2LT International News

WASHINGTON, U.S. – Faced with a barrage of criticism that has now lasted over two weeks, the U.S. President Donald Trump has now proposed a plan to silence some of his chief critics – former intelligence officials. 

The White House announced on Monday that the President was considering revoking the security clearance of several top Barack Obama-era intelligence officials who have been sharply critical of his presidency.

Speaking to reporters, White House Press secretary Sarah Sanders said that the president is ‘exploring the mechanisms’ to strip clearance from some former officials who have held some of the most sensitive positions in government.

She said that those that could be stripped off their status include former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI director James Comey, former national intelligence director James Clapper, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice, and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who was dismissed by the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions in March this year.

During the daily briefing, Sanders said, “They’ve politicized and in some cases monetized their public service and security clearances. Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia, or being influenced by Russia, against the president is extremely inappropriate and the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”

Reports noted that Sanders’ comments came shortly after Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky tweeted, “Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance? Is John Brennan making millions of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media with his attacks on @realDonaldTrump?”

He tweeted again a while later and said, “Just got out of WH meeting with @realDonaldTrump. I restated to him what I have said in public: John Brennan and others partisans should have their security clearances revoked … Public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking head fees.”

In the aftermath of Trump’s Helsinki summit, the former CIA director Brennan described Trump’s performance while meeting with the Russian President Vladimir Putin as “nothing short of treasonous.”

Meanwhile, Comey, who was fired by Trump last year, recently published a book in which he is fiercely critical of the president.

Recently, Comey also urged Americans to vote for the Democrats in the midterm elections in November.

However, indicating that Trump’s threat of revoking security clearances did not have the impact he was expecting – most of those identified in Sanders’ statement brushed off the comments.

In response to Sanders’ statement, a spokesperson for McCabe, Melissa Schwartz, tweeted, “Andrew McCabe’s security clearance was deactivated when he was terminated, according to what we were told was FBI policy. You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps …”

Meanwhile, Clapper dismissed the announcement and said, “It’s kind of a sad commentary where for political reasons this is a petty way of retribution, I suppose, for speaking out against the president which, I think on the part of all of us, are born out of genuine concerns about President Trump.”

He further noted, “The security clearance has nothing to do with how I or any others feel about the president and I don’t get briefings, I don’t have access to any classified information. It’s frankly more of a courtesy that former senior officials in the intelligence community are extended the courtesy of keeping a security clearance. I haven’t had occasion to use it.”

Further, Hayden tweeted, “I don’t [sic] go back for classified briefings. Won’t have any effect on what I say or write.”

However, Trump’s recent threat came as the latest escalation in his ongoing war with the members of the U.S. intelligence community, whom he has criticized publicly several times.

Further, experts noted that if Trump indeed proceeds with the revoking of security clearances, the move would be an unprecedented politicization of the clearance process.

In a tweet following the threat, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee said that “politicizing security clearances to retaliate against former national security officials who criticize the President would set a terrible new precedent.” 

He wrote, “An enemies list is ugly, undemocratic and un-American.”

Traditionally, former CIA directors and other top national security officials are allowed to keep their clearances, usually for some period, so they can be in a position to advise their successors. 

Explaining that such a move by Trump would be ill-advised, Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy said, “Legalities aside, it seems like a terrible mistake to use the security clearance system as an instrument of political vendettas.”

Most experts were however split on the question of whether Trump has the authority to revoke clearances.

Attorney Greg T. Rinckey, who specializes in national security and security clearance cases, said that while presidents have broad authority to grant clearances, there is “some debate over whether or not the president has the authority to revoke” them.

Meanwhile, reports quoted John V. Berry, an attorney who regularly represents federal intelligence agency employees as saying that the president would be able to revoke clearance but that doing so would “be terrible for America and totally defeat the process of defending national security.”

He added, “If we start interjecting politics into this, our country’s going to be significantly weakened.”