The decision over whether Jared Kushner will be stripped of his security clearance could ultimately be made by one man — his father-in-law, President Donald Trump.
Kushner’s actions — including initially failing to disclose meetings with Russian officials — would be more than enough to cost most federal employees their security clearances, according to people familiar with the security-clearance process.
Story Continued Below
“They would lose their job immediately,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight. “Their clearance would be gone.”
But Kushner isn’t your average federal government employee.
The vast majority of security clearance background investigations for officials at federal agencies are handled through the Office of Personnel Management, where nameless government bureaucrats and contractors look for even the slightest of inconsistencies.
“We’ll have clients who, you know, have $2,000 worth of debt that they did not disclose — they pay it off during the investigation and they still don’t get approved for security clearance,” said Joanna Friedman, an attorney with the Federal Practice Group, who has spent a decade representing employees seeking security clearances.
White House officials, though, go through a slightly different process, according to sources familiar with it. For new White House employees who don’t already have a clearance sponsored by another agency, background investigations are typically conducted by the FBI, with possible involvement from the CIA. The FBI then forwards its recommendations to the White House.
The security clearance process is ultimately rooted in executive authority, not law, meaning the president himself is the ultimate arbiter. It is extremely rare for a president to wade into such an issue, experts said, but Trump does have the power, if he wanted to, to demand that Kushner keep his clearance.
“If the president wants someone to have a clearance and access to classified information, there’s no one to tell him no,” said Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists.
And this is a president who is fiercely loyal to his family.
As Trump biographer Tim O’Brien put it, “Trump has always put family first, even if family members lack the skill or experience for the type of job they’re being asked to do.”
“Trump wouldn’t take away his security clearance himself,” O’Brien said. “He would have to be convinced by his own attorneys and his staff that the issues had moved beyond familial loyalty. That’s going to take a lot of arm-twisting and convincing.”
And it suggests Democrats and other critics who say Kushner should lose his access to classified information may end up disappointed.
Kushner, who is married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka and serves in the White House as a senior adviser, has been given responsibility over a wide portfolio ranging from the opioid crisis to brokering a Middle East peace deal.
Not having a security clearance would hobble him from doing large swaths of his job. On many days, he receives classified briefings, according to a senior administration official — and he is often in the room with his father-in-law for sensitive decisions about classified issues.
He has traveled overseas with top military commanders and calls foreign leaders on his own.
One source said Kushner sometimes comes to National Security Council meetings “at least for part of the meeting” and that he often talks to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
In recent weeks, though, Kushner has become the top target of Democratic outrage over the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California on Friday ramping up her calls for his security clearance to be revoked.
“It’s absolutely ridiculous that he should have that clearance,” Pelosi said at a news conference. “It’s not justified in any way. The president could revoke it in a moment, and he should.”
Federal employees often have temporary clearances for six months or more, and it is unclear whether Kushner has a permanent clearance.
Kushner initially omitted contacts with foreign officials on his security clearance application form, known as an SF-86, including meetings with Russia’s ambassador and a top Russian businessman. Kushner recently updated his SF-86 to include more than 100 foreign contacts, The New York Times reported.
And last week, it was revealed that Kushner attended a meeting last year with a Russian lawyer that was pitched as part of a Kremlin-backed effort to help the Trump campaign. A source familiar with the issue said Kushner was not told about the purpose of the meeting and did not read to the bottom of an email chain where the purpose was stated.
These and other revelations have led more than 50 House Democrats to urge the White House to revoke Kushner’s clearance.
Jamie Gorelick, a lawyer for Kushner, said her client had “prematurely” filed the first security clearance application form but has since done everything possible to be accurate and transparent with his meetings.
“Mr. Kushner’s SF-86 was prematurely submitted and, among other errors, did not list any contacts with foreign government officials,” Gorelick explained. “The next day, Mr. Kushner submitted supplemental information stating that he had had ‘numerous contacts with foreign officials’ about which he would be happy to provide additional information.
“He has since submitted this information,” Gorelick continued, “including that during the campaign and transition, he had over 100 calls or meetings with representatives of more than 20 countries, most of which were during transition. Mr. Kushner has submitted additional updates and included, out of an abundance of caution, this meeting with a Russian person, which he briefly attended at the request of his brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr.”
Omitting facts from a security questionnaire could be disqualifying if it was part of a deliberate effort to conceal them, according to federal guidelines; an inadvertent omission would not be so costly. Similarly, making “prompt, good-faith efforts” to correct the omission can mitigate security concerns.
When asked last week whether his clearance was still valid, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: “As always, we’ve never discussed the security clearances.”
One government official who went through the process in the past six months said it was quite arduous.
Agents showed up at this person’s house out-of-state and interviewed his parents and other family members. There were dozens of forms, along with interviews with former colleagues and friends about this person’s personal and professional habits — from clients this person held in the past, to any foreign travel, to their history with alcohol and drugs.
This person said the agents appeared to be looking for even small inconsistencies in stories.
“I don’t think it’s that hard to get one, but if you had a meeting with a Russian government lawyer, I don’t think it would be that easy,” this person said. “That would be something they’d care about. They asked me if I’d ever even met with foreign clients.”
For most of the more than 4 million people who have security clearances in the United States, the process works like this: They are sponsored by an agency and undergo a background investigation. The vast majority of these background investigations are handled by the Office of Personnel Management, according to OPM spokeswoman Sandy Day.
Ultimate decisions about whether to grant the clearance — called adjudication — are typically made by the sponsoring agencies. The employee is then subject to periodic reinvestigations.
But for some White House employees, background investigations are instead handled by the FBI. The president, though, has ultimate authority, since the classification system is laid out in an executive order, rather than in law.
“If the president says give this person a clearance, nothing else really matters,” said Aftergood, the government secrecy expert. “There may be political consequences to such a move, but legally and otherwise, it’s entirely within the president’s authority to grant such a clearance.”
Kyle Cheney and Jacob Lahut contributed to this report.
Sean Doolittle, right, with catcher Bruce Maxwell, comes from Oakland along with Ryan Madson to boost the Nationals’ bullpen. (Stan Szeto/USA Today Sports)
For months, a deal to repair the Washington Nationals’ broken bullpen seemed inevitable, and Sunday, after months of frustration and speculation, they finally made one. The Nationals acquired right-hander Ryan Madson and left-hander Sean Doolittle from the Oakland Athletics in exchange for Blake Treinen, left-handed pitching prospect Jesus Luzardo, and 2016 second-round pick Sheldon Neuse.
The move immediately adds two experienced relievers to the Nationals’ bullpen for the rest of this season and at least all of next, though the team will have a club option for Doolittle in 2019 and 2020, too. In other words, this is not just a patch — it is a legitimate upgrade around which the Nationals can build next season, too.
The price the Nationals paid signals an unprecedented willingness to absorb salary at the trade deadline. While the Nationals paid Mark Melancon the rest of his 2016 salary after they acquired him at the deadline, they will now owe Madson the rest of his $7.5 million, as well as the $7.5 million he will make in 2018. Doolittle, meanwhile, is owed the remainder of his $2.6 million salary for this season, $4.35 million in 2018 and would be owed $6 million in 2019 and $6.5 million 2020.
In other words, the Nationals are adding around $5.6 million in prorated salary this season, while also committing to nearly $12 million next year. While the package they sent to Oakland is undoubtedly substantial, it likely would have required one of the Nationals’ elite prospects — Erick Fedde, Juan Soto or Victor Robles perhaps — to get the Athletics to chip in any additional money.
Blake Treinen pitches in the eighth inning against the New York Mets on July 4. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
The centerpiece of that package is Treinen, the enigmatic right-hander who perplexed the Nationals with a combination of promise and inconsistency. He showed so much promise that they made him their closer to start the season. He then showed so much inconsistency he forced them to remove him from that role and even from high-leverage innings, as the season went on. Teammates, scouts and coaches raved about his 98 mph sinker and said repeatedly he had some of the best stuff on the team. But he struggled to command his arsenal in key situations, especially this season, when the 29-year-old pitched to a 5.73 ERA in 37 appearances with a troubling 1.619 WHIP.
Luzardo, meanwhile, was the Nationals’ third-round choice in the 2016 draft, a first-round talent who fell because of Tommy John surgery but was returning to form (and climbing internal and external rankings) this season. Neuse hit .291 for Class AAA Hagerstown.
Ryan Madson pitched in the 2015 World Series for the Kansas City Royals and in the postseason for the Philadelphia Phillies from 2008 through 2011. (Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images)
What the Nationals get in exchange is two veterans with long and impressive relief resumes. Madson was on the Phillies’ 2008 World Series team with Jayson Werth and Joe Blanton, and has a 3.40 ERA over 12 big league seasons. After the Nationals faced him in Oakland (and, in the interest of full disclosure, after Ryan Zimmerman hit a game-tying home run against him in an eventual win), Zimmerman called him “an uncomfortable at-bat” and praised his stuff. The 36-year-old is in the midst of a particularly impressive season, pitching to a 2.06 ERA with a .788 WHIP — both of which are better than any reliever in the Nationals bullpen.
Doolittle has been injury prone, but when he pitches, he does so well. He missed part of this season with a left shoulder strain, but has a .656 WHIP in 21 1/3 innings and a 3.09 ERA in 254 career appearances. He was a teammate of Zimmerman’s at the University of Virginia in 2005 and is known for being particularly tough on left-handed hitters. This season, for example, lefties are 0 for 23 with 12 strikeouts against him.
Both Doolittle and Madson are considered positive clubhouse presences, well-regarded by teammates and reporters, the kind of veterans who should slide into the Nationals’ clubhouse and not disrupt it. They will join a bullpen in desperate need of their assistance and that will probably look far different Monday than it did even earlier this month. Doolittle probably will join Oliver Perez and Enny Romero in the bullpen, as Matt Grace, who has pitched well, is the only left-hander with options. Madson likely will join Matt Albers, Joe Blanton, Austin Adams and Trevor Gott. Either Grace, Gott or Adams will head back to Syracuse when the Nationals activate Edwin Jackson to start Tuesday’s game.
Once Shawn Kelley and Koda Glover return, the Nationals can build a bullpen with seven of eight (or eight of eight, in the playoffs) of Doolittle, Romero, and Perez from the left side, Madson, Albers, Blanton, Kelley and Glover from the right. They also could continue to add. Asked if the Nationals were done dealing before the deadline, two weeks from now, one person with direct knowledge with the front office’s thinking said “never — or after the deadline.”
Whatever the Nationals do or do not do from here, they have made the big deal, chocked up the cash fans grumble for and added to the bullpen that has desperately needed help all season. Who will close is, for now, unclear. Dusty Baker has been mixing and matching and now has more options from which to choose. But the bullpen is better today than it was yesterday, and the Nationals playoff prognosis has improved along with it.
Blake Treinen pitches in the eighth inning against the New York Mets on July 4. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
Ryan Madson pitched in the 2015 World Series for the Kansas City Royals and in the postseason for the Philadelphia Phillies from 2008 through 2011. (Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images)