Trump administration sued for revoking lawyer's security clearance in whistleblower case

Mark Zaid files lawsuit alleging unconstitutional retaliation over role in Trump's first impeachment.

The E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse is visible across the street behind sculptures on the rooftop terrace of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., on April 23, 2025. Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

A high-profile legal battle is unfolding in Washington, D.C., as attorney Mark Zaid—best known for representing the whistleblower whose complaint triggered former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment—has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration. The suit alleges that the administration’s decision to revoke his U.S. security clearance amounts to unconstitutional retaliation rooted in political vengeance.

The Trump administration sued narrative, signals renewed scrutiny of Trump’s alleged use of executive power to punish perceived enemies. This legal challenge also reignites debate around presidential overreach and whistleblower protections.

Lawsuit targets security clearance revocation

Filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., Zaid’s lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration that the Trump administration’s move to strip him of security clearance in March was unlawful. Security clearances are critical for lawyers like Zaid, who frequently represent clients involved in matters of national security and classified information.

According to the complaint, the revocation was directly linked to Zaid’s legal representation of Brian Murphy, a former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security. Murphy became a whistleblower in 2019, alleging that Trump had improperly pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

That whistleblower complaint eventually led the U.S. House of Representatives to vote in favor of Trump’s impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. While the Senate acquitted Trump in early 2020, the episode marked the first of two impeachment trials he would face during his presidency.

Zaid calls revocation a constitutional violation

Zaid’s legal filing accuses the Trump administration of "dangerous, unconstitutional retaliation by the President of the United States against his perceived political enemies." The lawsuit further argues that the decision to revoke his clearance violates the First Amendment rights of both Zaid and his clients, citing the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

“The administration has abandoned any semblance of due process,” the lawsuit reads, characterizing the revocation as a "bald-faced attack on a sacred constitutional guarantee." Zaid claims that the move sets a dangerous precedent for attorneys who take on politically sensitive or controversial clients.

A pattern of punitive actions

The lawsuit also highlights what it describes as a broader pattern of retribution by Trump against those who challenged or opposed him during his presidency. Zaid’s complaint notes that he was publicly criticized by Trump as a "sleazeball" during a 2019 rally in Louisiana and labeled "a disgrace" in press comments.

Zaid was not the only individual to have their clearance revoked. According to the lawsuit, Trump also rescinded security clearances belonging to other prominent political figures, including then-Senator Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other perceived adversaries.

By tying these actions together, the lawsuit suggests that the former president used the clearance system as a political weapon rather than a tool to safeguard national security.

Whistleblower history and legal context

Brian Murphy, the client Zaid represented, served as acting undersecretary for intelligence and analysis at DHS. His whistleblower complaint alleged that Trump administration officials pressured him to manipulate intelligence assessments for political purposes, including downplaying threats posed by Russia and white supremacist groups.

Zaid, a well-known national security lawyer with decades of experience, has been involved in numerous cases involving classified information and intelligence oversight. His clients have included whistleblowers from the CIA, FBI, and Pentagon. The revocation of his clearance significantly hampers his ability to continue practicing in his area of legal expertise.

In the broader context, the lawsuit raises critical questions about how security clearances are managed and whether they can be revoked for reasons unrelated to actual national security concerns. Legal experts note that while the executive branch holds broad discretion over clearance decisions, it cannot use that authority in ways that violate constitutional rights.

Political implications and legal hurdles

The case could become a landmark in defining the limits of presidential power over national security credentials. If the court rules in Zaid’s favor, it would send a strong message that even executive decisions related to classified access must adhere to constitutional protections, particularly those involving political speech and legal advocacy.

At the same time, Zaid faces significant legal obstacles. Courts have historically been reluctant to challenge the executive branch on national security matters, particularly when it comes to clearance eligibility. The Trump administration is likely to argue that the president has sole authority to determine who can access classified information, and that such decisions are beyond judicial review.

Still, the political ramifications are significant. The lawsuit brings renewed attention to Trump’s pattern of using his platform to personally target critics, political opponents, and those perceived as disloyal. It also revives discussions about the need for reforms in how the U.S. government handles security clearance revocations.

No immediate White House response

As of Monday evening, the current White House had not issued a statement regarding Zaid’s lawsuit. Given that the revocation occurred during Trump’s presidency, it remains unclear whether the Biden administration will weigh in or take any steps to address the alleged misuse of clearance protocols.

The absence of immediate comment underscores the sensitivity of the issue, particularly as Trump continues to be a polarizing figure in American politics and remains the presumptive Republican nominee in the 2024 presidential race.

Legal community reacts

Reactions from the legal community have been swift, with civil rights advocates and national security lawyers voicing concern about the potential chilling effect such actions could have on legal representation and government transparency.

“If lawyers fear that representing whistleblowers or politically controversial clients could cost them their security clearances, it undermines the integrity of the legal system,” said a senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, who was not involved in the case.

Zaid’s lawsuit may not only determine the future of his career but could also establish new boundaries in the tug-of-war between national security and civil liberties.

A case with lasting impact

As the lawsuit moves forward, it promises to test the limits of executive authority and the protections afforded to attorneys representing whistleblowers. With Mark Zaid placing himself at the center of a constitutional showdown, the outcome may reverberate beyond Washington, reshaping how the legal community approaches cases involving classified material and politically charged investigations.

Whether the court ultimately agrees with Zaid’s claim that the Trump administration retaliated against him for doing his job remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the battle over security clearances, political retribution, and constitutional rights is far from over.