View the Original .pdfThe 1-Minute Brief
What: Executive Order 14152 revokes the security clearances of 51 specific former intelligence officials and former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton. It asserts this action is a response to the officials signing a 2020 letter that questioned the origins of a news story about Hunter Biden's laptop and to Bolton for publishing a memoir containing sensitive information.
Money: The Executive Order has no direct cost or appropriation associated with it. The financial impact is primarily on the individuals who lose their clearances, which can be crucial for obtaining lucrative consulting or board positions in the private sector after government service.
Your Impact: For the average American, the direct impact is minimal. The order primarily affects a small group of former high-level officials and serves as a policy statement against what the issuing authority describes as the political weaponization of intelligence credentials.
Status: Issued and effective as of January 20, 2025.
What's Actually in the Bill
This Executive Order directs the immediate revocation of security clearances for a list of 50 former intelligence officials and former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton. It also establishes a policy aimed at preventing former and current intelligence community members from using their status to influence domestic politics or improperly disclose classified information.
Core Provisions:
- Immediate Revocation: The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), in consultation with the Director of the CIA, is ordered to immediately revoke any active security clearances held by 50 named former intelligence officials and John R. Bolton.
- 90-Day Report: The DNI is required to submit a report to the President within 90 days. This report must detail any further inappropriate activity related to the 2020 letter, recommend measures to prevent future political influence by the intelligence community, and suggest disciplinary actions against anyone involved.
- New Policy: The order establishes a formal policy that the U.S. Intelligence Community should not engage in partisan politics and that individuals with security clearances should not use their status to influence U.S. elections. It also states that classified information should not be disclosed in memoirs for personal monetary gain.
Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):
The order states its purpose is to remedy abuses of public trust and prevent the "weaponization" of the Intelligence Community's reputation for political purposes.
- To hold accountable the 51 former intelligence officials who signed a letter suggesting a news story about Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation, an act the order calls a "willful weaponization" of their credentials to "manipulate the political process."
- To penalize former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton for publishing a memoir that was "rife with sensitive information," which the order claims undermined the ability of presidents to receive candid advice.
- To restore faith in the Intelligence Community by ensuring it remains professional, accurate, and free from politically motivated actions designed to affect U.S. elections.
Key Facts:
Affected Sectors: Government, National Security, and Intelligence.
Timeline: The revocations are effective immediately as of January 20, 2025. A report from the Director of National Intelligence is due within 90 days of the order.
Scope: The order specifically targets 51 individuals by name and sets a broad policy for all current and former members of the U.S. Intelligence Community.
The Backstory: How We Got Here
Timeline of Events:
Pre-2020 Election & Bolton's Book ([2019-2020]):
- September 2019: President Trump fires National Security Advisor John Bolton.
- June 2020: The Trump administration sues to block the publication of Bolton's memoir, "The Room Where It Happened," arguing it contains classified information and that Bolton failed to complete the required prepublication review. A federal judge denies the request to halt publication, noting hundreds of thousands of copies were already distributed, but criticizes Bolton for not waiting for formal clearance.
- October 14, 2020: The New York Post publishes a story about a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden.
- October 19, 2020: 51 former intelligence officials release a public letter stating the laptop story "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." The letter notes they do not have evidence of Russian involvement but that their experience makes them suspicious. Then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe states there is no intelligence supporting the claim that the laptop is Russian disinformation.
- Post-2020: The Department of Justice under the Biden administration drops its lawsuit against John Bolton in June 2021. Subsequent reporting and investigations have affirmed the authenticity of the laptop.
Why Now? The Political Calculus:
- Fulfillment of a Promise: The order follows through on long-standing criticism of the 51 officials and John Bolton. During his first term, then-President Trump had considered revoking the clearances of officials he felt were politicizing intelligence.
- Setting a Precedent: The action aims to deter future officials from engaging in similar public commentary or publishing sensitive memoirs without full clearance. It signals a hardline stance on what the administration views as the misuse of national security credentials for political or financial gain.
- Assertion of Executive Authority: The order is a forceful demonstration of the President's power over the executive branch and the classification system, reinforcing the chief executive's role as the ultimate arbiter of who can access national secrets.
Your Real-World Impact
The Direct Answer: This directly affects a specific list of 51 former government officials and has indirect implications for all current and former national security personnel.
What Could Change for You:
This executive order is unlikely to have a direct, daily impact on the average citizen. Its effects are concentrated within the national security and political spheres.
Potential Benefits:
- Increased Accountability: Proponents argue the order increases accountability for former officials, potentially deterring them from using their past positions to influence public debate in ways perceived as partisan.
- Protection of Information: The policy may strengthen the pre-publication review process, reducing the likelihood of sensitive national security information appearing in memoirs.
Possible Disruptions or Costs:
Short-term (First Year):
- Chilling Effect: The order could discourage former officials from speaking out on national security issues, even on matters of public concern, for fear of retribution. This could reduce the diversity of expert opinions available to the public.
- Politicization of Clearances: Critics argue this action further politicizes the security clearance process, turning it into a tool for punishing political opponents rather than a neutral assessment of trustworthiness.
Long-term:
- Recruitment and Retention: A more politicized clearance process could potentially impact the recruitment and retention of intelligence professionals who may fear their future career prospects and speech could be curtailed by a future administration.
Who's Most Affected:
Primary Groups: The 51 former officials named in the order who lose their security clearances. John R. Bolton is also a primary target.
Secondary Groups: All current and former intelligence and national security officials who hold security clearances and may seek to publish or engage in public debate. Private sector government contractors and consulting firms that hire former officials may also be affected.
Regional Impact: The impact is not regional but is concentrated in the Washington, D.C. area, where many former national security officials reside and work.
Bottom Line: This executive order punishes specific former officials and sets a new, stricter standard for how national security credentials can be used after leaving government service.
Where the Parties Stand
Republican Position: "Restoring Integrity to the Intelligence Community"
Core Stance: Republicans are likely to support the executive order as a necessary step to depoliticize the intelligence community and hold officials accountable for what they view as partisan interference.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ The 51 officials misused the public's trust in the intelligence community to protect a political candidate during the 2020 election.
- ✓ Former officials should not be able to profit from publishing classified information, as John Bolton was accused of doing.
- ✓ The President has the clear authority to control access to classified information and must act to protect the integrity of that system.
Legislative Strategy: Support the President's executive action and potentially use congressional oversight powers to further investigate the actions of the 51 officials, citing the report mandated by the order.
Democratic Position: "An Abuse of Power to Silence Critics"
Core Stance: Democrats are likely to condemn the executive order as an unprecedented and vindictive act of political retribution that weaponizes the security clearance process.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ The action is a misuse of presidential power to punish individuals for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.
- ⚠️ While officials should protect classified information, the original letter from the 51 officials was framed as an expert opinion, not a definitive intelligence assessment.
- ✗ Revoking clearances based on political speech sets a dangerous precedent and could have a chilling effect on dissent.
Legislative Strategy: Publicly condemn the order, hold oversight hearings to scrutinize the administration's motives, and potentially introduce legislation to establish clearer, non-political guidelines for the revocation of security clearances.
Constitutional Check
The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable
Basis of Authority:
The President's power to grant, deny, and revoke security clearances is derived from their constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief under Article II of the Constitution.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..."
Constitutional Implications:
[Legal Principle]: Executive Authority. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the executive branch's broad discretion in matters of national security, including security clearances.
[Precedent]: The key precedent is Department of the Navy v. Egan (1988), in which the Supreme Court held that the authority to grant or deny access to classified information is a discretionary judgment of the Executive Branch. Courts have traditionally been very reluctant to review the merits of security clearance decisions.
[Federalism]: This issue does not directly involve federalism, as it pertains to federal security clearances and officials.
Potential Legal Challenges:
Legal challenges are highly likely. While the Egan decision gives the President broad power, it is not absolute.
- First Amendment: The named individuals are likely to sue, arguing their clearances were revoked in retaliation for protected political speech, a violation of the First Amendment. Legal experts argue that while courts won't second-guess the substance of a clearance decision (i.e., whether someone is a security risk), they may be willing to intervene if the reason for the decision violates the Constitution, such as punishing free speech.
- Due Process: Opponents could also argue the mass revocation without individual review violates procedural due process rights, although these claims are generally more difficult to win in the national security context. Groups like the ACLU will likely support or file legal challenges on these grounds.
Your Action Options
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
5-Minute Actions:
- Call The White House: White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111. "I am calling to express my support for Executive Order 14152, which holds former officials accountable and protects our intelligence community from political influence."
- Contact Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's actions in Executive Order 14152 to ensure the integrity of our national security institutions."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to express support for the order and the subsequent investigation it mandates.
- Join an Organization: Groups like Judicial Watch have a history of advocating for accountability from government officials and may align with the goals of this order.
TO OPPOSE THIS BILL
5-Minute Actions:
- Call The White House: White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111. "I am calling to express my strong opposition to Executive Order 14152. It is an abuse of power used to silence political opponents."
- Contact Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to condemn Executive Order 14152 as a dangerous politicization of national security."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that revoking security clearances for political speech is a threat to democratic norms and the First Amendment.
- Join an Organization: Organizations like the ACLU and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) work to protect civil liberties and prevent government abuses of power and would likely be involved in opposing this action.