The Implications of Security Clearance Decisions: An Examination of Trump and Jared Kushner
The issue of granting security clearance to individuals, especially those in high-ranking government positions, is a critical point in both national and international discourse. In the context of presidents and their immediate families, there has been significant debate surrounding the appropriateness of such decisions, particularly in cases like the former US President Donald Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. This article aims to shed light on the stringent requirements for obtaining a security clearance and why some argue that such positions should not be granted without thorough examination.
Background Checks and Security Clearances: Why They Matter
When discussing security clearances, it is crucial to understand that these clearances are not merely forms of access. Instead, they are important security measures designed to ensure that only those who are fully vetted and trustworthy are granted access to sensitive and classified information. The process of obtaining a security clearance involves an intensive background check, which must reveal no disqualifying factors. Any individual found to have a questionable background or a risk to national security would, by default, be denied such clearance.
Many argue that granting a security clearance to someone who cannot pass the background check is fundamentally irresponsible. As stated, 'If a person cannot pass a background check and earn a clearance, there is a reason. And to grant him a clearance that he cannot earn puts our nation at risk.' This perspective underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the criteria set for security clearances, especially when it comes to appointing individuals to sensitive government roles.
The Debate Surrounding Donald Trump and Jared Kushner
Speculations about the appropriateness of Donald Trump’s and Jared Kushner’s security clearances have been widespread, with many questioning the basis for their approvals. Arguably, neither Donald Trump nor Jared Kushner should be given the power to put America's secrets at risk through any overruling of the FBI or CIA's clearance decisions. This concern is shared by many professionals who have worked with security clearances and are well-versed in the stringent process involved.
The arguments against granting security clearances to individuals without the necessary experience, training, and character often revolve around their lack of government experience and the potential conflicts of interest. According to testimonials from those who have held security clearances, Jared and Ivanka Kushner clearly do not meet the necessary criteria. They were not elected officials, and they lack the government experience or training required for clearances at such high levels.
The Importance of Loyalty and Trust
The concept of loyalty to the United States is another critical factor in security clearance decisions. Security clearances are only granted to those whose primary loyalty is to the nation. For Jared and Ivanka Kushner, their loyalty is contingent upon their relationship with Donald J. Trump, not the United States. The fact that their familial loyalty to a president, rather than to the nation, poses a significant risk to national security and should be a reason to deny them these clearances.
Furthermore, the history of Jared’s security clearance revocation attempts and subsequent re-authorizations, managed by Trump appointees, have raised concerns. In the military or with military contractors, such actions could be considered a criminal offense. The oversight and approval processes should be transparent and impartial to ensure the highest standards of national security are maintained.
Conclusion: The Need for Caution and Transparency
To conclude, the decision to grant security clearances to high-ranking officials, such as Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, requires a careful and thorough examination. The potential risks to national security are too significant to afford any shortcuts or exceptions. There is a fundamental obligation on the part of elected officials to adhere strictly to the criteria set and to make decisions that prioritize the safety and security of the nation.