A federal judge ruled that President Trump can’t revoke a lawyer’s security clearance.

The attorney: Mark Zaid, who represented the “whistleblower” whose complaint about Trump’s Ukraine call led to his first impeachment.

The judge: Amir Ali, appointed by Joe Biden.

The ruling: Trump’s decision was “retribution” rather than national security, so a court can override it.

This is a Biden judge telling a sitting president he doesn’t get to decide who has access to classified information.

Zaid Represented the “Whistleblower” Who Triggered Trump’s First Impeachment

Let’s establish who we’re talking about.

Mark Zaid represented the anonymous intelligence community employee whose complaint about Trump’s 2019 call with Ukrainian President Zelensky launched the first impeachment.

That complaint was coordinated with Adam Schiff’s staff. The “whistleblower” never testified publicly. The whole process was designed to damage Trump politically.

Zaid was the legal architect helping make it happen.

Now he’s claiming victim status because Trump revoked his security clearance.

Trump Called Zaid a “Sleazeball” and Suggested He Be “Sued for Treason”

Trump’s feelings about Zaid are no secret.

In 2019, the president called him a “sleazeball” and suggested he should be sued for treason.

Strong language. But Trump was the target of an impeachment effort that Zaid helped orchestrate.

The president has every reason to conclude that Zaid shouldn’t have access to classified information.

The Judge Said the Revocation Was “Retribution” — Not National Security

Judge Ali’s reasoning:

“The summary revocation of Zaid’s security clearance was not based on any national security interest. Instead, on this record, the government’s sole interest was retribution against an attorney for representing clients adverse to the government.”

He added: “That is not a legitimate governmental interest, and it cannot override the right of Zaid’s clients to their chosen counsel.”

So according to this judge, if Trump has any personal reason to distrust someone, he can’t revoke their clearance — even if that person helped orchestrate proceedings against him.

Security Clearances Are Executive Branch Decisions — Not Judicial Ones

Here’s the constitutional problem.

Security clearances are granted by the executive branch. They’re based on the president’s determination of who should access classified information.

This has always been understood as a presidential prerogative. Courts have historically refused to second-guess clearance decisions.

Judge Ali is claiming he can override the president’s judgment about national security. He’s inserting the judiciary into decisions that belong to the executive.

This is a massive overreach.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Revoked Clearances for Multiple Anti-Trump Figures

The clearance revocation wasn’t just about Zaid.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced revocations for:

Antony Blinken Jake Sullivan Lisa Monaco Mark Zaid Norman Eisen Letitia James Alvin Bragg Andrew Weissman The 51 signers of the Hunter Biden laptop letter

These are people who actively worked against Trump, spread disinformation, or pursued lawfare against him.

The president determined it’s “no longer in the national interest” for them to access classified information.

That’s his call to make.

Zaid Claims This Is About “Intimidating the Legal Community”

Zaid’s victory statement dripped with self-righteousness:

“This is not just a victory for me, it’s an indictment of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate and silence the legal community, especially lawyers who represent people who dare to question or hold this government accountable.”

He added: “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 isn’t being “silenced.” He can still practice law. He can still represent clients. He can still speak publicly.

He just can’t access classified information. That’s not intimidation. That’s a consequence of helping impeach the president.

He Claims to Be “Non-Partisan” — His Actions Say Otherwise

Zaid insists he’s politically independent:

“I have gone out of my way constantly for 33 years not to be partisan.”

He’s represented clients on various sides, including the Daily Caller and the Republican National Committee.

But representing the whistleblower who triggered Trump’s impeachment isn’t neutral legal work. It’s participation in a political operation.

You don’t get to help impeach a president and then claim surprised victim status when that president doesn’t trust you.

The Judge Put His Order on Hold Until January 13

Ali blocked the clearance revocation but stayed his order until January 13, 2026, to allow time for an appeal.

The government will appeal. This will go to higher courts.

The question: Can federal judges override presidential security clearance decisions?

If the answer is yes, the executive branch loses control of classified information. Any lawyer who sues can claim “retribution” and get a judge to restore their clearance.

That’s an absurd outcome.

“Retribution” vs. Legitimate Distrust

Judge Ali framed Trump’s decision as pure retribution.

But there’s another way to see it: A president concluding that someone who helped orchestrate proceedings against him shouldn’t be trusted with secrets.

That’s not retribution. That’s reasonable judgment.

If someone spent years working to remove you from office, would you trust them with classified information? Would any president?

The Clearance System Depends on Presidential Authority

Security clearances exist because the president needs to control who accesses sensitive information.

It’s inherently a trust-based system. The president decides who he trusts.

If courts can override those decisions whenever they detect “retribution,” the system collapses. Every denied clearance becomes potential litigation. Every revocation becomes a lawsuit.

That’s not how national security works.

This Will Be Appealed — And It Should Be Reversed

Judge Ali’s ruling is a judicial power grab dressed up as protecting lawyers’ rights.

The executive branch controls classified information. The president decides who gets clearances. Courts don’t get to second-guess those decisions.

Mark Zaid helped impeach Donald Trump. Donald Trump doesn’t trust Mark Zaid. That’s a sufficient basis for revocation.

A Biden-appointed judge disagreeing doesn’t change the constitutional structure.

The appeal will come. The ruling should be reversed. And the president should retain his authority to decide who sees America’s secrets.