Trump Revokes Security Clearances for Biden, Harris, Clinton: A Bold Move in a Divided Era
On March 22, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum that sent shockwaves through the political landscape, revoking security clearances for a host of high-profile figures, including former President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This sweeping directive, announced late Friday night, also targeted a range of other political adversaries, from former Biden administration officials to critics within Trump’s party. The move, framed by Trump as a matter of national interest, has ignited fierce debate about precedent, power, and the deepening rift in American politics. Here’s a closer look at what happened, why it matters, and what it could mean for the future.
The Memorandum: A Dramatic Escalation
In a statement that left little room for ambiguity, Trump declared, “I have determined that it is no longer in the national interest for the following individuals to access classified information.” The list of 15 names that followed read like a roster of Trump’s most prominent political foes. Alongside Biden, Harris, and Clinton, the memo named former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, former National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and former Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, both Republicans who served on the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Notably, the directive extended to “any other member of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s family,” raising questions about its scope and intent.
The memorandum didn’t stop at revoking security clearances. Trump also directed all executive departments and agency heads to “revoke unescorted access to secure United States government facilities” for those named, effectively barring them from sensitive government spaces. This action builds on earlier moves by Trump’s administration, including National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard’s revocation of clearances for several Biden-era officials earlier in March. However, the scale and specificity of Friday’s announcement marked a dramatic escalation.
A Tit-for-Tat Precedent
Trump’s decision isn’t without context. In 2021, then-President Joe Biden revoked Trump’s access to classified intelligence briefings, breaking with a long-standing tradition of extending such courtesies to former presidents. Biden justified the move by citing Trump’s “erratic behavior” following the January 6 insurrection and concerns about his handling of classified materials, later underscored by the discovery of sensitive documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. “What value is giving him an intelligence briefing?” Biden asked at the time. “What impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something?”
Now back in the Oval Office, Trump has seized on this precedent to justify his actions. In February 2025, he announced plans to strip Biden of his clearance, a pledge he formalized in Friday’s memo. “He set this precedent in 2021,” Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this year, framing his latest move as a retaliatory strike. But where Biden’s decision was limited to Trump alone, Trump’s memorandum casts a far wider net, targeting not just his predecessor but an entire cohort of political opponents.
The Targets: An Enemies List?
The list of individuals in the memo has drawn comparisons to an “enemies list,” a term evocative of Richard Nixon’s presidency. Beyond Biden, Harris, and Clinton—Trump’s Democratic rivals in the 2020 and 2016 elections, respectively—the directive includes figures like Letitia James, who prosecuted Trump for fraud, and Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA who indicted him on felony charges. Former Biden officials like Blinken and Sullivan, key architects of the previous administration’s foreign policy, also made the cut, as did Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, outspoken Trump critics within the GOP.
The inclusion of Biden’s family is particularly striking. While it’s unclear whether any Biden relatives currently hold formal clearances, the blanket reference suggests a symbolic swipe at the former president’s legacy. Critics argue this broad approach reeks of personal vendetta rather than national security concerns. Supporters, however, see it as a necessary purge of a “weaponized bureaucracy” that Trump has long vowed to dismantle.
Legal and Practical Implications
The practical impact of these revocations varies. Former presidents and officials don’t typically retain active security clearances after leaving office unless they’re engaged in specific government roles or consulting work. Historically, they’ve been granted access to intelligence briefings as a courtesy, allowing them to advise successors on national security matters. Biden’s decision to cut Trump off in 2021 was an exception, and Trump’s latest move further erodes this tradition.
For some targets, like James or Bragg, the loss of clearance may have little immediate effect on their current roles, which don’t inherently require access to classified data. For others, such as Blinken or Sullivan, who might leverage their expertise in private-sector or advisory capacities, the revocation could limit future opportunities. The directive’s instruction to notify private employers of the change amplifies this potential fallout, affecting consulting or defence-related work that relies on clearance.
Legally, the president holds broad authority over classified information, rooted in the executive branch’s control of national security. However, constitutional scholars note that the scale of Trump’s action—targeting political opponents en masse—raises novel questions about the limits of that power. Could Congress intervene? Historically, efforts to curb executive discretion in this area have faltered, though the nuclear secrets governed by statute remain beyond Trump’s reach.
Political Fallout: A Nation Divided
The memo has predictably split reactions along partisan lines. Trump’s base, galvanized by his “drain the swamp” rhetoric, hails it as a decisive blow against a perceived deep state. Posts on X reflect this sentiment, with users like
@endlibtyranny praising it as a “great move” to “keep America safe.” Others, however, see it as a dangerous overreach. Critics argue it weaponizes national security for political gain, undermining norms that have long underpinned bipartisan governance.
The timing—late Friday night on March 21, 2025—only fuels the controversy, evoking Trump’s penchant for dramatic, headline-grabbing announcements. It comes amid other aggressive moves by his administration, from targeting former aides like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to reshaping federal agencies under figures like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Together, these actions signal a presidency intent on settling scores and consolidating power.
What’s Next?
The revocation of security clearances is unlikely to be the final chapter in this saga. Legal challenges could emerge, though their success is uncertain given the president’s wide latitude in this domain. Biden, Harris, and Clinton have yet to comment publicly, but their silence won’t last forever. Democrats may push back through congressional oversight or public pressure, framing the move as an abuse of power ahead of future elections.
For Trump, the memorandum aligns with a broader campaign promise to upend Washington’s status quo. Whether it strengthens his grip on power or galvanizes his opposition remains to be seen. What’s clear is that, on March 22, 2025, the divide between Trump and his adversaries grew wider, with national security as the latest battleground.
In a nation already polarized, this bold stroke underscores a troubling reality: the norms that once bridged political divides are fraying, and the consequences could echo far beyond the names on Trump’s list. As the dust settles, one question lingers—where does this tit-for-tat end, and what does it mean for America’s future? Only time will tell.
