Revoking security clearances includes due process, which is not being followed, says whistleblower lawyer
A registered independent, whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid says he has never been involved in “a meaningful” way with any political party. “I am strictly a lawyer who represents clients.” (Photo courtesy of Mark Zaid. Adjacent image from Shutterstock)
In February, President Donald Trump said he was revoking the security clearance of Washington, D.C.-based lawyer Mark Zaid, who in 2019 represented a whistleblower who led to Trump’s first impeachment over a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
By early March, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, announced on social media that she had revoked Zaid’s security clearance. Then Trump stated in a memo that it was “no longer in the national interest” for Zaid and others to have access to classified information.
The memo targeted a fairly lofty group, including three people who ran against Trump: former President Joe Biden; former Vice President Kamala Harris; and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who ran against Trump in the 2016 election. Zaid, who says he has had full security clearance for decades, also represented the Republican National Committee, on a matter related to Clinton’s emails.
A registered independent, Zaid says he has never been involved in “a meaningful” way with any political party.
“I am strictly a lawyer who represents clients,” adds Zaid, who also describes himself as “essentially an employment lawyer—but one for spies.”
He also co-founded Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit group that “helps government employees and private-sector workers report and expose wrongdoing—safely, lawfully and responsibly.”
Related article from ABAJournal.com: Lawyer who represents whistleblowers loses malpractice insurance because of ‘high-profile’ work
Tell us a little bit about your practice.
I represent federal employees and contractors trying to secure security clearances or defend against denials or revocations, as well as represent members of the intelligence, military and law enforcement communities in personnel actions. For journalists, I handle a lot of cases involving the Freedom of Information Act. I am one in a unique group of attorneys in the private sector who maintain security clearances to represent federal employees and contractors who are caught up in classified situations.
How did you find out your security clearance had been revoked?
The first time I heard about it was in February, when President Trump gave an interview to the New York Post and listed a number of people who he said had their clearances revoked, and my name was among them. It was a number of Democratic politicians and me.
Can you explain the standards and due process safeguards for how security clearances are revoked?
Due process protections are required by law to be afforded those who have their security clearances revoked through presidential executive orders and agency regulations. Individuals are entitled to receive the reason or reasons for the revocation, an opportunity to respond in writing and in person, and to be represented by legal counsel as part of the process. None of these protections have been provided to me by the Trump administration.
Will losing your security clearance prevent you from any aspect of representing your clients?
Yes; not having authorized access to classified information will prevent me from representing many of my clients in internal agency proceedings or congressional investigation[s], where such access is necessary. This may be as simple as being permitted to know the client works at the CIA, or it could involve substantive access to the work the agency employee was handling as part of an investigation.
Why is this issue important?
In the 1950s, during the Red Scare, individuals who worked for the U.S. government lost security clearances based on anonymous allegations of Communist affiliation. This was determined later to be an anathema to the rule of law that exists in the United States. The role I play in gaining access to classified information is to help ensure that the government abides by its laws, and it was the U.S. government that supported me doing this, until now. I’m also watching what’s happening with the law firms President Trump targeted in executive orders. With the executive orders, he suspended security clearances for everyone that works in [certain] law firms. Suspensions can go on for quite a long time with no action and don’t require immediate due process.
You seem to have strong opinions about national security and not about politics. Is this accurate?
National security is about protecting all Americans and should never be influenced by ideological or partisan sentiments. My entire legal career for more than three decades has been about holding governments accountable, whether that be for a terrorist attack or failure to follow the law. Protecting the national security interests of the United States and ensuring transparency, accountability and due process protections do not need to be inconsistent with each other, and my role is to ensure they actually operate in tandem.
What is your message to the legal community?
The rule of law is under direct attack by this administration and that should bother and upset every lawyer in the country. The Trump administration is removing those people with positions within the government who would normally conduct oversight and removing from the playing field the private lawyers who would ensure that the government is following the law.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
