Should retired/replaced government officials retain their security clearances after leaving office?

SSgt BillandMaggie Straub - but there were occasions that you needed that TS clearance. once you left the military, you no longer had your clearance or a need for it. if you ended up in a job that required it, the company would have to do the required backgrounds to grant the TS to you again

When the average person leaves the military or a Government ob the lose their clearance. Any President, Vice President, cabinet member, Generals, Admirals all keep their clearance due to being able to be called into a meeting at any time even after they leave their position that required a clearance. They are wanted for their "knowledge" on certain topics.

SrA John Monette - Doesn't really work that way. The original question is poorly worded. It doesn't define what is meant by "lose your clearance". Are they talking losing access or eligibility? To maintain your eligibility, you'll still need a PR, (now called T5R or T3R), every 5 years. This is true regardless if you are Civ or Military.
Access is the "need to know" part. If you have no need to know, you should be read off your TS caveats, and/or have Access removed.
This should be held true no matter how high up in Government you are all the way to the President. Once out of office, you should lose access. Now, if the person is being used as a counsultant of some form, then...they have need to know.

I am a Berlin Brigade. Veteran. Certain aspects of what a TS clearance granted you access to see or know about might require a lifetime commitment to never reveal it. So while you are no longer TS cleared you are still bound to when you were.

Concur, CPT Jack Durish.

SPC John Parmenter - That's not entirely true. When the specifics of what you need their opinion on would require divulging classified material (and plenty of events occur where the opinions or expertise of retired experts would be useful but require filling them in on the details), your options are to read them in, "leak" details to them, or get useless/no advice.

The real question here is "Should POTUS take away clearances from former personnel that disagree with him politically?" And the answer to that is "no." If clearance becomes a political issue, you end up with a system where the entire officer corps of all 4 services will need to change over every few years, because we won't be able to have Republican leadership with a Democratic President, and vice versa.

None of this was an issue under Bush 41 or 43, or Clinton, or Obama. The fact that it suddenly matters today after being a non-issue for as long as we've had security clearances says more about the times we live in currently than the process itself.

LTJG Edward Bangor Jr - Sir. With all due respect, "Need to Know" is NON-POLITICAL. They should have ALWAYS been debriefed if not performing duties that require them. This has been a problem since at least the 80's when "Congress" due to lack of oversight, put CLASSIFIED information into a major magazine. The stuff I could have been sent to prison for was "free game" to them.
Whether you like/dislike the POTUS has NOTHING to do with clearances. NTK supersedes ALL. I had to chase down a Security officer to be debriefed from a TS (compartmented) access. This did NOT mean I was unclearable, just that I did NOT have need for access to the CLASSIFIED data.

If they don’t hold the position then take away the access you don’t loose you security clearances. Based on need to know. No politics emboldened LTJG Edward Bangor Jr

A security clearance can be used as a punishment tool also. I knew a guy (when I was in the service) who had a secret clearance. Supposably needed for him to do his job. He was a bit of a discipline problem. Nothing important just a nagging problem. The powers that be could never get "the goods" on him for official punishment. So, he was told he was losing his clearance (and did.) Bn commander pulled his clearance. He asked to appeal which was His right. He was told could not appeal and would not put through paperwork. He still continued to do the same duty as before. No legitimate security concerns were involved in his loss of the security clearance. The command just wanted to get him. And if nothing else hopefully limit any civilian career he may pursue. The military can be very petty.

SPC Mike Davis - So, you down voted me because you gave a story about someone you knew in the military???? The original question was after you got out, not what happens in... get a grip buddy and grow up.

I understood the question very well. I used the question as an opportunity to present to the general audience the average military mind. Which the civilian readers of this on-line opinion post would accept as a perfectly normal comment . Please do not call me "buddy" you are a junior officer and I am not a buddy to my juniors. Perhaps you should consider taking a remedial class in reading comprehension. I did not vote you down as I do not have enough points to vote anyone down. Why should i vote you down? You have as much right to make an fool out of yourself as anyone else.

While the command may have submitted the derogatory information on the person you knew, it's likely that the decision to suspend his clearance wasn't totally up to them. The command probably also gave a recommendation, which could have been either accepted or not...but the final decision is usually made at higher levels than an individual command.
Given that a security clearance is a symbol of the level of trust the government has in a person performing duties requiring access to sensitive information, it isn't unreasonable for a determination to be made that a "discipline problem" poses a risk and shouldn't have that access.