The integrity of the security clearance process may seem like a given. After all, national security should never be a partisan issue. But the past several months have issued a new wave of protests over the executive branch’s authority over the security clearance process, and how that process may be politicized. That’s something a new bipartisan bill, reintroduced today by Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), seeks to change.
The Integrity in Security Clearance Determinations Act aims to codify basic fairness, objectivity, and due process in how national security eligibility is determined, as well as how it can be denied or revoked.
“Americans should be able to have confidence that the security clearance process is focused solely on protecting our nation’s most sensitive information,” said Sen. Warner, Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“This bipartisan bill would make the current system fairer and more transparent by ensuring that decisions to grant, deny, or revoke clearances are based solely on codified guidelines,” added Sen. Collins.
A Long-Standing Executive Power, Now Under Scrutiny
The bill responds to concerns that security clearances could be used as a tool of political retribution—a concern that escalated during the Trump administration, when clearances for former intelligence officials like John Brennan were threatened or revoked amid political disagreements. The move raised alarm bells among former national security leaders and civil liberties advocates, who warned that such actions risked undermining the apolitical nature of national security vetting.
The executive branch, and specifically the President, has historically held broad discretion over who can access classified information. That authority stems from Article II of the Constitution, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as Department of the Navy v. Egan (1988), which emphasized the President’s “constitutional responsibility to protect the nation’s secrets.”
What the Bill Does
The legislation includes several key reforms:
Published Criteria: It requires that clearance determinations be based solely on established adjudicative guidelines—criteria already in place through Executive Order 12968 and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, but not codified by statute.
Protecting Free Speech: It explicitly bars clearance revocation or denial based on the exercise of constitutional rights, including political speech—something past officials and whistleblowers have cited as a concern.
Whistleblower Protections: It bans the use of clearance actions as a form of retaliation, echoing efforts in previous legislation like the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.
Anti-Discrimination Measures: The bill prohibits clearance decisions based on sex, gender, religion, age, disability, or national origin.
Appeals and Transparency: It would require publication of appeal outcomes and codify the right of federal employees to challenge clearance decisions—something long pushed for by oversight bodies like the Government Accountability Office (GAO). This is already something done by select agencies, specifically the Department of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) which publishes its appeals online, but is not universally required across the clearance process. .
Echoes of Reform, and the Road Ahead
This isn’t the first time Senators Warner and Collins have teamed up on the issue—they introduced similar legislation in 2019 following public scrutiny over potential political abuse of clearance authority. But despite bipartisan support, the bill failed to gain traction in the full Senate.
It also follows broader clearance reform efforts under Trusted Workforce 2.0, which has sought to modernize the vetting process through continuous vetting, a national vetting center, and enhanced reciprocity. But many of those reforms focus on speed and efficiency—not necessarily fairness or due process.
The Integrity in Security Clearance Determinations Act tackles a different but critical piece of the puzzle—ensuring that the process remains rooted in national security principles, not political favoritism.
Still, legal experts question whether Congress can truly limit executive discretion in this space. Even with statutory guardrails, enforcement could be difficult without a significant shift in judicial interpretation or executive branch buy-in.
But for security clearance holders, applicants, and agencies alike, this legislation sends a strong message: access to classified information should be based on risk—not retribution. The bill may be less a policy change than a signal that congress, who does hold oversight authorities in the clearance process, is watching.
