I agree with the basic idea stated here (although apparently not everyone on the list has a security clearance at this point):

Press Sec. Sanders: "Not only is the president looking to take away Brennan's security clearance, he's also looking into the security clearances of Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice, and McCabe…because they've politicized and in some cases monetized their public service." pic.twitter.com/X24GmU06ci

— ABC News (@ABC) July 23, 2018

This is characterized by the left as Trump taking revenge on those who criticize him. But the reason I agree with what Trump is suggesting be done is not really because these people have proven to be politically-motivated leakers inimical to the administration (although most of them certainly have). I believe that once any person is no longer in a job requiring a security clearance in order to access sensitive and/or classified information—either directly or through speaking to others who do have such jobs—it should be standard operating procedure to revoke such a clearance. If the expertise of that person is again needed later by an administration, a new clearance can probably be expedited and obtained after a more speedy investigation.

And particularly, of course, if such people have become affiliated with the press, retaining a security clearance seems like a travesty and the argument to revoke their clearance becomes even stronger.

But until now, lifelong security clearances seem to have been part of the game (sometimes parlayed into paid or unpaid press and/or speaking gigs), although most of us didn’t realize that. It’s a relic of another time, when such people were thought to be paragons of integrity above the partisan fray.

Ha.

However, I’ve been thwarted in my attempts to discover exactly what privileges a security clearance offers when a person is no longer involved in the job for which he or she needed it in the first place. I’ve read answers that are all over the place, ranging from “they can’t read anything classified” to “yes they can.” At any rate, I see no pressing need for it, and I see potential danger in it.

This State Department website has this to say:

Eligibility will be granted only where facts and circumstances indicate access to classified information is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States. Access to classified information will be terminated when an individual no longer has need for access…Security clearances are subject to periodic reinvestigation every 5 years.

I have no idea whether that applies to other agencies than State, no idea whether someone who is no longer in the position continues to have that particular type of access, and no idea whether the rules are different if the person wasn’t just a lowly hire but a big muck-a-muck when in office.

This article purports to answer some of those questions but I have no idea if it’s correct. It seems to be saying, however, that people keep their clearances and have some level of access to classified material but perhaps not the deepest classified material, and that the 5-year renewal is pretty much automatic for the higher-ups.

[NOTE: This post was originally on my older blog and had comments, but unfortunately the comments didn’t transfer over here.]