Lawyer Mark Zaid Sues Trump Over Clearance \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Washington attorney Mark Zaid has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for revoking his security clearance, alleging political retaliation. The move impacts his work on sensitive national security cases. Zaid joins a growing list of legal professionals reportedly targeted by Trump’s latest executive actions.
Quick Looks
- Attorney Mark Zaid sues Trump administration over revoked security clearance.
- Zaid calls the revocation political retribution that cripples his legal practice.
- Federal lawsuit challenges Trump’s March memorandum targeting 15 individuals.
- CIA and other agencies restricted Zaid’s classified access after the memo.
- Zaid represented a Ukraine whistleblower in Trump’s first impeachment.
- Abbe Lowell, Zaid’s attorney, also represents Trump’s other legal adversaries.
- Letitia James, Lisa Monaco, and Joe Biden also named in clearance revocations.
- Zaid says his rights—and clients’ rights—are under attack through executive overreach.
Deep Look
In a dramatic escalation of tensions between the legal community and the Trump administration, prominent national security attorney Mark Zaid filed a federal lawsuit Monday accusing the White House of politically motivated retaliation after his security clearance was abruptly revoked. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., targets what Zaid calls a “bald-faced attack” on constitutional protections that threatens not just his livelihood, but the right of attorneys to represent clients in classified national security matters free from political interference.
The lawsuit stems from a March 2025 presidential memorandum, issued by former President Donald Trump during his second term in office. The directive revoked security clearances for 15 individuals, citing that their continued access was “no longer in the national interest.” Zaid, whose legal career spans nearly 35 years, was among those singled out—a list that also included President Joe Biden, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and other figures Trump has previously criticized or attempted to discredit.
Zaid’s lawsuit alleges that this move is part of a coordinated retribution campaign, in which the Trump administration is using the powers of the presidency—and the mechanisms of the federal government—as tools of punishment against political and legal adversaries. The complaint characterizes the clearance revocations not as matters of national security but as acts of personal vengeance designed to sideline effective critics and silence legal professionals who have challenged Trump’s authority or exposed misconduct.
Zaid’s legal team, led by Abbe Lowell, one of Washington’s most seasoned and high-profile defense attorneys, is framing the case as a constitutional showdown over the limits of presidential power, particularly in the realm of security clearances, a domain historically granted broad deference by the courts. However, Zaid and his attorneys argue that such deference cannot extend to overtly political targeting that undermines the legal process and First Amendment protections.
“Defendants have strayed far afield of any deference granted to them by existing case law,” the lawsuit states. “They have launched a bald-faced attack on a sacred constitutional guarantee: the right to petition the court or federal agencies on behalf of clients.”
The practical consequences of the revocation are immediate and severe. As a national security attorney, Zaid’s clearance is critical to representing clients—including whistleblowers, government officials, and military personnel—whose legal cases involve classified material. Without access, Zaid is effectively barred from continuing this core aspect of his legal work, a move that not only affects his practice but leaves clients without experienced representation in highly sensitive proceedings.
Zaid says he was informed by agencies including the CIA that, in light of the presidential memorandum, he would no longer be permitted to access classified information. “The immediate effect is that Zaid cannot continue to work for clients in cases that require his ability to review classified materials,” the complaint says, “undermining his ability to continue to represent them and zealously advocate on their behalf in the national security arena.”
The implications of the case are sweeping. At its core is the question of whether the president can weaponize security clearance procedures against individuals who have engaged in legally protected activity—like representing whistleblowers or speaking out against the administration. Legal experts suggest the lawsuit could become a landmark case on the intersection of national security and constitutional law, with potential ramifications for whistleblower protections, attorney-client representation, and executive power.
Zaid is no stranger to controversy or high-stakes litigation. His work has included representing government employees, intelligence officials, and military personnel under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Most notably, in 2019, he represented the intelligence community whistleblower whose complaint about Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led to Trump’s first impeachment. That case placed Zaid in the national spotlight and made him a frequent target of political attacks by Trump and his allies.
In his complaint, Zaid emphasizes his bipartisan record, stating that he has spent nearly 35 years representing individuals across the political spectrum and that his work is rooted in defending constitutional rights, not partisan ideology. “He is no stranger to identifying overreach and exposing the abuse of power,” the lawsuit reads. “And that is exactly why he is being targeted now.”
His lead attorney, Abbe Lowell, has also taken on other high-profile clients who have come under Trump’s scrutiny, including Letitia James, the New York attorney general overseeing civil fraud lawsuits against Trump, and Miles Taylor, the former Trump administration official who authored the 2018 anonymous New York Times op-ed, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.” Taylor is now under Justice Department investigation—reportedly at Trump’s direct request—another example of the widening pattern Zaid’s legal team alleges.
The lawsuit doesn’t just accuse Trump of acting improperly—it argues that the revocation of security clearances for political reasons violates the First and Fifth Amendments, denying Zaid both free speech rights and due process. The suit argues that the administration failed to provide meaningful justification for why Zaid and others were suddenly deemed “unsuitable,” nor were they given the opportunity to challenge the decision through any formal legal mechanism.
If the court sides with Zaid, the ruling could curtail executive authority to revoke clearances at will and establish protections for lawyers and others who operate within the national security ecosystem. Conversely, if the court rejects the claims, it could set a precedent that allows future presidents to use clearance revocations as a political cudgel against critics.
Zaid’s suit is already drawing support from civil liberties advocates and legal ethics experts who warn that the Trump administration’s approach to legal dissent poses a serious threat to democratic norms. “If lawyers fear losing their security clearances—or worse—for representing whistleblowers or speaking truth to power, it has a chilling effect on the entire legal system,” said one constitutional law scholar.
As the case moves forward, it promises to shine an uncomfortable light on how national security protocols can be misused when transparency, oversight, and the rule of law are compromised. And for Zaid, the outcome will determine not just his career—but his ability to defend the rights of others.
Lawyer Mark Zaid Lawyer Mark Zaid Lawyer Mark Zaid
You must Register or Login to post a comment.