The Claim

Revoked more than 100 security clearances of deep state actors responsible for weaponizing and politicizing intelligence, including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Alvin Bragg, Jake Sullivan, Hillary Clinton, Letitia James, Liz Cheney, John Bolton, Adam Kinzinger, Anthony Blinken, James Clapper, and Fiona Hill.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

Two things: (1) the administration revoked security clearances from more than 100 individuals, and (2) those individuals were “deep state actors responsible for weaponizing and politicizing intelligence.” The claim then lists 12 specific names as examples.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That the named individuals — a former president, a former vice president, two former secretaries of state, a former national security adviser, a former DNI, a former NSC senior director, two former Republican members of Congress, and two state prosecutors — constituted a coordinated “deep state” network that weaponized intelligence against the current president. That revoking their clearances was a national security measure rather than political retaliation. That all named individuals actually held active federal security clearances to revoke.

What is conspicuously absent?

That the named individuals’ only common thread is having investigated, prosecuted, testified against, or publicly criticized President Trump. That presidents and vice presidents do not hold formal security clearances — their access derives from their office, making the “revocation” a political gesture. That state prosecutors like Alvin Bragg and Letitia James likely did not hold federal clearances — James responded “What security clearance?” when informed of the action. That a federal judge found these revocations violated the First and Fifth Amendments when one target (attorney Mark Zaid) sued. That legal experts called this the most politically motivated security action since stripping J. Robert Oppenheimer’s clearance during the McCarthy era. That no evidence of actual intelligence weaponization by these individuals was presented in any of the executive actions. That the August 2025 batch of 37 additional revocations came with a memo that, per CBS News, “provided no evidence to support the accusations.”

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

The administration executed security clearance revocations through multiple executive actions across 2025. The first action occurred on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025, when Trump signed an executive order targeting the 51 former intelligence officials who signed a 2020 letter stating that reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop bore “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” This order also targeted former NSA John Bolton for his published memoir. A February 25, 2025 memorandum suspended clearances for Covington & Burling LLP attorneys who assisted Special Counsel Jack Smith. A March 22, 2025 presidential memorandum targeted 16 named individuals including Biden, Harris, Clinton, Sullivan, Blinken, Monaco, James, Bragg, Cheney, Kinzinger, Hill, Vindman, Zaid, Eisen, Weissmann, and all Biden family members. An August 20, 2025 action by DNI Gabbard revoked clearances of 37 additional current and former national security officials. ¹

The total number of individual revocations across all actions exceeds 100. The January action covered approximately 52 individuals (51 letter signatories plus Bolton). The March memorandum named 16 individuals plus Biden family members. The August action targeted 37 more. Combined, these documented actions affect approximately 105+ named individuals, not counting Covington & Burling attorneys or other interim actions. The “more than 100” figure in the claim is plausible based on the cumulative total. ²

New York Attorney General Letitia James responded to the revocation announcement with “What security clearance?” — questioning whether she held one. As a state attorney general, James would not typically hold a federal security clearance in the normal course of her duties. Similarly, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is a county-level prosecutor; it is unclear whether he held a federal clearance, though the Manhattan DA’s office occasionally collaborates on national security matters including terrorism cases. The inclusion of state prosecutors who may not have held clearances reinforces the symbolic and punitive nature of the action. ³

A federal judge found that at least one clearance revocation violated the First and Fifth Amendments. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali granted attorney Mark Zaid a preliminary injunction in December 2025, finding that Zaid’s “representation of whistleblowers and other clients adverse to the government was the sole reason for summarily revoking his security clearance.” The court found violations of the First Amendment (retaliation for protected speech), Fifth Amendment (due process), the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Constitution’s prohibition on bills of attainder. Judge Ali wrote: “This court joins the several others in this district that have enjoined the government from using the summary revocation of security clearances to penalize lawyers for representing people adverse to it.” ⁴

Every person named in the claim either investigated, prosecuted, testified against, or publicly criticized Trump. Joe Biden — Trump’s predecessor and political rival. Kamala Harris — Biden’s VP and 2024 opponent. Hillary Clinton — 2016 opponent. Alvin Bragg — prosecuted Trump criminally (first criminal conviction of a former president). Letitia James — secured $454 million civil fraud judgment against Trump. Jake Sullivan — Biden’s national security adviser. Anthony Blinken — Biden’s secretary of state. Liz Cheney — vice chair of the January 6 committee. Adam Kinzinger — January 6 committee member. John Bolton — former Trump NSA who published critical memoir. James Clapper — signed the Hunter Biden laptop letter. Fiona Hill — testified in Trump’s first impeachment. This is a complete mapping: the selection criterion is opposition to Trump, not evidence of intelligence abuse. ⁵

Strong Inferences

Presidents and vice presidents do not hold formal security clearances. NPR reported, citing Ohio State University law professor Dakota Rudesill, that presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court justices access classified information by virtue of their office, not through the standard federal clearance vetting process. Rudesill explained that Biden “didn’t have a security clearance in the way that folks in the military or intelligence agencies or the FBI have them, by going through the security clearance process.” A former president’s access to classified information depends entirely on their successor’s discretion — it is a courtesy, not a right conveyed by a formal clearance. Trump’s “revocation” of Biden’s and Harris’s “security clearances” targeted something neither formally possessed. ⁶

The “deep state actors” characterization is rhetorical framing unsupported by evidence in any of the executive actions. None of the three major executive actions — January, March, or August 2025 — presented evidence that the targeted individuals “weaponized and politicized intelligence.” The January order cited the 2020 laptop letter as its basis, but that letter explicitly stated: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails…are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.” The March memorandum simply stated it was “no longer in the national interest” for the individuals to access classified information, without citing evidence. The August 2025 memo, per CBS News, “provided no evidence to support the accusations.” The term “deep state actors” appears in the White House “365 wins” list but not in the formal legal instruments. ⁷

The mass revocation is historically unprecedented in scope and political targeting. Legal experts quoted by NBC News characterized the action as the most politically saturated security action since the Oppenheimer case in the 1950s. Security clearance expert Dan Meyer stated: “This is the most politically saturated security action since the Oppenheimer case in the 1950s.” No previous president revoked clearances so publicly, at such scale, or targeting former CIA directors and high-ranking officials from both parties. Previous politically motivated clearance actions existed — gay officials until 1995, Vietnam war opponents — but none approached this scale or directness. ⁸

Many targeted individuals no longer held active clearances, making a significant portion of the revocations symbolic. Former intelligence officials who have been retired for years often allow their clearances to lapse or hold only inactive eligibility. The practical impact on many of the 51 laptop-letter signatories was minimal because they had no active clearance to revoke. The inclusion of state prosecutors (Bragg, James) who may never have held federal clearances, and a former president and VP who never held formal clearances, confirms that the primary purpose was political signaling rather than national security. ⁹

The revocations serve a chilling function on the intelligence community and legal profession. Multiple legal experts warned that the mass revocations risk discouraging intelligence professionals from reaching conclusions at odds with presidential preferences, and deterring attorneys from representing clients adverse to the government. Lawyer Kevin Carroll noted: “Retired intelligence officials maintain just as much of a right to offer unclassified opinions…as do retired diplomats, military officers, prosecutors.” The court’s finding in the Zaid case — that the revocation was retaliation for legal representation — validated these concerns. ¹⁰

What the Evidence Shows

The factual core of the claim — that the administration revoked security clearances from more than 100 individuals — is supported by the cumulative effect of the January 20, March 22, and August 20, 2025 executive actions, which together targeted approximately 105+ named individuals. This part of the claim is essentially accurate.

But every other element of the claim is misleading or false. The individuals are labeled “deep state actors responsible for weaponizing and politicizing intelligence,” yet the executive actions presented no evidence of intelligence weaponization. The January order cited a 2020 letter that itself contained explicit caveats about uncertainty. The March memorandum offered no justification beyond a generic national interest claim. The August memo “provided no evidence to support the accusations.” The term “deep state actors” does not appear in the formal legal instruments — it is a rhetorical construct applied retroactively in the “365 wins” framing.

The named individuals reveal the true selection criterion: every single person listed either investigated, prosecuted, testified against, or publicly criticized the president. The list includes a former president, a former vice president, two former secretaries of state, a former national security adviser, a former DNI, two former Republican members of Congress who served on the January 6 committee, two state prosecutors who brought cases against Trump, and an NSC official who testified in his impeachment. Several of these individuals — Biden, Harris, and likely Bragg and James — did not hold formal security clearances to revoke. The revocations were legal instruments wielded as political punishment.

The courts have begun to check this pattern. Judge Ali’s December 2025 ruling found First Amendment violations in the Zaid case, establishing that security clearance revocations are subject to judicial review when they are retaliatory rather than security-based. Multiple other courts in the D.C. district issued similar injunctions against related executive orders targeting law firms. The legal consensus is forming that the president’s broad authority over classified information does not extend to using clearance revocations as a mechanism of political retribution.

The Bottom Line

Steel-manning this claim: the president has broad, largely unchecked authority over security clearances. The 2020 laptop letter was, at minimum, poorly timed and arguably inappropriate for former intelligence officials to sign during a presidential campaign. There are legitimate questions about whether former officials should retain clearances indefinitely, and a systematic review of clearance policies could serve the national interest.

But that is not what happened here. What happened is the compilation and execution of a political enemies list — unprecedented in modern American history in its scope, its public nature, and its targeting of individuals whose sole common attribute is opposition to the sitting president. The list includes people who did not hold clearances, people whose clearances had long lapsed, state officials outside the federal classification system, and a former president whose access to classified information was never formalized through the clearance process. A federal court found at least one revocation was unconstitutional retaliation. No evidence of intelligence “weaponization” was presented in any of the authorizing documents. The only “intelligence” that was “politicized” was the intelligence community’s own assessments when they reached conclusions the president did not like. This is not making government work for the people. It is making government work against the president’s opponents.

Footnotes

1. Executive Order, “Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information,” January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/holding-former-government-officials-accountablefor-election-interference-and-improper-disclosure-of-sensitive-governmental-information/. Presidential Memorandum, “Rescinding Security Clearances and Access to Classified Information from Specified Individuals,” March 22, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/rescinding-security-clearances-and-access-to-classified-information-from-specified-individuals/. White House Fact Sheet, “Suspension of Security Clearances for Government Weaponization,” February 25, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-directs-suspension-of-security-clearances-and-evaluation-of-government-contracts-for-involvement-in-government-weaponization/. CBS News, “Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 current and former officials,” August 20, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tulsi-gabbard-revokes-security-clearances-37-current-former-government-officials/. ↩

2. Running total: ~52 (January EO: 51 signatories + Bolton) + 16 named + Biden family members (March memo) + 37 (August action) = ~105+ individuals. Some overlap is possible but the combined total exceeds 100. ↩

3. Brooklyn Eagle, “NY Attorney General James minimizes Trump’s plan to revoke her federal security clearance,” February 10, 2025. https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2025/02/10/ny-attorney-general-james-minimizes-trumps-plan-to-revoke-her-federal-security-clearance/. Newsweek, “Trump Strips More Security Clearances — Alvin Bragg, Letitia James Among Latest Targets,” March 2025. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-strips-security-clearances-alvin-bragg-letitia-james-others-2042541. ↩

4. PBS NewsHour, “Judge blocks Trump effort to strip security clearance from attorney who represented whistleblowers,” December 24, 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-blocks-trump-effort-to-strip-security-clearance-from-attorney-who-represented-whistleblowers. Yale Law School, “MFIA Clinic Joins Free Speech Fight Over Security Clearance Revocation.” https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/mfia-clinic-joins-free-speech-fight-over-security-clearance-revocation. ↩

5. Analysis based on publicly documented relationships between each named individual and Trump: Biden (predecessor/rival), Harris (2024 opponent), Clinton (2016 opponent), Bragg (criminal prosecution), James (civil fraud judgment), Sullivan (Biden NSA), Blinken (Biden SecState), Cheney (Jan 6 committee vice chair), Kinzinger (Jan 6 committee member), Bolton (critical memoir), Clapper (laptop letter), Hill (impeachment testimony). ↩

6. NPR, “Why presidents don’t actually have security clearances,” February 8, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/08/nx-s1-5290912/trump-revoke-biden-security-clearance-history-explainer. Quoting Dakota Rudesill, Ohio State University law professor. ↩

7. The January 2025 EO cited the 2020 letter. The letter itself stated: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails…are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.” CNN, “Security clearances revoked for former officials who signed Hunter Biden laptop letter,” January 20, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/20/politics/trump-revokes-security-clearances-former-officials-hunter-biden-laptop-letter/index.html. CBS News reported the August 2025 memo “provided no evidence to support the accusations.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tulsi-gabbard-revokes-security-clearances-37-current-former-government-officials/. ↩

8. NBC News, “Trump’s canceling of 50 security clearances is unprecedented and partisan, experts say,” January 21, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trumps-canceling-scores-security-clearances-unprecedented-rcna189245. ↩

9. NBC News analysis noted many targeted officials were “long retired and no longer held active clearances.” Federal News Network, “A look at those Trump has targeted in tactic of revoking security clearances,” August 2025. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/intelligence-community/2025/08/a-look-at-those-trump-has-targeted-in-tactic-of-revoking-security-clearances/. ↩

10. Kevin Carroll quoted in NBC News, January 21, 2025. Judge Ali’s ruling in Zaid v. Trump, December 24, 2025. Mark Zaid quoted in CBS News: “unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies.” ↩