White House presses and questions independence of intelligence

The revocation of security authorizations affects old and current employees, raising criticism of politicization and attack on the independence of American intelligence

In another controversial measure, the Trump Administration announced last Tuesday (19) the revocation of the security authorizations of 37 current and old employees of the intelligence communityan act that experts and critics consider retaliation against public servants who, according to the White House, would have acted politically.

The announcement was made through a memorandum signed by National Intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbardwhich accuses the individuals listed of involvement in “intelligence politicization or armament” for personal or partisan purposes. The document also points out that they would have failed to protect confidential information and “obey professional analytical standards”, as well as other “harmful” conducts that were not detailed.

Also read:
Wall Street plummets with AI -pressing actions
Astronomers capture the collapse of a living star
Trump presses Fed and asks Lisa Cook to leave

The memorandum, however, has no concrete evidence to support these allegations. Many of the affected had already left the government for years after occupying high -relevance positions in national security or more discreet functions, far from the spotlight. Among them are employees who worked on investigations that historically caused Trump’s discontent, including the evaluation of the intelligence community on Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Some had also publicly criticized the president, signing a letter in 2019 that recently circulated on social networks, shared by Laura Lomer, an ally close to Trump.

The measure is part of a broader strategy of the Trump administration to press and punish alleged opponents within the government, reflecting the president’s continuous distrust of career intelligence professionals, which he often accuses of acting against his interests. For critics, revoking safety authorizations is a dangerous tactic, capable of silencing dissident voices and weakening the domestic debate in a community that traditionally rests on multiple views before emitting official evaluations.

“These are illegal and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well -established laws and policies with decades of existence, which sought to protect precisely against this type of action,” he said Mark Zaidlawyer specializing in national security and whose own authorization was revoked in a statement. He criticized the government for calling politicization what he considers professional and impartial intelligence work.

In his defense, Tulsi Gabbard stated that the measure was determined by Trump himself. “Receiving security authorization is a privilege, not a right,” she wrote on platform X. “Those in the intelligence community that betray their oath to the constitution and put their own interests ahead of the American people broke the sacred confidence they promised to maintain.”

The episode occurs at a time of intensification of Trump’s pressure on the intelligence community, with efforts to reassess Official Evaluation of 2017 on Russian Interference in the presidential elections. The government has also been disqualifying a series of old documents in an attempt to question the legitimacy of intelligence community conclusions, reinforcing the narrative that the evaluation was unfairly political.

Experts warn that these actions can have lasting effects on the confidence between the White House and intelligence professionals, undermining practices that for decades seek to separate political decisions from technical analysis. For them, the measure represents not only a political dispute, but an attack on the rules that guarantee the independence and credibility of national security information.

Several government investigations have come to the conclusion that the Russia interfered in the 2016 electionsthrough a series of coordinated actions, including the hacking and leakage of e-mails from Democratic leaders and a massive campaign on social networks designed to sow division and influence public opinion.

Despite these evidence, Trump insists on rejecting the evaluation that Vladimir Putin acted in his favor. The Department of Justice under its administration also authorized an investigation from the large jury which can lead to a new scrutiny of Obama era authorities, rekindling old political disputes.

As Security Authorizations They are not just a formality for current employees; Former private sector experts and experts often depend on them to continue working with confidential information. The revocation of these authorizations can, therefore, make it significantly hinder the performance of your functionsalthough it is unclear how many of the affected former employees still need access.

Since the beginning of his term, Trump had already signaled this approach. Node first day of governmenthe announced his intention to revoke authorizations from more than four dozen intelligence officials who, by 2020, signed a letter stating that the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop had characteristics of a “Russian information operation.” In addition, Trump revoked the security authorizations of Joe Biden e Kamala Harrisand tried to do the same to lawyers of large law firms, an action that was eventually barred by decisions of federal judges.

Some of the employees affected in the most recent wave Biden’s National Security Team were part. Many only learned of the measure through reports published on Tuesday, according to two former employees who requested anonymity while assessing whether they will take legal action.

Experts warn that these actions represent a significant escalation in the politicization of the intelligence community, undermining years of practices designed to maintain the independence of national security analyzes. For critics, the risk goes beyond the individual impact: it is a precedent that can weaken credibility and confidence in the entire intelligence structure of the countryimpairing both the government’s internal policy and the ability to make strategic decisions based on reliable information.

With information from AP*