Washington, D.C. — The director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, announced on Tuesday that the Trump administration is terminating the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials. In a memo shared on social media platform X, Gabbard accused these individuals of politicizing intelligence and utilizing sensitive information for personal or partisan agendas.

Gabbard’s memo did not provide evidence to substantiate the claims. She alleged that the affected officials failed to protect classified information and neglected established standards of professional analysis, though specifics were lacking.

Among the individuals losing their clearances is Sam Vinograd, a former assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security, who is also a national security analyst for CBS News. Vinograd has not publicly responded to Gabbard’s statements.

Many of those targeted had previously worked on sensitive matters that have drawn the ire of President Trump, particularly the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Some of these officials had previously expressed their concerns about Trump, aligning themselves with a critical letter in 2019. This letter was recently spotlighted on social media by Laura Loomer, a notable right-wing figure and ally of Trump.

The decision to revoke these clearances reflects Trump’s ongoing skepticism of career intelligence personnel, whom he believes operate contrary to his interests. This approach is not new; the Trump administration has previously rescinded clearances from several high-profile Democrats, including former President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Critics argue that such actions risk suppressing diverse viewpoints within the intelligence community, which traditionally relies on a breadth of perspectives for robust analysis.

Mark Zaid, a national security attorney, criticized the revocations as unconstitutional and contrary to long-standing laws designed to prevent such actions. He pointed out the hypocrisy in claiming that individuals had politicized intelligence while simultaneously taking steps to undermine their roles.

In defense of the decision, Gabbard asserted that holding a security clearance is a privilege, not a right, emphasizing her view that those who betray their duties compromise the trust essential for national security.

Recently, Gabbard and other Trump administration figures have revisited and reassessed the 2017 intelligence report regarding Russian electoral interference, even declassifying documents intended to cast doubt on the findings. Multiple investigations have consistently affirmed that Russia engaged in concerted efforts to impact the 2016 elections, which included hacking Democratic Party emails and executing a disinformation campaign.

Despite such confirmations, Trump has remained critical of the assessment linking Russian President Vladimir Putin to interference that favored his campaign. His Justice Department has initiated a grand jury investigation that may scrutinize actions taken by officials from the previous administration.

Security clearances are crucial for both current and former government personnel who need access to sensitive information for their jobs. Stripping clearances could significantly impede these former officials’ ability to perform their responsibilities in the private sector, although it remains unclear how many of those impacted currently require or possess clearances.

On his first day in office, Trump expressed intentions to revoke the security clearances of over four dozen former intelligence officials who criticized him in a letter related to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. His attempts to target lawyers from prominent law firms have resulted in legal pushback from federal judges.

Some officials affected by the latest decision were part of President Biden’s national security team. Reports indicate that many only became aware of the Gabbard’s actions through news coverage, prompting discussions about potential legal recourse among those involved.