I know a guy, a very successful businessman who wanted to become a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent but couldn’t pass a background investigation to gain a security clearance. He had a past drug addiction and made some bad life choices before becoming the upstanding businessman I know today. I also know a young college student who had to apply for a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) in order to be eligible for the summer Honors Internship at the FBI. Some people think of security clearance for a summer intern as an inconvenience but it’s so much more. The security clearance is needed because the internship includes a “need to know” status regarding the job that includes sensitive and classified information. The SF-86 process is costly, lengthy, and inconvenient, but also very necessary. So, interns at the FBI have to go through a full field investigation for a job that lasts about three months. In most cases the SSBI takes as long to complete as the internship the student receives. Why are security background investigations and security clearances so important for certain jobs?
There is nothing more important to any nation than its national security. You want an advantage over your adversary? Learn their secrets. Want to learn a country’s secrets? Find the person who has placement and access as well as suitability and susceptibility for untrustworthiness, coercion, blackmail, or bribe. Security is central to keeping America great, and so jobs that require access to classified information must require a vetted security clearance.
So why does the U.S. government require security background investigations and clearances for many government employees, including summer interns, but doesn’t require it for all employees who hold very sensitive job titles? Why don’t members of Congress, the president, vice president and the Supreme Court justices have a security clearance and submit an SF-86 for a complete background investigation? Great questions!
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), current standards and laws don’t require security background investigations or security clearances for the president, vice president, members of Congress, or Supreme Court justices because the American people confer their trust by way of the electoral process. Never mind that I have yet to cast a vote for a Supreme Court justice. It is assumed that when a candidate is elected into Congress or the White House, the people grant them access to classified information required for the job. Remember, the job is why a clearance is necessary. So why not make the same transference of trust to any government employee who is hired for any sensitive job? The answer is because people can’t be trusted without a thorough review of their past, as past behavior gives us the best prediction of future behavior. So, what makes US citizens think politicians’ jobs are any different than a senior FBI agent’s job as it relates to classified intelligence? I find it interesting that all three branches of government have, at their very hierarchal top, an exemption of trust for the very jobs that should have the most verification of trust to perform.
The old saying that loose lips sink ships is as true today as it was in 1944. It is not a partisan political issue, it’s a nonpartisan national security issue. The reality is that security clearances aren’t given to every individual in government. Only individuals in certain jobs which require a “need to know” in terms of national security secrets are required to have a clearance. Even within the FBI, different jobs require different levels of security clearance. This has led some security professionals to state “clearances go to jobs, not people,” but of course they go to people precisely because they hold the jobs that have access to classified information. Look, jobs don’t betray trust, people do. So as Ronald Reagan once said, “Trust but verify.”
The issue is in the news because a couple weeks ago Senator Rand Paul made headlines by suggesting President Donald Trump should pull the security clearance from John Brennan, former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), after Brennan made critical comments publicly about Trump. Soon after, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders confirmed that Trump is considering stripping Brennan and a number of other former national security officials of their clearances. On August 15th, 2018, President Trump made good on his threat and pulled Brennan’s clearances, with the former CIA chief declaring it an act of a “Despot.”
Hurt feelings and political showmanship aside, the current rules regarding security clearances give the president the ability, if not the legal right, to pull security clearances while being exempt from the rules himself. Under current rules, both the executive and legislative branches of government have authority over clearances as outlined in Executive Order 13526. The question of a president’s legal right to unilaterally pull a security clearance is likely a constitutional one, and we will see if President Trump is challenged by Brennan’s threatened lawsuit.
It does bring up another interesting constitutional question which is whether Congress should amend the U.S. Constitution regarding the qualifications to run for the office of the presidency and vice presidency. We aren’t talking about conducting a background investigation for a president’s security clearance after the public has presumed to convey trust through the election process, but rather a SSBI to determine if the candidate is qualified to hold office and retain the trust that protects our nation’s security. Of course, Congress should take the lead and require any member of congress or any senator who is on a committee requiring need-to-know access submit an SF-86 and obtain a security clearance. Critics of the idea point out that Congress, beginning with the 104th Congress, take a secrecy oath. Sorry for being cynical, but I have more faith in a fair and impartial investigation regarding past trustworthiness than taking the word of a politician who is likely to break any number of campaign promises. As citizens we should require the most transparency from those we elect and to whom we convey our public trust. Conducting a seven-year SSBI background investigation isn’t so onerous as to prevent good people from seeking public office.
Some critics claim that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) could politicize the process and deny a candidate a clearance based on ideology. This is a groundless assertion, and the SSBI process has many review points to make sure each case is adjudicated fairly. Currently, the bipartisan Office of Senate Security and Office of House Security have oversight regarding the security clearance processes related to congressional staffers. There are no good reasons for why Congress isn’t subjected to the same full field investigative process that tens of thousands of civil servants go through to hold jobs with access to less sensitive intelligence. In 2011, a CRS report suggested requiring SSBIs for all of Congress. It appears at least today that Congress is unlikely to require SSBIs for their members or require any clearance requirement for presidential candidates as they choose personal self-interest over what is best for the country. Considering the number of sexual misconduct cases and leaks that come from the legislative branch of government, it appears Congress is unwilling to live a standard they require of lower-level bureaucrats. Certainly, the secrecy oath Congress takes is less effective than the legal requirements to maintain a bona fide security clearance.
Currently, under Article II, Section 1, the U.S. Constitution requires that “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” There is precedent for Congress to amend the qualifications for president and vice president when they added term limits through the XXII Amendment, Section 1, ratified February 27, 1951 adding “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of the President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
A proposed XXVIII Amendment would simply require any candidate seeking elected office of president or vice president to have to submit an SF-86 and be subject to a full field investigation. The presidential and vice-presidential candidates would have to go through the same vetting process required of a summer Honors Intern at the FBI. It is simply fantastical to think that anyone seeking the highest office in the US government should automatically be given the highest level of access to state secrets and access to the US nuclear arsenal without a thorough investigation. Remember, the clearance is for the job, not the person.
Of course, the idea of a candidate going through a full field security background investigation doesn’t address the issue if a sitting president violates their security clearance. The reality is that the president is nearly exempt from violating security clearance laws. They simply can get away with behavior that would be considered criminal if they were anyone else in any other government job. Need an example?
May 15, 2017, President Trump revealed classified intelligence to the Russian ambassador and foreign minister that U.S. officials in the intelligence community stated jeopardized a confidential human source helping to fight the Islamic State (IS) and a sensitive partnership with a key ally. The information was so sensitive that it wasn’t even shared with other allies, but President Trump thought it appropriate to share this classified intelligence with Russia, a known adversary to the United States (U.S.) and ally of the war criminal Bashar al-Assad. One would think that type of behavior would rank right up there with placing classified emails on a personal server, but one would be wrong as the president can do that and more without worry of a criminal indictment. Any other government employee including CIA employee John Kiriakou would be arrested and criminally charged for leaking that type of classified intelligence. Kiriakou was sentenced to 2 ½ years in federal prison for leaking a covert officer’s identity to a news reporter, but the president can “declassify” intelligence on the fly.
Congress needs to put America first and before their own self interests by requiring all candidates for presidential office, Congress, and the Supreme Court to submit an SF-86 for a SSBI. There is nothing more important to our national security than protecting our nation’s secrets. Congress will still have intelligence oversight authority and this is not to suggest that the president’s executive-level power to declassify intelligence be changed. But it is to suggest that all candidates for U.S. President be subjected to a thorough, independent, and exhaustive background investigation to ensure they meet a minimum standard for trustworthiness, reliability, and honesty. Perhaps former FBI Director Robert Mueller said it best when talking about filling out the SF-86 and going through the required security background investigation process when he said, “If security is an inconvenience, too bad!”
