Whistleblower lawyer sues Trump administration to restore revoked security clearance

ABC News - May 6th, 2025

High-profile whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking the restoration of his security clearance, which was revoked by President Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in Washington D.C., claims that the revocation was an act of 'improper political retribution' by Trump, who had issued a presidential memorandum in March revoking security clearances of over a dozen individuals, including Zaid. This move is described in the complaint as 'dangerous, unconstitutional retaliation' against perceived political adversaries. Zaid, who has represented whistleblowers in various administrations without party bias, argues that the revocation undermines his ability to effectively serve his clients, some of whom require access to classified information.

Mark Zaid, with over three decades of authorized access to classified information, claims that the revocation has already caused him real-world harm, such as being denied access to classified complaints for clients. The lawsuit alleges that Zaid's involvement in representing a whistleblower related to Trump's 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, which led to Trump's impeachment, might have put him on Trump's radar. The complaint accuses the administration of violating the First and Fifth Amendments and seeks to have the presidential memorandum declared unconstitutional, the revocation rescinded, and a 'name-clearing hearing' conducted. Zaid emphasizes that the case highlights the misuse of security clearances as political weapons, a practice that threatens the livelihoods of individuals based on presidential grudges.

Donald Trump Lawsuit Whistleblower First Amendment Classified Information Mark Zaid Security Clearance Political Retribution Fifth Amendment

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The story provides a detailed account of Mark Zaid's lawsuit against the Trump administration, focusing on allegations of political retribution through the revocation of security clearances. While the narrative is clear and timely, it primarily presents Zaid's perspective, lacking counterarguments or responses from the administration. The reliance on Zaid's complaint as a primary source limits the story's balance and source quality, as it does not incorporate diverse viewpoints or independent verification. Despite these limitations, the article addresses issues of public interest, such as executive authority and legal rights, with the potential to provoke debate and influence public opinion. Overall, the story is informative but would benefit from additional perspectives and corroboration to enhance its credibility and impact.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims, such as the revocation of security clearances by President Trump and the subsequent lawsuit filed by Mark Zaid. While the article provides a coherent narrative, it lacks specific source citations for these claims. For instance, the assertion that security clearances for individuals like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were revoked is not corroborated by external sources. Additionally, the article claims Zaid's clearance history and impacts on his legal practice, which require further verification, as these details are not independently confirmed. The story's reliance on the complaint filed by Zaid introduces potential bias, as it may reflect only one side of the legal argument.

Balance

The article primarily presents Mark Zaid's perspective, focusing on his claims against the Trump administration. While it provides a detailed account of Zaid's allegations, it lacks counterarguments or responses from the Trump administration or other affected parties. This creates an imbalance, as the reader is not exposed to a full range of perspectives. Including statements or reactions from the administration or independent legal experts could have provided a more balanced view of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, making it accessible to readers. It follows a logical flow, detailing the sequence of events leading to the lawsuit. However, the lack of diverse perspectives and independent verification may leave readers with unanswered questions. The language is neutral, but the absence of contrasting viewpoints may lead to a one-sided interpretation.

Source quality

The story relies heavily on Mark Zaid's complaint and statements, which may not be entirely impartial. There is a lack of diverse sources that could lend credibility and depth to the reporting. The absence of independent verification or commentary from legal experts, government officials, or other affected individuals weakens the source quality. Without these sources, the story may reflect a narrow viewpoint, potentially skewing the reader's understanding.

Transparency

The article provides some context regarding the revocation of security clearances and Zaid's legal background, but it does not fully disclose the basis for the claims made. There is limited explanation of the methodology used to gather information or the potential conflicts of interest in relying on Zaid's complaint. Greater transparency about the sources of information and their potential biases would enhance the story's credibility.