I have had some personal experiences with security clearances.
As a young airman in the U.S. Air Force, after having graduated from an intensive six-month airborne radio operator training course, I worked for six months in “supply” as a clerk and performed all kinds of menial jobs while waiting for my “Secret” security clearance, before I could fly missions on Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft.
Granted, this was in the middle of the Cold War; granted I was a recent immigrant and, granted, 18 years of my young life spanned four countries and three continents and had to be thoroughly checked out.
A few years later, when, as a commissioned officer and naturalized U.S. citizen, my job required a Top Secret clearance, again several months went by while my “loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and a willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information” were all thoroughly investigated.
Some of the specific issues examined during a background investigation (BI) that could raise concerns include:
• Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interests in other countries which could create vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.
• When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States.
• Sexual behavior that Indicates personality or emotional disorders and could subject the individual to coercion, exploitation, or duress, or reflects lack of judgment or discretion
• Deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement… income tax evasion… and other intentional financial breaches of trust.
• Emotional, mental, and personality disorders which can cause a significant deficit in an individual’s psychological, social and occupational functioning.
• Any service, whether compensated, volunteer, or employment with a foreign country; any foreign national; a representative of any foreign interest;
The “Top Secret” classification is “applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
I do not believe that the information I had access to would have indeed caused “exceptional damage” to our national security, if disclosed. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the information members of the Trump administration — especially Defense, State, National Intelligence and Homeland Security — have access to is exponentially more sensitive than “run-of-the-mill” Top Secret or other higher-level classified information.
I cannot speak to the suitability of Trump’s staff for access to what surely is highly sensitive information. However Colbert King at the Washington Post does have some thoughts on whether a “citizen Trump” would be able to get a security clearance.
King’s opinion is that, “If Donald Trump were an off-the-street federal job applicant, he most likely would not be granted a security clearance. Measured against the standards applied to thousands of Americans involved with our national security, knowledge essential to granting Trump access to classified information simply isn’t there.”
King should know what he is talking about since “[i]n previous incarnations, and during years of service as an investigator with the U.S. Civil Service Commission (now the Office of Personnel Management) and as a special agent and regional security officer with the State Department, [he] conducted hundreds of background investigations here and overseas.”
King says:
Eligibility for access to classified information is not based on a person’s wealth, business acumen or ability to persuade large crowds. Great attributes, maybe. But they are no basis upon which to decide whether an individual ought to have access to the nation’s secrets.
“Life histories tell a lot, and a lot must be known about people entrusted with our national security,” King points out, “This is where deciding whether Trump is an acceptable security risk hits a wall. There is so much about him and his conduct, past and present, that is unknown.”
Among the concerns King has about Trump:
• Trump team’s contacts with the Russian government.
• Trump’s repeated expressions of admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
• Trump’s call during the presidential primary for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.
• FBI and CIA knowledge that the Russians leaked Clinton campaign emails to undermine her candidacy and boost Trump’s.
As to “those aspects of Trump’s life that would raise security concerns were they found in background checks of others seeking clearances,” King alludes to:
• “Applicants’” associations with foreign interests — especially substantial business, financial or property interests in a foreign country or with foreign-owned businesses…
• Trump’s foreign business relationships — what they are, his conduct while traveling outside the United States, or his interactions with foreign governments known to target U.S. citizens to try to obtain protected information.
King adds that Trump has never been subjected to an inquiry that uncovers questionable judgment, lack of candor or dishonesty; that Trump has a proven record of not providing truthful or candid answers. He adds, “True, it didn’t disqualify him from the presidency. It would, ironically, darken his chances of getting a U.S. government security clearance.”
And:
A security clearance applicant who has engaged in deceptive financial practices, who has a history of failing to meet financial obligations, and who fails to identify and explain all sources of income is a red flag. Such a record, of course, is no bar to the presidency.
A background investigation that turns up evidence of possible emotional, mental or personality disorders, even without a formal diagnosis, elevates security concerns , although not to the point of disqualification without an evaluation by a duly qualified mental-health professional. But bizarre behavior suggesting emotional instability, and which casts doubt on the individual’s judgment or reliability, will certainly get a closer professional look before a security clearance is granted. Trump has no such worries.
Finally, King comments on the oft-reported news that the intelligence community is withholding sensitive intelligence from Trump.
“While it’s doubtful that the intelligence community would hold back about security threats or potential plots against the United States,” King says and answers the question of why the intelligence community is reluctant to “expose sensitive information about Russia to an enigmatic Trump, with advisers and former staff now under investigation by the FBI and congressional committees…” with another question, “Without solid evidence that Trump is reliable and can be trusted?”
Good question.
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.