Lawyer Involved In Trump Impeachment Sues Administration Over Security Clearance
A high-stakes legal battle is unfolding in Washington as Mark Zaid, a prominent national security attorney known for representing whistleblowers, filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and his administration, alleging unconstitutional retaliation over the revocation of his security clearance.
Zaid’s complaint—filed in federal court in D.C.—claims that the Trump administration deliberately stripped his clearance as political retribution for his past legal work, most notably his representation of Brian Murphy, the former Department of Homeland Security intelligence official whose whistleblower complaint played a key role in Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.
Zaid asserts that the move to revoke his clearance in March 2025 was an abuse of executive power, branding it a violation of First and Fifth Amendment protections, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. The lawsuit describes the decision as a “dangerous, unconstitutional retaliation” and argues that it deprives Zaid not just of income, but of the ability to represent clients in classified matters—a critical component of his legal practice for over two decades.
“This isn’t just about me,” Zaid said in a public statement. “It’s about using security clearances as political weapons.”
His lawsuit pulls no punches. It highlights Trump’s personal hostility toward Zaid, citing a 2019 rally in Louisiana where Trump called him a “sleazeball” and a “disgrace,” even suggesting he should be sued. The case paints a broader picture of an administration willing to wield clearance authority to punish perceived enemies and undermine legal opposition.
Zaid isn’t the only one. Trump has previously revoked or threatened to revoke clearances of numerous political opponents, including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, John Bolton, and even attorneys at prominent law firms. But Zaid’s case may be the most direct challenge yet to the legality and constitutionality of such actions when targeted at private citizens engaged in legal representation.
What makes the stakes especially high is that Zaid has held a security clearance since 2002 and access to classified material since 1995. Losing this clearance could effectively end his ability to function in his specialized field, which focuses on national security law and whistleblower protections.
The core argument is profound: Can a president revoke a lawyer’s security clearance to punish them for representing a client the White House doesn't like? Zaid’s team argues this is a violation of the sacred American right to petition the government—a cornerstone of the First Amendment.
As Zaid’s lawsuit puts it, this is an attack not just on one attorney, but on the legal profession itself. “An attack on this right is especially insidious,” it says, “because it jeopardizes Mr. Zaid’s ability to pursue and represent the rights of others without fear of retribution.”