Targeted by the President: The Rise of a Legal Nemesis
Mark Zaid always knew the risks of confronting Donald Trump. As a national security lawyer with a long track record of representing whistleblowers and government insiders, Zaid has spent years challenging presidential overreach.
But in March 2025, the Trump administration escalated the feud. In a presidential memo revoking security clearances for high-profile figures—including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and Liz Cheney—Zaid’s name appeared fourth on the list.
“Why am I even on that list—let alone ahead of two presidents?” Zaid told The Guardian.
“It’s political, it’s personal, and it’s deeply un-American.”
The move not only shocked Zaid but also threw his legal practice into disarray, cutting off his access to sensitive material and sidelining active national security cases, including those related to the CIA and Havana Syndrome victims.
The Memo Heard Around Washington
The March memo, signed by Trump and circulated without explanation beyond vague references to “national interest,” revoked the security clearances of:
-
President Joe Biden and family
-
Vice President Kamala Harris
-
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
-
Republican dissenters Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger
-
Several prominent national security lawyers, including Mark Zaid and Norm Eisen
The White House insists that clearance decisions fall under presidential prerogative, beyond the scope of judicial review.
“This is a core executive function,” said Trump spokesman Harrison Fields. “The courts have no role in second-guessing these decisions.”
But Zaid disagrees—and he’s taken the fight to federal court.
A Lawsuit That Could Set Precedent
In late June, a judge heard oral arguments in Zaid’s lawsuit challenging the clearance revocation. Filed on constitutional grounds, the case argues:
-
Violation of due process rights
-
Suppression of free speech and political dissent
-
Unlawful political retaliation
“This isn’t just about me,” Zaid said. “It’s about the rule of law. The president is not a king.”
His co-counsel, Norm Eisen—himself a target of the same memo—called the lawsuit a “landmark case” to test whether a president can use security clearances as weapons against political enemies.
Retaliation, Not National Security
The lawsuit paints a compelling portrait of political vengeance masquerading as executive discretion. Zaid’s only crime? Being one of Trump’s most visible legal critics:
-
He represented the Ukraine whistleblower during Trump’s first impeachment.
-
He’s frequently appeared on TV and in media calling out Trump’s alleged abuses of power.
-
He publicly warned clients to consider leaving the U.S. after the 2024 election due to Trump’s threats of retribution.
Trump has long made clear his desire to punish dissenters. On the 2024 campaign trail, he repeatedly vowed “retribution” and accused critics of treason. During the 2019 impeachment, he called Zaid a “sleazeball” who “should be tried for treason.”
The 2025 memo, Zaid argues, is a chilling extension of that rhetoric.
A Career on the Line
Zaid’s work revolves around classified information. His clients include current and former:
-
Federal employees
-
Military personnel
-
Intelligence contractors
Many of these individuals turn to Zaid precisely because he holds security clearances that allow him to handle sensitive material. Without them, he can’t perform critical parts of his job.
One devastating consequence: the CIA notified Zaid that he can no longer access or use classified evidence, even in existing cases. That has already blocked progress in high-profile legal efforts, including litigation related to Havana Syndrome.
“My clients have lost their ability to use me as counsel,” Zaid said. “That’s not just retaliation—it’s professional sabotage.”
Collateral Damage to the Legal Community
Zaid warns that the Trump administration’s tactics are already having a chilling effect on the legal profession.
“I’ve approached lawyers to collaborate on cases, and they’ve told me outright—they don’t want to get on this administration’s radar,” he said.
This “fear effect,” Zaid suggests, may be part of the strategy: intimidate attorneys into silence, leaving critics of the government legally isolated and vulnerable.
Eisen, who once served as White House ethics czar, echoes that concern:
“This isn’t about national security. It’s about power. And power unchecked is a danger to democracy.”
Retaliation with a Smile
Trump officials have been anything but subtle in their public comments.
-
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called the revocations “fun” in a media interview.
-
She issued a statement accusing Zaid and others of having “abused public trust.”
-
The White House has refused to explain why Zaid’s name was ranked ahead of two presidents.
“It’s not just unconstitutional—it’s petty,” Eisen said.
Why This Matters
The revocation of security clearances isn’t just about Mark Zaid. It’s a test of America’s commitment to constitutional checks and balances.
If presidents can revoke legal and professional rights based on personal grudges or political scorekeeping, what limits remain?
Zaid’s case could determine:
-
Whether courts have oversight authority over clearance revocations
-
Whether political motives behind such decisions render them unconstitutional
-
Whether lawyers can be targeted professionally for taking clients or causes unpopular with the administration
Zaid says he’s determined to keep fighting. He believes the courts—or the next administration—will eventually restore his clearance. But he also hopes the case sends a louder message:
“No administration, no president, has the right to weaponize national security for personal vendettas.”
Whether he wins in court or not, Zaid’s stand has already inspired other lawyers, whistleblowers, and public servants who fear the vindictive climate of Trump’s Washington.
