Judge halts Trump’s effort to revoke whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid’s security clearance

Judge Amir Ali said that officials canceled Mark Zaid’s security clearance without due process and failed to conduct a proper national security review
PUBLISHED DEC 24, 2025
The White House defended Mark Zaid’s clearance revocation as a national interest decision, while Zaid argued that it was retaliatory rather than security-based (Getty Images)
The White House defended Mark Zaid’s clearance revocation as a national interest decision, while Zaid argued that it was retaliatory rather than security-based (Getty Images)


WASHINGTON, DC: A federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s move to revoke the security clearance of attorney Mark Zaid, ordering that the clearance be restored while the legal challenge proceeds.

US District Judge Amir Ali issued a preliminary injunction on late Tuesday, December 23, concluding that the process used to revoke Zaid’s clearance did not meet procedural standards typically applied in national security cases.

The ruling paused the administration’s actions while the court considered the broader legal arguments raised in Zaid’s lawsuit.

Judge faults government over clearance procedures

(x/@MarkSZaidEsq)
Attorney Mark Zaid, who represented the Ukraine whistleblower, successfully argued that his clearance was stripped without due process (@MarkSZaidEsq/X)

In his written order, Judge Ali said that the government acted without following the customary procedures associated with security clearance determinations.

He wrote that the action against Zaid was carried out by "summarily canceling the attorney’s security clearance without any of the process that is afforded to others."

The judge said that the government did not conduct an individualized national security assessment before revoking the clearance, which Zaid had held for more than 20 years.

Ali also cited evidence presented by Zaid that access to classified information was necessary for him to effectively represent current clients in whistleblower-related cases.

Mark Zaid slams attempts to intimidate



Zaid responded to the ruling by praising the court’s decision and rejecting claims that the revocation was justified on national security grounds.

"I will not be intimidated and look forward to continuing to defend the brave men and women who stand up to the unlawful retaliation of the Trump administration," Zaid said in a statement to CBS News.

He described the injunction as a response to what he characterized as attempts to discourage lawyers from representing clients critical of the government.

Zaid previously represented the whistleblower whose complaint led to Trump’s first impeachment inquiry related to Ukraine.

White House justifies clearance revocation

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 01: Hillary Clinton speaks onstage during a conversation with Margaret Hoover for
Mark Zaid was allegedly targeted in a broader order that also stripped clearances from top Democrats like Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton (Dominik Bindl/Getty Images)

Zaid filed the suit in May after Trump revoked his clearance along with those of several prominent political figures.

Those affected included former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and multiple former officials from the Biden administration.

At the time, the White House said that it was "no longer in the national interest" for those individuals to retain access to classified information.

Zaid’s lawsuit argued that the decision was retaliatory rather than based on national security considerations.

Order on hold for potential appeal

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 1: The E. Barrett Prettyman United States Federal Courthouse on June, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
Judge Amir Ali has given the Justice Department 21 days to appeal before the order to restore Zaid's clearance takes full effect (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)

Although Judge Ali ordered the government to "immediately and fully restore" Zaid’s security clearance, he placed a 21-day administrative stay on the injunction.

The pause allows the Justice Department time to seek appellate review of the ruling.

If no appeal is filed, the injunction is set to take effect on January 13. Judge Ali also denied a Justice Department motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The case remains ongoing as the court considers the merits of Zaid’s constitutional and administrative law claims.

GET BREAKING U.S. NEWS & POLITICAL UPDATES
STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX.

MORE STORIES

Tulsi Gabbard said the objectives laid out by President Trump were different from those outlined by the Israeli government
45 minutes ago
President Trump said that advance warning would have hurt strikes, claiming surprise let forces hit about 50% of targets in two days
1 hour ago
President Trump said oil prices rose and the economic slowdown was less severe than he had anticipated before authorizing military action
2 hours ago
'No, I'm not putting troops anywhere. If I were, I certainly wouldn't tell you, but I'm not putting troops', President Trump said
3 hours ago
Tulsi Gabbard told lawmakers that Israel targeted Iran's leadership, while US priorities focused on military capabilities
4 hours ago
Lawmakers emphasized the need for a detailed spending breakdown before considering approval of the large defense funding request
4 hours ago
Pete Hegseth noted that US forces have already struck more than 7,000 targets across Iran, while adding, 'It takes money to k*ll bad guys'
4 hours ago
Pete Hegseth emphasized that the ultimate decision on the endgame in the Iran war rests with President Donald Trump
6 hours ago
John Fetterman crossed party lines to back Markwayne Mullin in a key vote, citing the need for DHS leadership and drawing criticism from colleagues
6 hours ago
Elizabeth Warren had consistently connected the Iran conflict to rising financial pressure on American households
12 hours ago