- National security attorney loses clearance after 30+ years of access
- Lawsuit alleges retaliation for Ukraine whistleblower representation
- Revocation blocks access to classified client materials
- Case could redefine executive branch authority over clearances
Prominent whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid has launched a constitutional challenge against former President Donald Trump’s revocation of his security clearance, alleging political retaliation that undermines legal protections for government whistleblowers. The lawsuit claims the 2024 presidential memorandum targeting Zaid and other political figures represents unprecedented weaponization of national security protocols.
Zaid’s security credentials spanned four presidential administrations since 1995, including upgraded Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS-SCI) clearance during Trump’s first term. His complaint details how clearance removal prevents effective representation for multiple clients handling classified matters – including a Department of Homeland Security whistleblower case requiring secure document review.
The legal action draws parallels to 2018 UK controversies where barristers challenging Brexit-related security policies faced similar clearance obstacles. Unlike the British system’s independent vetting process, Zaid’s attorneys argue the U.S. president holds unchecked revocation power enabling political targeting – a concern amplified by the simultaneous clearance stripping of 15 prominent Trump critics.
Legal analysts note this case could establish critical precedents regarding three untested areas: executive authority over clearances, due process requirements for revocation, and First Amendment protections for attorneys representing controversial clients. The District of Columbia Circuit’s eventual ruling may determine whether future administrations can silence critics through bureaucratic means rather than substantive policy debates.
Zaid’s team emphasizes the practical consequences beyond constitutional theory. Without clearance reinstatement, the attorney cannot review sealed evidence for active cases involving intelligence community whistleblowers. This creates what the complaint calls a chilling domino effectwhere government employees might avoid reporting misconduct through proper channels if their legal representation becomes functionally blocked.
The lawsuit seeks judicial recognition of security clearances as protected property interests under the Fifth Amendment, requiring formal justification and appeal processes before revocation. This argument gains traction from recent federal rulings limiting arbitrary suspension of professional licenses, though no previous case involves national security credentials.
