A DBUNK subscriber recently submitted this article for verification. You, too, can submit articles for fact-checking—free of charge—through our platform, and we will investigate and publish our findings.
Claim: President Donald Trump revoked security clearances for several public officials, including former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Verdict: Misleading. While a president can revoke certain security clearances, key aspects of the article create a distorted picture of the process and motivations behind this claim.
Fact Check Breakdown
The article, published by Fox News, asserts that Trump revoked security clearances of multiple officials in what appears to be a sweeping political move. However, there are several issues with this claim.
1. The Role of Security Clearance Revocation
The power to revoke security clearances ultimately lies with intelligence and security agencies, not the president alone. While a sitting president has influence over security protocol and can direct agencies to review access, such decisions typically involve a legal and bureaucratic process. The article fails to mention this, creating the false impression that Trump could instantly strip clearances at will.
The claim also does not specify what security clearances each individual possessed at the time. Antony Blinken, for example, would likely have automatically lost access upon vacating his position. Similarly, figures like Bragg and James would not necessarily hold high-level federal security clearances to begin with.
2. Political Retaliation vs. National Security
Trump’s decision seemingly targets individuals involved in legal proceedings against him. James and Bragg played key roles in financial and criminal investigations related to Trump’s business dealings, making the timing of these reported clearance revocations highly suspect.
The piece quotes Trump’s Truth Social post about Biden revoking his access to intelligence briefings in 2021. However, that decision was supported by intelligence officials who raised concerns about Trump’s handling of classified documents. The article presents this as a direct justification without acknowledging that intelligence officials, not just Biden, influenced that choice.
3. Missing Official Confirmation
The article does not provide an official statement from intelligence agencies confirming these clearance revocations. While it relies on statements from Trump and media speculation, there is no documented evidence that Blinken, James, or Bragg were holding or actively using security clearances that could be revoked in this manner.
The lack of government confirmation raises red flags regarding the credibility of the claim. Government security clearance decisions typically go through formal channels, and as of now, no relevant agency has verified these actions.
What’s the Real Motivation?
Many are questioning whether this move is a legitimate national security effort or purely political retaliation. While the Trump administration insists this is about safeguarding classified information, the lack of transparency around the necessity of these revocations fuels concerns about selective enforcement.
The timing of this decision—just after legal pressure intensified against Trump—reinforces the perception that he is targeting critics rather than addressing security risks.
Conclusion
While a president has some authority over security clearances, there is no clear evidence that these removals were formally enacted through official security procedures. The article lacks verification from appropriate agencies and instead relies on Trump’s words and political framing.
Given these factors, the claim is misleading. The narrative implies an unchecked presidential power that does not align with the reality of security policy. Until official government sources confirm these revocations, readers should approach this claim with skepticism.
Stay informed with DBUNK. Submit articles for fact-checking and cut through misinformation effortlessly.
