News, Vinograd had not yet responded to the memo as of the announcement. Several officials on the list were involved in the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump—a conclusion that has consistently provoked the former president’s ire.
The Trump administration’s latest action is widely seen as part of a broader campaign to wield the levers of government against perceived adversaries in the intelligence community. As Politico and the New York Post reported, the move comes alongside escalating scrutiny of Obama-era officials, particularly those involved in the 2016 Russian election interference review. Gabbard’s memo, which was directed by the president, instructed the heads of several national security agencies to immediately revoke the clearances, stating, “All personnel are reminded that holding a clearance is a privilege, not a right, and this privilege is contingent upon continued adherence to the principles and responsibilities of our profession.” She added, “Any betrayal of these standards compromises not only our mission, but also the safety and security of the American people.”
But the decision has ignited fierce criticism, not only from those directly affected but also from legal and political observers. Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer whose own clearance was previously revoked by the Trump administration, called the decisions “unlawful and unconstitutional.” In a statement quoted by the Associated Press and CNN, Zaid said, “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.” He further accused the administration of hypocrisy, asserting, “For this administration to claim these individuals politicized or weaponized intelligence blatantly wreaks of hypocrisy. This Administration would make Senator McCarthy proud.”
Many of the targeted officials only learned of the revocation from news reports on August 19, 2025, and, according to the Associated Press, are now weighing potential legal action. Two former government officials who were on the list spoke to the press on the condition of anonymity as they considered their next steps. For some, the loss of clearance could have immediate professional consequences, especially for those who rely on access to sensitive information in private-sector roles.
This is not the first time the Trump administration has employed this tactic. As reported by CBS News and CNN, security clearances have previously been revoked from high-profile figures including former President Joe Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In Trump’s first term, the clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan was also rescinded. The administration has also attempted—though not always successfully—to revoke clearances from lawyers at prominent law firms and dozens of former officials who signed a 2020 letter suggesting the Hunter Biden laptop saga bore the hallmarks of a Russian information operation.
Gabbard, for her part, staunchly defended the move. On X (formerly Twitter), she reiterated, “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 interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.” Her words echoed the language of the official memo and reflected the administration’s ongoing efforts to cast itself as a guardian against politicized intelligence.
Yet, critics say the administration’s actions risk chilling dissent within the intelligence community—a community that, by design, draws on a diversity of viewpoints to shape national security assessments. As the Associated Press noted, several of the officials targeted were involved in the 2017 intelligence community assessment that concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping fashion, including a hack-and-leak operation targeting Democratic emails and a social media campaign to sway public opinion. This assessment was later supported by a three-year investigation from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, which, as Politico reported, found national security concerns about the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russian officials but no conclusive evidence of collusion.
In recent weeks, Gabbard and other senior Trump administration officials have ramped up their efforts to discredit the 2017 intelligence assessment. According to CNN, Gabbard released documents in July 2025 that she claimed were evidence of a “treasonous conspiracy” by the Obama administration, including former President Barack Obama, and referred several former officials to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. CIA Director John Ratcliffe also issued a review critical of the assessment and referred officials for FBI investigation. Attorney General Pam Bondi has reportedly directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation into accusations that the Obama administration manufactured intelligence—a charge that Democrats have dismissed as a distraction from other controversies, such as the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Gabbard’s critics argue that, far from depoliticizing the intelligence community, she is weaponizing it against the president’s perceived political enemies. As CNN reported, her allegations at times have conflated or misrepresented the intelligence community’s conclusions. For example, Gabbard has cited intelligence assessments from 2016 stating that Russians did not alter the election results through cyberattacks on voting systems, but the intelligence community never claimed votes were changed in the first place. She also declassified a Republican House Intelligence Committee report that questioned the assessment that Putin preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton, though the report did not dispute that Russian interference occurred.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has dismissed Gabbard’s allegations as “ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.” The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, endorsed by then-Senator Marco Rubio—now Trump’s Secretary of State—remains a key reference point for those who argue the intelligence community acted appropriately and in good faith.
As the dust settles, the revocation of these security clearances underscores the deep divisions and mutual suspicions that continue to shape the U.S. national security landscape. For those inside and outside government, the question remains: will this escalation serve to protect the integrity of intelligence, or further erode the trust and independence essential to its mission?
