Judge Blocks Trump Security Clearance Revocation Order for Attorney/ TezzBuzz/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from revoking an attorney’s security clearance. The ruling protects Mark Zaid, known for representing whistleblowers in national security cases. The decision marks another judicial setback for Trump’s second-term agenda.
Trump Security Clearance Ruling Quick Looks
- Federal judge blocked enforcement of Trump’s clearance revocation order
- Attorney Mark Zaid challenged the move as political retaliation
- The order targeted Zaid and 14 other individuals
- Judge ruled revocation cannot punish lawyers for their clients
- Decision follows other court setbacks for Trump administration
- Government may still revoke clearance through normal procedures
Deep Look: Trump Security Clearance Ruling
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a presidential memorandum that sought to revoke the security clearance of a prominent Washington attorney, delivering another legal setback to President Donald Trump as courts continue to scrutinize his second-term efforts to reshape federal power.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from applying a March presidential directive to Mark Zaida lawyer widely known for representing whistleblowers and clients involved in sensitive national security matters. Zaid sued the administration in May, arguing that the revocation of his clearance amounted to unconstitutional political retaliation that threatened his ability to practice law.
The ruling came on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court declined to allow Trump to deploy National Guard troops to the Chicago area, underscoring a pattern in which courts have slowed or blocked several major initiatives pursued during Trump’s first year back in office.
In his order, Judge Ali concluded that the administration could not summarily revoke a lawyer’s security clearance as punishment for representing clients who are adverse to the government. “This court joins the several others in this district that have enjoined the government from using the summary revocation of security clearances to penalize lawyers for representing people adverse to it,” Ali wrote.
The March memorandum named Zaid and 14 other individuals whose clearances the White House said were “no longer in the national interest.” The list included a range of political and legal figures who have drawn Trump’s ire, such as former Deputy Attorney General Lisa MonacoNew York Attorney General Letitia Jamesformer President Joe Bidenand members of Biden’s family.
The move was widely seen as part of a broader campaign of retribution that Trump has pursued since returning to the White House. That campaign has included directing investigations toward perceived political adversaries and issuing executive orders aimed at law firms over legal work the administration disfavors.
Revoking or threatening to revoke security clearances has become a recurring tactic during Trump’s second term. In August, the administration announced it was stripping the clearances of 37 current and former national security officials, further escalating concerns among legal and intelligence communities about the politicization of access to classified information.
Zaid has practiced law for nearly 35 years and said in court filings that he has represented clients from across the political spectrum, including government officials, military personnel, law enforcement officers, and intelligence community whistleblowers. His work has often required access to classified material, making a security clearance essential to his practice.
In 2019, Zaid represented an intelligence community whistleblower whose account of a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy played a key role in triggering Trump’s first impeachment during his initial term in office. That history figured prominently in Zaid’s argument that the revocation was retaliatory.
Judge Ali emphasized that his ruling does not permanently shield Zaid from losing his clearance. The order makes clear that the government retains the authority to revoke or suspend a clearance through standard agency processes, provided it is based on legitimate, individualized reasons unrelated to the presidential memorandum.
The preliminary injunction is set to take effect on January 13. Until then, the administration is barred from enforcing the March order against Zaid.
In a statement following the ruling, Zaid framed the decision as a broader defense of the legal profession. “This is not just a victory for me,” he said. “It’s an indictment of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate and silence the legal community, especially lawyers who represent people who dare to question or hold this government accountable.”
Legal experts say the ruling reinforces long-standing principles protecting attorneys from government retaliation based on their choice of clients. Courts have repeatedly warned that allowing such tactics could undermine the independence of the legal system and chill representation in controversial or politically sensitive cases.
For the Trump administration, the decision adds to a growing list of judicial roadblocks encountered as it seeks to implement an aggressive agenda centered on immigration enforcement, executive authority, and retaliation against critics. While the administration has vowed to continue fighting adverse rulings, the clearance case highlights the limits courts are willing to impose when executive actions appear aimed at punishing political opponents.
As litigation over security clearances and executive power continues, the ruling signals that federal judges remain skeptical of efforts to use national security tools as leverage in political disputes. For now, Mark Zaid retains his clearance, and the broader question of how far a president can go in revoking access to classified information remains squarely in the hands of the courts.
More on US News
Comments are closed.