Federal Judge Blocks Revocation of Security Clearance for Attorney Mark Zaid
A recent ruling from a U.S. District Court has halted the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke the security clearance of Mark Zaid, a notable attorney in Washington, D.C. Judge Amir Ali granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the enforcement of a March presidential memorandum that targeted Zaid and 14 others, stating that it could not be applied to him.
This judicial decision represents another legal obstacle for the Trump administration, following a Supreme Court decision on the same day that barred the deployment of National Guard troops to the Chicago area. These rulings underscore the challenges faced by President Donald Trump in implementing his agenda and retaliatory measures against political opponents.
Zaid, who filed a lawsuit in May against the administration, argued that the revocation of his security clearance was an act of “improper political retribution” that threatened his role in representing clients in critical national security cases. The presidential memorandum in question deemed Zaid and others as unfit to retain their clearances, stating it was “no longer in the national interest.”
The list included various high-profile figures such as former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and former President Joe Biden and his family, many of whom have been subjects of Trump’s ire.
This action is part of a wider campaign by Trump to target perceived adversaries, which has included directing Justice Department investigations and issuing executive orders against certain law firms. In August, the administration announced plans to revoke the security clearances of 37 national security officials, a tactic Trump has frequently employed.
Mark Zaid, with a career spanning nearly 35 years, has represented a diverse range of clients, including government, law enforcement, military officials, and whistleblowers. Notably, he represented an intelligence community whistleblower whose allegations concerning a conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led to Trump’s first impeachment case.
In his ruling, Judge Ali noted, “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.” The injunction, effective from January 13, allows for the possibility of revocation through standard agency procedures, independent of the presidential order.
In response to the court’s decision, Zaid remarked, “This is not just a victory for me, 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.”
