ar-BBLYDA9

Nope. Below is an article that provides examples for why former government and military maintain their clearances. Myself continued to have a valid TS after retirement and allowed me an advantage when applying for jobs requiring a clearance. Saves money for new employers to hire individuals with an already valid clearance. It's nothing new. Now do you think former Congressmen that leave office immediately lose their clearance effective departure from office? Nope. It remains valid based on the expiration date on file. This is simple political retribution as the second article below highlights.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-former-government-officials-keep-their-security-clearances/ar-BBM1hSo?ocid=ientp

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-connects-revoking-brennans-security-clearance-to-russia-investigation/ar-BBM0vEf?ocid=ientp

The article gives reasons why someone retains their clearance. Bottomline, you can leave a job that requires a security clearance and retain that clearance in JPAS until it's expiration date; in which time, you need to find an employer or organization that is willing to reinvestigate and renew your clearance. It's how I've maintained my TS-SCI after I retired. It's not uncommon. Just cause a president faces criticism from someone with a security clearance doesn't give the president the authority to revoke their clearance. This is still America after all. Did he expose classified information or break the law? Nope.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-former-government-officials-keep-their-security-clearances/ar-BBM1hSo?ocid=ientp

LT Brad McInnis - Doesn't matter if I was an SES or GO or just a government or military official; doesn't change the status of your security clearance, the protocols for retaining it, and the fact that it's considered a benefit of the job as you transition out of federal service.
Yeah the President has the authority but doesn't mean his action wasn't political retribution. It's not like he's releasing classified information or communicating with people conducting the current investigation. He's expressing his opinion and criticism based on his personal knowledge on the subject; you know, kind of like all those Congressmen when they make public statements in favor or in criticism of things going onion government.
So yeah you should be concerned about the motives behind such actions by the White House. Don't pretend you wouldn't have a shit fit if Obama, Bush, or Clinton had done the same thing towards any former official or officer turned pundit or SME or analyst who criticizes their policies and behavior in office.

MAJ James Woods - Do not ascribe things to me. You don't know me. Sorry you are pissed and wrong, but when you blast others it makes you look small. I will say this again, it is an informal standard (says so right in the article you were throwing around). A clearance is a privilege, not a right. I'll say that again, it is a privilege, not a right. The fact you think it is a benefit is sad. Let me make this clear... your clearance and mine were done by DOD. The clearance process done by non-DOD authorities is different. It does matter that he is SES and not a FO/FO. Trump is not the 1st to pull a clearance, although as much as the media would like us to believe. It should happen much more often, because most of those civvies leak secrets like a sieve...

LT Brad McInnis - Hmmm can't take criticism then you shouldn't contribute to a conversation if you're not willing to listen to the rationale from the other side. Go be a snowflake elsewhere.

MAJ James Woods - Making up facts is not rationale. But, do what you want man, no one is ever going to change your mind. But I am guessing that next week the Chicken Little Sky is falling crowd will have something else that they think will be the end of Trump. If you would like to rebut the privilege versus right, not a benefit, informal standard issues, I would listen, But otherwise, it is pointless.