Dear Subscribers,
This past weekend, the NY Post reported that Trump ordered the revocation of the security clearances of 51 individuals—including former Secretary of State Antony Blinken. And me! Bizarrely, the report claims this will also bar these individuals from federal buildings, which seems blatantly unlawful. Stripping security clearances from officials like Blinken doesn’t just affect them personally—it actively hinders the current Secretary of State’s ability to receive historical context, institutional knowledge, and sound judgment. Once again, Trump prioritizes retribution and petty grievances over public duty and national security.
–Andrew
TRANSCRIPT
The New York Post, a tabloid here in New York City, published an unusual article this weekend claiming that 51 individuals are having their security clearances revoked—according to the President of the United States. The article also asserts that, as a result, these individuals would be barred from entering any federal building.
It’s unclear whether this has actually happened or whether the Post’s reporting is accurate, though the piece is based on what is described as an exclusive interview with the President. I’m not particularly surprised by the idea that he would once again attempt to revoke security clearances—he did the same thing during Trump 1.0.
The reported list of 51 individuals includes former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco (a former one), and various others—including, apparently, yours truly.
What’s interesting is that the article does not claim he’s revoking security clearances for everyone who served on the Mueller team. So, to the extent that I am on this list—if it’s true—it seems clear that it’s based on my First Amendment activities, namely my public commentary, likely most notably on MSNBC. That is a highly unusual and concerning basis for any public official to take action.
As for the claim that these individuals would be barred from federal buildings—I find that dubious. It remains to be seen whether this is even legally possible. The President does not own federal buildings. And it is certainly not constitutional for a president to unilaterally declare that certain individuals are prohibited from entering them.
What happens if one of these individuals is called for jury duty? Needs to visit a U.S. embassy? Wants to report a crime to the FBI? Or simply go to the post office?
We don’t have a king. We don’t have a dictator—at least, not yet.
So, we’ll see what, if anything, has actually transpired. Stay tuned, and I’ll keep you updated on what’s fact and what’s fiction in this New York Post article.
Share this post