
Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 U.S. officials
The big picture: National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard publicly released a memo naming the officials, which Mark Zaid, a lawyer who represents intelligence officers and who's suing the Trump administration to have his revoked security clearance restored, said may have broken the law.
Driving the news: Gabbard accused the officials in an X post on the administration's latest move to revoke security clearances of "politicizing and manipulating intelligence, leaking classified intelligence without authorization, and/or committing intentional egregious violations of tradecraft standards."
Neither the memo nor Gabbard's post detailed evidence on these claims, but among the intelligence community public servants included in the list are officials who were involved in assessments on Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and others who worked on national security under former Presidents Biden and Obama.
Others signed a letter supporting the impeachment inquiry into President Trump on allegations that he pressured Ukraine, which far-right activist Laura Loomer amplified last month as she noted some still held security clearances.
What they're saying: Zaid wrote on X in response to Gabbard's post: "Can you say 'Privacy Act violation'? I certainly can. Further proof of weaponization and politicization. The vast majority of these individuals are not household names & are dedicated public servants who have worked across multiple presidential administrations."
He said in a Tuesday night email that information regarding someone's security clearance "is maintained in a protected Privacy Act System of records" and the government "cannot simply release that information without written consent from the individual or the existence of a Routine Use, which I do not believe exists for this purpose."
Representatives for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not immediately respond to Axios' Tuesday evening request for comment on the matter.
Of note: Loomer noted on X that she had previously called for the security clearance of one of those named in the memo to be revoked, adding: "Thank you, Tulsi! MORE SCALPS."
That official worked under then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on an Intelligence Community Assessment that found Russia interfered in the first election that President Trump won, a conclusion that's received bipartisan support in Congress.
However, Gabbard last month accused the Obama administration of a " manipulation of intelligence" around Russia's role in the 2016 election.
Flashback: On his first day in office, President Trump revoked the security clearances of 51 former intelligence officials who signed a letter in 2020 saying emails from Hunter Biden's laptop carried "classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
a minute ago
- Bloomberg
Spurned by Trump, Modi Springs Into Action
Newsletter India Edition Trump's 50% tariff will hit India next week Welcome to India Edition, I'm Menaka Doshi. Join me each week for a ringside view of the billionaires, businesses and policy decisions behind India's rise as an emerging economic powerhouse. You can subscribe here, and share feedback with me here.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'The bottom has fallen out': Trump's approval rating falls on issues that got him elected
Puck News Chief Political Columnist John Heilemann, host of the "Fast Politics" Podcast and Vanity Fair Special Correspondent Molly Jong-Fast, and host of "The Bulwark Podcast" Tim Miller join Nicolle Wallace to discuss Donald Trump's falling approval ratings on all of the issues he campaigned on - and the pushback Republicans continue to get in townhalls and across the country.

Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Africa's response to Trump's migrant relocation plan reveals deep divisions
Africa's reaction to President Donald Trump's migrant relocation plan has been far from uniform, with some governments signaling willingness to cooperate while others voice sharp resistance. Africa's response to President Trump's migrant relocation plan is divided, reflecting competing diplomatic and domestic priorities. Reports suggested an agreement with Uganda to accept certain deportees, but Ugandan officials denied its existence. Several African nations expressed sovereignty concerns and criticized the policy as exploitative or unconstitutional. Sentiments among African leaders vary, showcasing frustration with U.S. transactional diplomacy. The divided response highlights the continent's competing priorities, balancing diplomatic ties with Washington against domestic concerns over sovereignty, security, and human rights. Reports from CBS, shared by the BBC, suggested that Washington had secured a new deportation agreement with Uganda, under which Kampala would receive migrants who had sought asylum at the US–Mexico border, including some from African and Asian countries. According to the report, Uganda was said to have agreed to accept deportees without criminal histories, though the number it would eventually host was left undefined. But Ugandan authorities have since denied the existence of any such agreement. Henry Oryem Okello, the country's state minister for foreign affairs, told Reuters that Kampala had not signed a deal with the US and lacked the infrastructure to accommodate deported migrants. ' To the best of my knowledge we have not reached such an agreement. We do not have the facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such illegal immigrants in Uganda. So, we cannot take in such illegal immigrants, ' Oryem stated. His rejection comes as Washington faces growing criticism for attempting to relocate convicted felons and rejected asylum seekers t o countries that are not their places of origin. With the latest development, Uganda has joined the growing list of African countries that have pushed back against the U.S. deportation plan, signaling mounting resistance to Washington's efforts to secure third-party hosts for deported migrants. African nations adopt divided approaches As the Trump administration intensifies efforts to deport convicted migrants to third-party countries, several African nations have pushed back, asserting sovereignty and rejecting what many view as an exploitative framework. However, some others have acepted the policy. Earlier this year, the U.S. deported foreign convicts to South Sudan and Eswatini, sparking condemnation from rights groups. Uganda's firm denial now places it alongside other African states resisting Washington's controversial program. Nigeria: A Resounding No In July 2025, Nigeria's Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar rejected U.S. overtures outright, insisting that his country would not accept 'Venezuelan prisoners into Nigeria.' His stance, backed by Nigeria's regional influence, underscores growing frustration with what analysts call Washington's transactional diplomacy. Libya: Both Governments Refuse Libya's rival authorities—both the UN-backed western administration and eastern militias—denied any deal with the U.S., stressing that deportees would not be accepted. U.S. court rulings have also warned that such deportations would be unconstitutional. Rwanda: From Talks to Agreement Rwanda initially confirmed holding early discussions with U.S. officials, stressing that no deal had been finalized. However, by August 2025 Kigali announced a formal agreement to accept up to 250 deported migrants, with provisions for vetting and support services including housing, healthcare, and workforce training. South Sudan Last month, the United States confirmed it had completed the deportation of eight men to South Sudan, a day after a U.S. judge cleared the way for President Donald Trump's administration to send them to the violence-hit African country. Eswatini In July 2025, the United States deported five men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen, and Laos to Eswatini under its third-country deportation policy. The men, convicted of crimes in the U.S., were placed in solitary confinement upon arrival, with Eswatini stating they would later be repatriated through the United Nations. The move drew strong criticism from rights advocates and civic leaders, who called it opaque and unlawful, warning that it compromised both the men's rights and Eswatini's sovereignty. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on Saturday that the men were deported the previous day—U.S. Independence Day—after losing a last-minute legal bid to halt their transfer.