A recent news article about so-called “Career Influencers” on social media and YouTube generated more than an eye-roll from this writer over some of the cringeworthy content. It also got me thinking about the implications for security clearance-holders.
I’ve yet to see any government career or government contracting influencers out there, but we all know people addicted to social media or intent on documenting their every move for clicks.
A lot of that content is on topics totally unrelated to work: travel, hobbies, food, beauty, fashion, community engagement, etc. Yet some of these folks feel compelled to comment on political issues or world events.
There’s nothing wrong with that in the abstract, although whether it accomplishes anything is debatable. But there is a fine line when it comes to current and even former security clearance-holders. You may not consider yourself an “influencer,” but when your position is known to others – or you “clearance-drop” as a flex to prove a point – you have, in effect, become one.
That’s exactly why a lot of former senior government officials get hired as cable news commentators: their opinion, informed by their experiences, carries influence. (The monetization of security clearance, and whether those folks are violating pre-publication review laws is an issue for a different day).
This raises the question of pre-publication review. Every clearance-holder should be familiar with it in principle, but I imagine that a lot of clearance-holders think of it as a requirement applicable only to those writing books, articles, and the like. Very few clearance-holders likely consider whether their social media posts or YouTube videos implicate the same rules. They probably should.
As the National Security Agency (NSA) explains, “[m]aterial containing no information about or gained through, one’s affiliation with NSA or the Intelligence Community in general (e.g., books about gardening, cooking, sports, crafts, etc.) is not subject to prepublication review. But written or spoken content referencing anything the author/speaker learned, worked on, or generated during the course of employment or other service with NSA, whether contractual or not, requires pre-publication review.
The same rule applies at other federal agencies where an individual holds or held a security clearance, and the requirement applies for life.
Specific examples NSA provides include “internet postings” and “videos.” Thus, content posted on social media expressing the writer’s opinion on a geopolitical issue requires pre-publication review if the issue is one the poster gained knowledge about or was involved in during service to the government in any capacity (employee, contractor, consultant, etc.) involving access to protected information.
So too would a travel blog in which the creator references information gleaned from prior cleared work-related travel or YouTube videos on a skill honed in service to Uncle Sam.
As should be self-evident, this is a very slippery slope encompassing a wide range of potential content. And while security clearance-holders don’t completely surrender their First Amendment rights to free speech, they do sign a contract explicitly curtailing those rights in some circumstances in exchange for access to classified information.
Current and former clearance holders may wish to review their own agency’s pre-publication review requirements before creating any internet content that could come back to haunt them.
This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Although the information is believed to be accurate as of the publication date, no guarantee or warranty is offered or implied. Laws and government policies are subject to change, and the information provided herein may not provide a complete or current analysis of the topic or other pertinent considerations. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
