Hubbry Logo
Security clearanceSecurity clearanceMain
Open search
Security clearance
Community hub
Security clearance
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Security clearance
Security clearance
Security clearance
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them access to classified information (state or organizational secrets) or to restricted areas, after completion of a thorough background check. The term "security clearance" is also sometimes used in private organizations that have a formal process to vet employees for access to sensitive information. A clearance by itself is normally not sufficient to gain access; the organization must also determine that the cleared individual needs to know specific information. No individual is supposed to be granted automatic access to classified information solely because of rank, position, or a security clearance.[1][full citation needed]

Canada

[edit]
Further information: Classified information § Canada
This section is an excerpt from Canada security clearance.[edit]
A Canada security clearance is required for viewing classified information in Canada.

United Kingdom

[edit]
Further information: Security vetting in the United Kingdom

National Security Clearance types

[edit]

National Security Clearances are a hierarchy of levels, depending on the classification of materials that can be accessed—Baseline Personnel Security Standard (BPSS), Counter-Terrorist Check (CTC), Enhanced Baseline Standard (EBS), Security Check (SC), enhanced Security Check (eSC), Developed Vetting (DV), enhanced Developed Vetting (eDV), and STRAP.

The BPSS is the entry-level National Security Clearance, and both CTC and EBS are effectively enhancements to the BPSS, with CTC relating to checking for susceptibility to extremist persuasion, and EBS relating to checking for susceptibility to espionage persuasion, the latter being needed for supervised access to SECRET material. The SC again is focused on susceptibility to espionage persuasion, and is required for an individual to have long-term unsupervised access to SECRET material and occasional access to TOP SECRET (TS) material, whilst for regular access to TS the DV, eDV is required. Occasionally STRAP is required with DV.

Those with National Security Clearance are commonly required to sign a statement to the effect that they agree to abide by the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act (OSA). This is popularly referred to as "signing the Official Secrets Act". Signing this has no effect on which actions are legal, as the act is a law, not a contract, and individuals are bound by it whether or not they have signed it. Signing it is intended more as a reminder to the person that they are under such obligations. To this end, it is common to sign this statement both before and after a period of employment that involves access to secrets.

National Security Clearance history

[edit]

After the United States entered into World War II, Britain changed its security classifications to match those of the U.S.. Previously, classifications had included the top classification "Most Secret", but it soon became apparent that the United States did not fully understand the UK's classifications, and classified information appeared in the U.S.'s press. This spearheaded the uniformity in classification between the United Kingdom and the United States. The terminology and levels of British security classifications have also changed from Positive Vetting and Enhanced Positive Vetting to SC, eSC, DV, eDV and STRAP.

Other UK clearances

[edit]

In addition to National Security Clearances, other types of roles and organisations stipulate a need for clearances, including:

United States

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from United States security clearance.[edit]

A United States security clearance is an official determination that an individual may access information classified by the United States Government. Security clearances are hierarchical; each level grants the holder access to information in that level and the levels below it.

The US president can declassify previously classified information, following a detailed process.[2]

United Nations

[edit]

The UN has a Security Clearance (SC) procedure and document for United Nations staff travelling to areas designated as security phase areas, with numbers ranging from one to five ("no-phase" areas are calm countries where no SC is required).

United Nations staff can apply for SC online, at the website of the Department for Safety and Security.

Individuals who have had security clearances revoked

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by editing the page to add missing items, with references to reliable sources.

In the post World War II era, there have been several highly publicized, and often controversial, cases of officials or scientists having their security clearances revoked, including:

Name Reason Year of revocation
Sandy Berger Mishandling of classified documents 2005
Joe Biden Trump's rival[3] 2025[4]
Rod Blagojevich[5] Corruption charges 2008
John O. Brennan Claimed but not processed[6] N/A
Hillary Clinton Trump's rival[3] 2025[4]
John M. Deutch Mishandling of classified information 1999
Thomas Andrews Drake Unauthorized disclosure of secrets 2010
Abdel-Moniem El-Ganayni Unknown reasons 2008
Michael T. Flynn Lying to the FBI 2017
Kamala Harris Trump's rival[3] 2025[4]
Wen Ho Lee Espionage charges 1999
Robert Oppenheimer Communist sympathies 1954
Aldric Saucier Whistleblowing on fraud[7] 1992
Edward Snowden Unauthorized disclosure of secrets 2013
Alan Turing (UK) Homosexuality conviction 1952
Qian Xuesen Communist sympathies 1950

This list does not cover people whose security clearance lapsed possibly following changing their job.[8]

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government § Third hearing.[edit]
The subcommittee heard testimony from three self-proclaimed FBI whistleblowers on May 18, 2023. They had previously complained about ways the bureau had allegedly discriminated against conservatives. Two of the three witnesses, and a third man, had their security clearances revoked days before the hearing for participating in the January 6 attack, or for later expressing views about it that placed into question their "allegiance to the United States," according to the bureau. The three men had been suspended; NBC News reported in June that one of the men had been suspended because FBI internal investigators concluded he had leaked sensitive investigative information to the right-wing Project Veritas.[9] Two of the witnesses acknowledged receiving cash payments from Trump loyalist Kash Patel.[10][11][12]

See also

[edit]

Notes and references

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Security clearance

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A security clearance is a formal administrative determination by an authorized government body that an individual meets the criteria for access to classified information or restricted areas, contingent on a demonstrated need-to-know and successful completion of a personnel security investigation evaluating factors such as loyalty, trustworthiness, and vulnerability to . , where the system is most extensively documented and applied, clearances are required for millions of federal employees, , and contractors handling sensitive defense, , or technological data, with eligibility typically restricted to U.S. citizens due to the risks of foreign influence or . The three standard levels—Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret—correspond to escalating degrees of potential harm from unauthorized disclosure: damage to , serious damage, or exceptionally grave damage, respectively, with additional compartments like (SCI) imposed for highly restricted subsets. The vetting process begins with self-reported forms such as the SF-86 questionnaire, followed by automated checks, interviews with references, financial and reviews, and polygraphs for certain roles, often extending 6–18 months amid backlogs that have historically strained operations. Clearances are not permanent; they demand continuous evaluation through reinvestigations every 5–10 years and revocation for issues like financial distress, foreign contacts, or misconduct, reflecting the causal imperative to mitigate insider threats empirically linked to breaches like those involving compromised personnel. Originating from post-Civil War merit reforms and accelerating after with atomic-era secrecy needs, the framework prioritizes empirical risk assessment over rote loyalty oaths, though persistent delays and adjudicative inconsistencies have prompted reforms like trusted workforce initiatives to align processing with actual threat intelligence.

Fundamentals

Definition and Purpose

Personnel security encompasses the policies, procedures, and measures for determining individuals' eligibility for access to classified information or national security positions through timely assessments of trustworthiness, loyalty, reliability, and risk factors, including background investigations, adjudication against established guidelines, and continuous evaluation to mitigate threats like insider risks or foreign influence. A security clearance constitutes a formal determination by an authorized that an individual possesses the requisite trustworthiness to be granted eligibility for access to or restricted areas, predicated on evaluations of , character, and susceptibility to or . This evaluates risks specific to , distinguishing it from broader employment suitability assessments that primarily gauge reliability for routine job functions without the same emphasis on or leakage potential. The fundamental purpose of clearances is to mitigate insider threats to by restricting handling of sensitive data to those verified as low-risk for betrayal, inadvertent disclosure, or exploitation by adversaries, thereby preserving the integrity of classified materials essential for defense and intelligence operations. This safeguard addresses empirical vulnerabilities demonstrated in historical attempts, such as those targeting code-breaking and atomic research efforts, where vetting was instituted to counter and foreign infiltration despite incomplete success against determined spies. Eligibility conferred by a security clearance does not equate to automatic access; it operates in tandem with the need-to-know principle, which mandates that disclosure be limited to what is strictly necessary for an individual's official duties, even among cleared personnel. This dual requirement enforces compartmentalization, reducing the scope for unauthorized dissemination and amplifying protection against both intentional and accidental breaches.

Levels of Clearance

Security clearance levels establish graduated tiers of access to , calibrated according to the anticipated severity of harm from unauthorized disclosure. The baseline tiers typically include Confidential, denoting information whose release could cause damage to ; Secret, indicating potential for serious damage; and , signifying exceptionally grave damage. These distinctions arise from assessments of disclosure impacts, ensuring that access privileges align with the empirical risks posed by leaks, such as operational disruptions or compromised capabilities. Higher tiers impose stricter compartmentalization, with access confined to individuals demonstrating a verified need-to-know within designated programs. (SCI) represents a specialized overlay on clearances, encompassing intelligence-derived data from protected sources, methods, or analyses that demands handling via dedicated secure facilities and protocols for enhanced segregation. This variant mitigates risks from broader dissemination, as evidenced by the need for program-specific eligibility beyond standard clearance. Vetting intensity escalates with clearance level to counter corresponding magnitudes; Confidential and Secret investigations focus on foundational background checks, whereas often entails deeper scrutiny, including examinations for SCI-access variants to detect on sensitive topics. Such measures reflect causal linkages between clearance rigor and breach prevention, informed by historical data on unauthorized accesses. These structures draw from damage evaluations of prior incidents, including the 2013 disclosures by , who held clearance and exfiltrated over 1.5 million documents, resulting in profound operational harms described by U.S. intelligence officials as the most extensive intelligence compromise in history, prompting billions in remedial expenditures and tactical adjustments by adversaries. Internationally, analogous systems prevail, such as 's hierarchy—NATO RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and COSMIC TOP SECRET—which mirrors the damage-based progression while facilitating allied without equating precisely to domestic levels.

Historical Development

Origins in Early 20th Century

The of 1883 marked a foundational shift in U.S. federal employment practices by establishing a merit-based system, requiring competitive examinations for many positions and replacing the or that had prioritized political loyalty over competence. This reform, prompted by public outrage over corruption exemplified by the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield by a disgruntled office seeker, introduced rudimentary vetting mechanisms to assess qualifications and reduce graft, laying groundwork for later personnel security evaluations. While primarily aimed at administrative efficiency, the act's emphasis on empirical assessment of applicants' backgrounds and abilities represented an early move away from subjective favoritism toward standardized risk evaluation in government hiring. During , escalating threats of industrial espionage and prompted expanded investigations into defense workers and government personnel, building on the merit system's framework. The empowered federal agencies, including the Bureau of Investigation (predecessor to the FBI), to probe potential disloyalty among munitions plant employees, workers, and other critical roles, with investigations surging from a minor workload fraction in 1914 to nearly 30 percent by 1916. Auxiliary groups like the , operating under Department of Justice auspices, conducted over 3 million inquiries into suspected enemy sympathizers in industrial sectors, focusing on German-American workers amid fears of . These efforts highlighted nascent vetting tied to national defense needs, yet remained ad hoc and loyalty-oriented rather than systematic ideological screening. Pre-1940s practices underscored a tension between merit-based efficiency and imperatives, as the system's exams and basic checks curbed patronage-driven but exposed vulnerabilities to undetected threats like foreign influence or radical ideologies. Coverage was limited to classified or defense-adjacent roles, with no clearance protocols; instead, agencies relied on informal references and wartime spikes in scrutiny, revealing gaps where empirical competence assessments overlooked deeper causal risks such as motives. This era's vetting prioritized reducing administrative waste over comprehensive , setting the stage for more robust frameworks amid interwar concerns.

World War II and Cold War Evolution

The advent of compelled the to implement structured personnel vetting for defense-related industries and projects, driven by the imperative to safeguard technologies vulnerable to Axis espionage. The , launched in August 1942 under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, exemplified this shift, with the Counter Intelligence Corps conducting background investigations and issuing security clearances to over 130,000 personnel across compartmentalized sites to mitigate risks of or intelligence leaks. These measures extended to the broader Industrial Security Program, which vetted contractors and workers in war production facilities, prioritizing empirical assessments of loyalty and foreign ties amid documented German and Japanese spy activities. Postwar revelations of Soviet atomic espionage accelerated the formalization of clearance processes into a systemic counter-espionage framework during the . , signed by President Truman on March 21, 1947, instituted mandatory loyalty investigations for all federal civilian employees, evaluating factors such as membership in totalitarian organizations and advocacy of overthrowing the government to exclude risks of ideological subversion. This program processed millions of cases, resulting in thousands of dismissals or denials based on evidence of communist sympathies, reflecting first-principles prioritization of verifiable threats over unsubstantiated sympathies alone. The McCarthy era from 1950 onward intensified these protocols, with congressional probes and subsequent in 1953 expanding adjudication criteria to encompass past associations and defector-derived on Soviet networks, targeting penetrations in sensitive sectors like nuclear research. Despite critiques of procedural excesses, the expansions yielded tangible safeguards; for instance, enhanced vetting in atomic programs limited further exfiltration after early breaches, as corroborated by declassified Venona decrypts exposing over 300 Soviet agents in U.S. operations, many neutralized through loyalty screenings. The British ring, uncovered progressively from 1949 to 1963, further validated this realism—its members' elite backgrounds evaded initial checks, prompting allied reforms emphasizing causal threats from ideological recruitment over class presumptions. Such empirical outcomes underscored clearances' role in disrupting infiltration chains, balancing overreach concerns against documented Soviet gains from unchecked access.

Post-9/11 Modernization

The terrorist attacks of , 2001, exposed vulnerabilities in personnel vetting, prompting reforms to address insider threats and intelligence gaps through faster, more integrated processes. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 established the and mandated improvements in information sharing, including reciprocity for security clearances among agencies to mitigate delays in accessing classified data. Subsequent , such as the Implementing Recommendations of the Act of 2007, required executive branch agencies to aim for 90-day processing for clearances and 60 days for secret clearances, emphasizing IT upgrades like automated systems to integrate databases and reduce backlogs exceeding 500,000 cases in the early . These changes incorporated broader data sources, such as financial records and travel histories, to enable predictive assessments of risks like potential compromise from undue foreign influence. Reforms shifted toward risk-based paradigms, prioritizing empirical indicators of vulnerability over uniform periodic reinvestigations. Financial distress and unreported foreign contacts, shown in adjudicative guidelines to correlate with cases—such as those involving —became focal points for automated screening, drawing on to commercial and government databases post-9/11. This approach, informed by analyses of historical insider threats, facilitated continuous vetting pilots in the , replacing five- to ten-year cycles with real-time monitoring to detect behavioral anomalies linked to or cyber risks. International cooperation, particularly within the Five Eyes alliance, advanced reciprocity agreements to streamline allied vetting and enhance intelligence sharing. Post-9/11 directives, including those in the 2007 9/11 Act, promoted mutual recognition of clearances among the U.S., , , , and , reducing redundant investigations while verifying compatibility of standards against shared threats like jihadist networks. This framework supported joint operations by minimizing delays in cross-border assignments, with empirical gains in threat detection from pooled data on foreign contacts and financial anomalies. By the late , these modernizations yielded measurable reductions in processing times—from averages exceeding one year pre-reform to under 100 days for many secret-level clearances—and backlog diminutions of over 20% in key inventories, correlating with fewer undetected high-risk insiders through proactive IT-driven alerts. Continuous enrollment expanded to cover millions, enabling early intervention in cases tied to cyber vulnerabilities or terror financing patterns, though challenges like constraints persisted.

Vetting Processes

Application and Background Investigation

The application and background investigation phases form core components of personnel security programs, which involve processes to assess individuals' eligibility for access to classified information and fitness for national security positions, minimizing risks such as insider threats and foreign influence. The application for a security clearance begins with the submission of a detailed , such as the U.S. government's (SF-86), which requires applicants to disclose extensive personal information including employment history, residences, , foreign and contacts, financial , criminal history, and alcohol use, and psychological counseling. This form serves as the foundational document for initiating the background investigation, emphasizing self-reported to facilitate verification against objective . Applicants must also provide , such as fingerprints, and sign releases authorizing access to from employers, financial institutions, , and other databases. The background investigation, typically conducted by specialized agencies like the (DCSA) in the United States, involves systematic records checks across multiple domains to corroborate the applicant's disclosures and uncover potential risks. These checks include criminal records from local, state, and federal databases; credit reports for financial vulnerabilities; and verifications; records if applicable; and examinations of international travel, foreign contacts, and associations that could indicate to foreign entities or susceptibility to influence. For higher-level clearances, investigators conduct interviews with listed and developed references, neighbors, and associates to assess personal conduct, reliability, and any undisclosed behaviors. The scope generally covers a 5- to 10-year lookback period for , residences, and associations, with lifetime review for serious criminal matters or foreign influence indicators, prioritizing empirical evidence over subjective interpretations. This phase targets key risk areas aligned with adjudicative guidelines, such as potential foreign preference through dual citizenship or close ties abroad, personal conduct involving dishonesty or rule violations, and financial issues that might create leverage for . The process relies on verifiable data from official records to mitigate biases, with DCSA handling the bulk of federal investigations since 2019. Average completion times for the investigation portion range from 116 to 121 business days for Secret-level reviews and longer for , though full processing including can extend to 6-12 months. Government agencies bear the costs, estimated at approximately $5,596 per investigation as of 2020. Overall denial rates for clearances hover around 2-5%, reflecting the emphasis on documented disqualifiers like criminal conduct (accounting for nearly 30% of denials) rather than arbitrary exclusions.

Adjudication and Eligibility Criteria

Adjudication of security clearances entails a standardized evaluation of investigative findings against established criteria to assess an applicant's trustworthiness, loyalty, and vulnerability to coercion or compromise. These evaluations are integral to personnel security programs that determine suitability and fitness for national security roles, drawing on frameworks like those from the U.S. Department of Defense and NIST to address risks including insider threats and foreign influence. In the United States, this process is governed by Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4), issued on December 10, 2016, which outlines 13 adjudicative guidelines as the uniform standard for determining eligibility for access to across federal agencies, military personnel, contractors, and licensees. These guidelines address empirically linked risk factors derived from analyses of historical and cases, such as financial distress implicated in compromises like those of in 1994, where unexplained wealth and debt signaled vulnerability to foreign recruitment. The guidelines encompass: (1) allegiance to the United States; (2) foreign influence through close ties; (3) foreign preference via citizenship or residency; (4) sexual behavior posing exploitation risks; (5) personal conduct indicating dishonesty or unreliability; (6) financial considerations like excessive debt or unexplained affluence; (7) alcohol consumption patterns; (8) drug involvement or substance misuse; (9) psychological conditions affecting judgment; (10) criminal conduct history; (11) handling of protected information; (12) outside activities creating conflicts; and (13) use of information technology for security violations. Adjudicators apply a "whole-person" concept, weighing adverse information against mitigating factors—such as the event's remoteness in time, voluntary disclosure demonstrating candor, or demonstrated behavioral change—rather than rigid disqualification thresholds. For instance, under financial considerations, chronic indebtedness raises concerns due to coercion potential, but mitigation occurs if the applicant has resolved debts through repayment plans or if the issues stem from isolated medical expenses without recurrence. This approach prioritizes causal predictors of unreliability, informed by post-breach reviews showing patterns like foreign contacts or substance abuse in over 80% of documented U.S. espionage convictions since 1945. Eligibility decisions emphasize objective security imperatives over subjective interpretations, with denials requiring a written statement of reasons and appeal rights to independent bodies such as the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (), where applicants can present rebuttals or new evidence. Reciprocity within the U.S. system mandates acceptance of favorable adjudications from other agencies if based on equivalent investigations and no derogatory updates, facilitating interim clearances during transfers; for allied nations in frameworks like , limited reciprocal access is granted via bilateral agreements assessing shared threat environments, though full equivalence requires case-by-case validation to align with domestic standards. These criteria, refined through iterative reviews of breach data, underscore that disqualifiers like unmitigated foreign associations reflect proven vectors rather than bias, as evidenced by declassified case studies prioritizing empirical risk over non-security attributes.

Maintenance, Reciprocity, and Continuous Vetting

Once granted, security clearances in the United States require ongoing maintenance through periodic reinvestigations, traditionally conducted every five years for clearances and every ten years for Secret clearances, to verify continued eligibility amid potential changes in an individual's circumstances. These reinvestigations mirror initial background checks but focus on updates, including interviews, record reviews, and financial examinations. The system has shifted toward continuous vetting (CV), an automated process enrolling cleared personnel—currently about 3.8 million in positions—into real-time monitoring of and commercial databases for adverse events such as criminal arrests, financial delinquencies, or foreign contacts. CV replaces fixed-interval reinvestigations, enabling earlier detection of risks that could compromise reliability, thereby addressing gaps where behaviors evolve post-grant without periodic scrutiny. Reciprocity protocols facilitate acceptance of clearances across allied nations, particularly the Five Eyes partners (, , , , and ), through security of information agreements that establish mutual standards for protecting shared classified data and streamline validations without full reinvestigations. Domestically, reciprocity among U.S. federal agencies and contractors allows prior clearances to be leveraged; holding a previous Secret clearance demonstrates established trust, enables investigators to reference the prior investigative file, and typically results in a smoother and faster adjudication process compared to applicants without clearance history, provided the prior investigation is sufficiently recent. These arrangements rely on equivalent vetting rigor and trust derived from long-standing intelligence-sharing alliances, minimizing duplication while upholding baseline safeguards. Revocation occurs when maintenance processes uncover new disqualifiers under adjudicative guidelines, including financial irresponsibility, drug or , criminal conduct, or mishandling of such as unauthorized disclosures. Continuous vetting triggers reviews for these issues, ensuring clearances do not persist amid emerging unreliability, as undetected changes can enable insider risks until self-reported or externally flagged.

National Systems

United States

The security clearance system operates under executive authority, with primary oversight by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) via its role as Security Executive Agent and the (DCSA), which conducts most background investigations for Department of Defense personnel and contractors. This framework supports access to across federal agencies, emphasizing protection of national defense priorities amid extensive intelligence and military operations. Standard clearance levels comprise Confidential (information that could cause damage to if disclosed), Secret (serious damage), and (exceptionally grave damage), supplemented by special accesses such as and , the latter certifying eligibility for duties in close proximity to the President through enhanced investigations including financial, , and reviews. Approximately 4.1 million personnel held active as of fiscal year 2017, with roughly 1.3 million at the Top Secret level by 2023, reflecting the system's scale to accommodate federal employees and contractors essential to defense contracting. Roughly 85% of clearances support industry partners, with DCSA overseeing Facility Security Clearances (FCLs) for more than 12,500 contractor facilities to enable handling of classified contracts. The Trusted Workforce 2.0 initiative, launched in , has addressed persistent backlogs—reducing investigative inventory by 24% as of April 2025—through continuous vetting, risk-based tiering, and , though the program's annual expenditures surpass $1 billion to sustain investigations and adjudications. This expansive underscores the U.S. commitment to safeguarding information amid global operational demands, including overseas deployments and alliance integrations.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom's national security vetting system, administered by United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) under the Cabinet Office, establishes a graduated framework of clearances to mitigate risks of unauthorized disclosure or coercion. The Baseline Personnel Security Standard (BPSS) serves as the foundational check, involving identity verification, employment history review, and criminal record confirmation for roles handling non-sensitive information. Higher tiers include Security Check (SC) for access to SECRET assets, requiring five years of UK residency, financial scrutiny, and interviews to assess reliability; and Developed Vetting (DV), the apex level for TOP SECRET materials, incorporating ten years of residency checks, psychological assessments, and evaluations of personal vulnerabilities such as financial instability or relationships that could invite blackmail. These processes prioritize identifying factors that might compromise loyalty, including susceptibility to external pressures, rather than solely past misconduct. Originating from the 1952 introduction of positive vetting—a proactive method to affirm trustworthiness beyond mere absence of negative records—the system evolved to emphasize comprehensive risk profiling, including potential for through personal or financial leverage. policy mandates DV reviews every seven years to sustain ongoing suitability, with UKSV centralizing operations since 2017 to standardize vetting (NSV) for , defense, and roles. NSV applies specifically to positions involving sensitive national assets, integrating baseline checks with advanced scrutiny to ensure alignment with protective marking schemes like OFFICIAL, SECRET, and . Post-Brexit, the UK's vetting framework has maintained seamless reciprocity with partners (, , , ), enabling mutual recognition of clearances for intelligence sharing without disruption, as the alliance operates independently of structures. This continuity underscores the system's design for allied , where DV-equivalent vetting facilitates trusted cross-border access to shared and counter-terrorism data, bolstering UK's strategic position amid reduced European ties. UKSV's oversight ensures procedural consistency, with digital application portals streamlining submissions while upholding rigorous human-led assessments.

Canada

Canada's personnel security screening system grants three principal levels of clearance: Reliability Status, which assesses suitability for handling protected information not classified as secret or top secret; Secret, permitting access to confidential and secret information; and , allowing access to the most sensitive classified material. These clearances are required for federal government employees, contractors, and others needing access to sensitive assets, with Reliability Status being the baseline for many positions involving basic trustworthiness checks. The screening process begins with a sponsoring department or agency submitting a request, typically via standardized forms such as the Personnel Screening, Certification and Security Assessment Form, accompanied by applicant fingerprints for verification by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) conducts assessments for higher levels, evaluating factors including foreign contacts, financial history, and to coercion, with field investigations potentially spanning 6 months to 2 years or longer for Secret and clearances. Clearances are time-limited, requiring periodic reverification—every 10 years for Secret and every 5 years for —to ensure ongoing eligibility amid evolving risks. Canada maintains reciprocity arrangements with Five Eyes partners (Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, ) for intelligence sharing, which facilitates mutual recognition of clearances in allied contexts, though full reciprocity requires case-by-case validation to align with national standards. The system's scale is modest compared to the ', supporting approximately 300,000 federal personnel and contractors, with particular emphasis on defense and interoperability where foreign interference poses elevated threats. In the 2020s, foreign interference inquiries, including those revealing Chinese state efforts to influence Canadian elections and institutions, have prompted heightened focus on countering such risks in screening protocols, integrating enhanced scrutiny of overseas ties and loyalty indicators during CSIS assessments. This reflects causal vulnerabilities from state-sponsored operations targeting communities and political actors, underscoring the need for rigorous vetting to mitigate and .

Other Countries

In , security clearances are tiered into levels such as Baseline for unclassified access, Negative Level 1 (NV1) for Secret-equivalent information requiring a 10-year background investigation, and Negative Vetting Level 2 (NV2) for access involving a 7-year review period focused on loyalty, financial stability, and foreign influences. These processes, managed by the Australian Government Security Agency, prioritize empirical risk assessments including criminal history and associations, diverging from U.S. polygraph reliance by emphasizing negative without routine interviews for lower tiers. France employs the habilitation de sécurité system to authorize access to secret défense materials, involving a formal screening by the Defense Ministry that evaluates personal, professional, and loyalty factors through questionnaires and agency checks, often completed via a Modèle 94 form. This approach structurally differs by integrating judicial record reviews and medical assessments more routinely than in Anglo systems, reflecting a civil law emphasis on administrative certification over adjudicative polygraphs. Germany's Zuverlässigkeitsüberprüfung (ZÜP), or reliability check, mandates background for roles in sensitive sectors like security, scrutinizing criminal records, financial debts, and links via federal databases, with validity tied to ongoing threat assessments rather than fixed terms. This sector-specific rigor highlights a divergence toward procedural standardization under directives, contrasting broader national loyalty probes in defense contexts where Sicherheitsüberprüfung levels (e.g., Ü2/Ü3) escalate for classified access. Across these systems, a core emphasis on state loyalty persists amid geopolitical threats, yet structural variations yield differing rigors: Australia's vetting durations enable periodic renewals tied to empirical like address histories, while and favor bureaucratic checklists over continuous monitoring. In opaque regimes like , where clearance processes remain non-transparent and undocumented publicly, this opacity facilitates heightened risks, as evidenced by over 200 documented U.S.-targeted cases since 2000 involving state-directed theft of military and commercial secrets per defector and prosecution . Bilateral agreements are fostering limited reciprocity trends, particularly for allied vetting exchanges, though full mutual recognition remains constrained outside intelligence-sharing pacts.

International Frameworks

United Nations

The Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) oversees security clearances primarily through the Travel Request Information Process (TRIP) system, which mandates clearances for all official travel by UN personnel and eligible family members to ensure effective monitoring of locations and numbers in high-risk areas. Clearance levels are calibrated to mission sensitivity, with Phase I approvals focusing on security risk assessments and Phase II on operational details, enabling UNDSS to issue advisories or deny travel based on threats like armed conflict or civil unrest. This process applies uniformly across UN system entities, prioritizing operational security in multinational environments over national classifications. For recruitment and deployment, UN background verifications supplement national checks, encompassing academic credentials, employment history, sanctions lists, criminal records, and allegations, conducted via the OneHR platform. In peacekeeping missions, additional vetting targets compliance, requiring troop-contributing countries to certify clean records for personnel, with on-site screening upon arrival to mitigate conduct risks. International volunteers must register in TRIP for clearances, integrating UN-wide data to verify eligibility amid diverse national standards. This layered approach emphasizes impartiality in access to sensitive operational information, distinct from state-centric loyalty oaths. Challenges arise from reconciling varying national vetting rigor, as troop-contributing nations differ in , leading to gaps in pre-deployment screening despite UN mandates. Empirical incidents, such as by vetted peacekeepers involving sexual exploitation—documented in over 100 cases annually across missions from 2015-2020—highlight insider risks, where initial certifications fail to prevent leaks or abuses eroding operational trust. Harmonization efforts, including standardized attestations since 2007, have reduced but not eliminated discrepancies, with data indicating persistent vulnerabilities in high-threat zones.

NATO and Allied Systems

The security classification system standardizes information protection across member states to facilitate in collective defense operations. Established under the Organization's security protocols, it aligns national clearance processes to enable secure cross-border access to shared intelligence, particularly vital amid evolving threats like Russian hybrid warfare involving cyberattacks, , and airspace incursions. This harmonization ensures that allied forces can operate cohesively without compromising sensitive data, with national authorities issuing endorsements to verify personnel eligibility. NATO employs four principal classification levels, ranging from the highest sensitivity to the lowest: COSMIC TOP SECRET (CTS), NATO SECRET (NS), NATO CONFIDENTIAL (NC), and NATO RESTRICTED. These levels dictate the minimum safeguards required for handling alliance-generated information, with CTS reserved for data whose compromise could gravely damage 's interests or member states' security. Access to these categories necessitates equivalent or higher national clearances, verified through mechanisms like the NATO Security Clearance Certificate (NSCC), a document issued by originating nations to confirm an individual's background investigation and ongoing eligibility for NATO-specific material. The NSCC, valid for periods such as three years depending on national policy, streamlines reciprocity among allies and extends to select non-NATO partners under strict caveats, such as those in programs. This framework's military-centric design prioritizes operational tempo in multinational exercises and missions, distinguishing it from purely civilian or bilateral systems by embedding caveats for information release—such as " Eyes Only" restrictions—to prevent unintended dissemination to non-core allies. Empirical evidence of its efficacy lies in 's enhanced joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (JISR) capabilities, which have bolstered cyber defenses and early warning against adversarial actions; for instance, standardized clearances underpin the alliance's ability to fuse from diverse national sources, mitigating risks from state-sponsored hybrid threats without documented major breaches attributable to clearance failures in recent operations. Extensions to frameworks like Five Eyes occur via bilateral overlays, allowing deeper intelligence reciprocity among overlapping members (, , ) while adhering to 's baseline for broader alliance participation.

Controversies and Criticisms

Politicization and Partisan Revocations

Security clearances in the United States have periodically been revoked for reasons perceived as partisan, spanning multiple administrations, where actions targeted individuals accused of disloyalty, leaks, or ideological opposition rather than solely operational risks. Under the Obama administration, aggressive prosecutions of leakers under the Espionage Act occurred eight times—more than all prior administrations combined—and included revocations of clearances for whistleblowers deemed to have compromised , such as in cases involving unauthorized disclosures. The Trump administration revoked former CIA Director John Brennan's clearance on August 15, 2018, citing his post-retirement criticisms of the president as evidence of potential misuse of access for partisan purposes. In 2025, Tulsi Gabbard revoked clearances for 37 current and former officials, many from the Obama era, as part of efforts to address perceived flaws in prior intelligence assessments, while President Trump separately ordered revocations for 51 former officials who signed a 2020 letter suggesting the laptop story bore hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Critics often label these revocations as politicization, arguing they prioritize retribution over apolitical vetting, yet evidence indicates that ideological alignment influences threat perception, and revocations can mitigate risks when grounded in verifiable disloyalty, such as coordinated efforts to discredit authentic intelligence-related materials. The 2020 letter by 51 former officials, some of whom were active CIA contractors at the time, exemplified how partisan motivations masked legitimate concerns, as subsequent verifications confirmed the laptop's contents were not Russian fabrications, potentially eroding public trust in intelligence assessments during a national election. Such actions counter narratives that emphasize institutional harmony over detecting insider threats from foreign ties or ideological biases, where data on leaks—such as those from Edward Snowden—demonstrate operational disruptions, source compromises endangering lives, and resource reallocations costing billions in intelligence budgets and countermeasures. Left-leaning media outlets have frequently downplayed risks from entrenched community biases, framing revocations like or the 2025 actions as authoritarian overreach without substantiating claims of impartiality in the affected officials' prior conduct, while conservative perspectives highlight how over-classification and selective leak tolerances excuse deeper systemic disloyalty. Empirical patterns show that politicization weakens only when it ignores causal threats like verifiable foreign influence or campaigns, but evidence-based ideological vetting upholds loyalty oaths essential to clearance integrity, as unchecked insider partisanship has historically enabled leaks that compromise human sources and national operations, prioritizing truth over in threat detection.

Notable Cases of Revocation and Challenges

In 2018, President Donald Trump revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan on August 15, citing Brennan's involvement in the Russia investigation into 2016 election interference and alleging he posed a national security risk due to unsubstantiated claims of collusion. Trump extended similar considerations to former FBI Director James Comey, former DNI James Clapper, and others critical of his administration, framing the actions as responses to leaks and politicized intelligence assessments. Critics, including former intelligence officials, described these revocations as political retaliation against dissent, while supporters argued they addressed empirical risks from officials who endorsed flawed probes without evidence of wrongdoing. Brennan filed a lawsuit challenging the revocation on First Amendment grounds, but the case was dismissed in 2020, affirming limited judicial review under the Department of Navy v. Egan precedent, which defers clearance decisions to executive discretion absent constitutional violations. Following the 2024 election, the Trump administration in 2025 escalated revocations, with announcing on August 19 the stripping of clearances from 37 current and former officials linked to an Obama-era intelligence report that fueled Russiagate allegations, citing politicization and misuse of to undermine elections. An earlier on January 20 targeted 51 former officials who signed a 2020 letter questioning the laptop's authenticity as potential Russian disinformation, revoking any remaining clearances to address perceived election interference. Proponents justified these as corrective measures against biased assessments later contradicted by declassified evidence, such as Durham probe findings of FBI procedural errors in the inquiry, while Democrats on the Committee launched investigations claiming overreach. In contrast, revocations tied to the , 2021, Capitol events included the FBI's 2023 decision to strip clearances from three agents for direct participation in the riot or expressing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in related investigations, reflecting enforcement against insider threats rather than policy disputes. Legal challenges to such actions remain rare successes, with data from federal courts showing reversal rates below 5% for clearance denials since 2000, underscoring the Egan doctrine's bar on probing rationales unless or is proven. These cases illustrate a pattern where revocations tied to verifiable misconduct or leaks bolster security, but perceptions of partisanship—evident in low reinstatement rates and ongoing suits—can erode institutional trust if not anchored in documented risks.

Security Breaches and Systemic Failures

In 2013, , an NSA contractor with top-secret clearance, leaked classified documents revealing extensive surveillance programs, highlighting vetting deficiencies as the firm USIS, responsible for his 2011 background check, failed to verify his prior CIA employment through records or interviews and was later investigated for systemic lapses in reviewing over 665,000 investigations. These shortcomings stemmed from inadequate oversight in contractor-led processes, which prioritized volume over thoroughness, enabling access despite potential red flags in ideological alignment. Similarly, in 2017, , another NSA contractor holding top-secret clearance, printed and mailed a classified report on Russian election interference to , resulting in her arrest and a five-year prison sentence under the Espionage Act; her case exposed ongoing vulnerabilities in contractor vetting, where initial approvals did not detect subsequent motivations for disclosure, underscoring the limits of periodic reinvestigations every five to ten years. The security clearance process's heavy dependence on self-reporting via forms like the SF-86, combined with infrequent updates, often misses indicators of , financial distress, or foreign contacts that develop post-approval, as evidenced by analyses showing that privileged users, including clearance holders, pose elevated risks when behavioral changes go unreported. Causal evidence from post-breach reviews links these gaps to amplified damage, with lax verification and monitoring allowing individuals like Snowden to exfiltrate terabytes of data, far outweighing isolated vetting successes in scope of compromise. Despite these failures, the system demonstrates reliability for the majority of over 4 million holders, with continuous vetting initiatives identifying emerging risks earlier than traditional methods and contributing to thousands of annual adjudications that deny or revoke access based on disqualifying factors like financial irresponsibility or conduct violations. However, empirical data from breach aftermaths debunks assumptions of inherent robustness, as undetected insider actions have empirically caused intelligence losses exceeding those from external hacks in strategic impact, necessitating evidence-based tightening of loyalty and behavioral scrutiny to mitigate empirically validated pathways to compromise.

Reforms and Future Directions

Recent Policy Initiatives (2020s)

The Trusted Workforce 2.0 (TW 2.0) initiative progressed in the early 2020s toward full continuous vetting implementation, with federal agencies required to enroll all non-sensitive public trust positions by September 30, 2025, shifting from periodic reinvestigations to ongoing risk-based monitoring for enhanced security responsiveness. By September 2025, additional agencies had integrated continuous vetting for personnel, reducing reliance on static background checks every five to seven years and enabling automated alerts for issues like criminal records or financial changes. Provisions in the for Fiscal Year 2026 advanced streamlining measures for security clearances, including reforms for inactive clearances and expanded vetting reciprocity to expedite industry access, aiming to address delays in contractor onboarding amid needs. In December 2024, the (DCSA) enacted Department of Defense reforms to procedures, introducing virtual personal appearance options for individuals facing clearance denials, thereby balancing adjudicative efficiency with procedural fairness prior to final determinations. Bipartisan legislative efforts included the introduction of the Security Clearance Revolving Door Act of 2023 (H.R. 5900), which sought to impose stricter post-employment restrictions on former officials leveraging active clearances in the to mitigate risks from rapid transitions. These initiatives yielded measurable efficiency gains, such as a 24% reduction in DCSA's investigative case backlog by April 2025 and average end-to-end processing times of 243 days for background investigations as of the third quarter of fiscal 2025, though persistent backlogs—stemming from over 290,000 cases in late 2024—continued to hinder full workforce mobility. Reforms under TW 2.0 emphasized risk prioritization in vetting tiers, focusing resources on higher-threat indicators over uniform equity-driven expansions to sustain accuracy amid volume pressures.

Technological and Procedural Advancements

In February 2024, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management approved revisions to the (SF-86) and related personnel vetting questionnaires, shifting toward a more targeted approach with refined questions on marijuana use, history, and foreign contacts to better capture contemporary risk factors while streamlining the electronic application via the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing () system. These updates, mandatory for new submissions by mid-2025, integrate automated data pulls from financial and travel records to flag inconsistencies early, reducing manual review burdens and processing times from an average of 100-200 days to under 90 days in pilot implementations. Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly applied in continuous evaluation phases to detect anomalies in applicants' financial transactions, international travel, and behavioral patterns, leveraging algorithms trained on historical breach data to predict insider threats with reported accuracy improvements of up to 30% in anomaly flagging compared to traditional methods. Biometric integration, including and recognition data from federal databases, further minimizes in identity verification by cross-referencing multimodal inputs against watchlists, as demonstrated in Department of Homeland Security applications where fusion techniques enhance match reliability by fusing physical traits with non-biometric records. These advancements project risk reductions through proactive identification, though empirical pilots indicate tradeoffs, such as a 15-20% increase in false positives requiring , alongside erosion from expansive data aggregation. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities in clearance management systems pose significant challenges, with federal reports highlighting persistent gaps in and access controls that expose vetting databases to breaches, as seen in ongoing high-risk designations for modernization. International reciprocity efforts are hampered by technological disparities, where disparate data standards and issues delay cross-border validations, often extending processing by months despite mutual agreements. Looking ahead, real-time capabilities via expanded Rap Back services—enrolling cleared personnel in continuous criminal history monitoring—enable automated alerts for disqualifying events, fostering deterrence by linking observed behaviors to immediate access restrictions and potentially curtailing materialization windows from weeks to hours. Such systems, while enhancing causal accountability, necessitate robust safeguards against erroneous s, with privacy advocates noting the heightened risk of overreach in unverified AI-driven decisions.

References

  1. https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/clearance
  2. https://www.state.gov/securityclearances
  3. https://www.northropgrumman.com/security-clearances
  4. https://www.state.gov/security-clearance-faqs
  5. https://gogovernment.org/application-process/background-checks-and-security-clearances/
  6. https://help.usajobs.gov/faq/job-announcement/security-clearances
  7. https://www.dcsa.mil/Personnel-Vetting/Background-Investigations-for-Applicants/Investigations-Clearance-Process/
  8. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43216
  9. https://le.fbi.gov/informational-tools/security-clearances-for-law-enforcement
  10. https://www.cyberdegrees.org/resources/security-clearances/
  11. https://www.dcsa.mil/about-us/history/
  12. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/520002p.pdf
  13. https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/personnel_security
  14. https://www.intelligencecareers.gov/nro/security-clearance-process
  15. https://www.army.mil/article/116816/cic_detachment_organized_for_manhattan_project_december_18_1943
  16. https://sgp.fas.org/classdod.htm
  17. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/18/3a.11
  18. https://sgp.fas.org/library/quist2/chap_7.html
  19. https://www.cdse.edu/Portals/124/Documents/student-guides/IF101-guide.pdf
  20. https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/sensitive_compartmented_information
  21. https://www.directives.doe.gov/terms_definitions/sensitive-compartmented-information-sci
  22. https://www.polytest.org/us-security-clearance-levels/
  23. https://www.nationalsecuritylawfirm.com/what-are-the-levels-of-security-clearance-a-complete-guide/
  24. https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_snowden_review_declassified.pdf
  25. https://fedscoop.com/snowden-leaks-massive-damaging-history-intelligence-chiefs-say/
  26. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_138449.htm
  27. https://sgp.fas.org/library/ipshbook/Chap_10.html
  28. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/pendleton-act
  29. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2009/06/29/a-brief-history-of-the-u-s-personnel-security-program/
  30. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c8633/c8633.pdf
  31. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/the-bureaus-role-during-early-world-war-i-years
  32. https://louis.pressbooks.pub/introamericangov/chapter/toward-a-merit-based-civil-service/
  33. https://www.army.mil/article/174556/cic_detachment_ensures_success_of_manhattan_project
  34. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Places/LosAlamos/la-security.html
  35. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/People/MilitaryOrgs/cic.html
  36. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/executive-orders/9835/executive-order-9835
  37. https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-order/9835
  38. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v01p2/d200
  39. https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Cold-War-Atomic-Intel.pdf
  40. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spies-who-spilled-atomic-bomb-secrets-127922660/
  41. https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ53/PLAW-110publ53.htm
  42. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-06-233t.pdf
  43. https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/03/periodic-reinvestigations-are-out-continuous-vetting-security-clearance-holders/163695/
  44. https://www.cdse.edu/Portals/124/Documents/jobaids/insider/potential_risk_indicators_foreign_considerations.pdf
  45. https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/108th-congress/house-report/724/1
  46. https://www.intelligence.gov/templates/intelgov-template/custom-sections/the-nis-at-a-glance/nis-2023/pdf/nis-2023.pdf
  47. https://www.gao.gov/assets/a120961.html
  48. https://www.dcsa.mil/About-Us/News/Article/Article/4162928/dcsa-personnel-vetting-initiative-transforms-security-clearance-investigation-p/
  49. https://www.performance.gov/assets/files/Personnel_Vetting_QPR_FY22_Q3.pdf
  50. https://interactives.cnas.org/reports/the-future-of-civilians-in-national-security/
  51. https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
  52. https://www.dcsa.mil/Portals/91/Documents/pv/mbi/standard-form-sf-86-guide-for-applicants.pdf
  53. https://careers.cbp.gov/s/applicant-resources/background-investigation
  54. https://www.dcsa.mil/
  55. https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/how-far-back-for-the-employment-investigation/690
  56. https://www.specialagents.org/background-investigation
  57. https://kcnfdc.com/blog/what-is-the-impact-of-dcsa-taking-over-background-investigations-for-the-federal-government/
  58. https://discuss.clearancejobsblog.com/t/security-clearance-investigation-timelines/17568
  59. https://intelligencecareers.gov/security-clearance-process
  60. https://fedemploymentattorneys.com/legal-blog/reasons-security-clearances-get-denied-or-revoked/
  61. https://veteran.com/rejection-security-clearance/
  62. https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/SEAD-4-Adjudicative-Guidelines-U.pdf
  63. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA563952.pdf
  64. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-32/subtitle-A/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-147
  65. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-how-we-work/ncsc-security-executive-agent/ncsc-reform/ncsc-examples
  66. https://www.dcsa.mil/Industrial-Security/International-Programs/Security-Assurances-for-Personnel-Facilities/
  67. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA757-1.html
  68. https://www.tullylegal.com/resources/articles/what-triggers-a-security-clearance-reinvestigation/
  69. https://www.clearancejobs.com/security-clearance-faqs
  70. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2024/09/dcsa-rolling-out-continuous-vetting-to-a-million-more-feds/
  71. https://www.dcsa.mil/Personnel-Vetting/Continuous-Vetting/
  72. https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/10/continuous-vetting-identifies-risks-earlier-and-getting-ready-roll-out-across-government/391131/
  73. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ncsc-how-we-work/ncsc-security-executive-agent/ncsc-continuous-evaluation-overview
  74. https://www.agsva.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-11/security_of_information_agreement_or_arrangement_sia_fact_sheet.pdf
  75. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2023/07/05/international-security-clearance-will-that-oconus-eligibility-transfer/
  76. https://www.dcsa.mil/Portals/128/Documents/pv/DODCAF_/Adjudications/DCSA_Reciprocity_Guide_082721.pdf
  77. https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/newly-disclosed-documents-five-eyes-alliance-and-what-they-tell-us-about-intelligence-sharing
  78. https://www.fedelaw.com/security-clearance-denial/
  79. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2800381/all-dod-personnel-now-receive-continuous-security-vetting/
  80. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2025/01/17/what-is-a-yankee-white-clearance-and-how-do-political-appointees-gain-classified-access/
  81. https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/features/20180827-security-clearance-determinations.pdf
  82. https://www.statista.com/chart/29717/top-secret-federal-government-access-united-states/
  83. https://www.dcsa.mil/Industrial-Security/National-Industrial-Security-Program-Oversight/
  84. https://aiaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/security-clearance-reform-background-paper2021_2.pdf
  85. https://assets.performance.gov/archives/action_plans/dec_2019_Security_Suitability.pdf
  86. https://media.defense.gov/2023/Mar/13/2003178168/-1/-1/1/DOD-STRATEGIC-MGMT-PLAN-2023.PDF
  87. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-security-vetting-clearance-levels/national-security-vetting-clearance-levels
  88. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-security-vetting-clearance-levels/sc-guidance-pack-for-applicants
  89. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-security-vetting-clearance-levels/dv-guidance-pack-for-applicants
  90. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/united-kingdom-security-vetting-applicant
  91. https://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/scandalous-case-john-vassall/
  92. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/united-kingdom-security-vetting
  93. https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ISC-International-Partnerships-Press-Release.pdf
  94. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhaff/1566/156602.htm
  95. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/industrial-security/security-requirements-contracting/safeguarding-equipment-sites-assets-information/levels-security.html
  96. https://www.canada.ca/en/security-intelligence-service/services/government-security-screening.html
  97. https://www.uottawa.ca/study/career-experiential-learning/government-canada/security-clearance
  98. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/industrial-security/security-requirements-contracting/personnel-security-screening/processes.html
  99. https://myfastcheck.com/fingerprinting-for-canadian-federal-employment/
  100. https://www.jrvs.ca/blog/government-personnel-security-screening-canada
  101. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/25839.html
  102. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umcCNhkEzP0
  103. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/fv-cntry-mnstrl-en.aspx
  104. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-spies-found-china-interfered-last-two-elections-probe-hears-2024-04-08/
  105. https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/news/2025/01/protecting-canadas-democratic-institutions-and-processes-from-foreign-interference.html
  106. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2y0nkd132o
  107. https://www.adcg.com.au/defence-and-government-security-clearances/
  108. https://www.ausclear.com.au/blogs-ausclear/post/understanding-the-differences-in-australian-security-clearances
  109. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/11/10/international-security-clearances-how-other-countries-protect-their-secrets-and-screen-their-spies/
  110. https://www.mane.co.uk/resources/download/guide-to-the-z-p-aviation-security-clearance/
  111. https://talent-odyssey.com/zup-what-it-is-and-why-you-need-it-before-working-at-an-airport-in-germany/
  112. https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program/survey-chinese-espionage-united-states-2000
  113. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-china-threat
  114. https://policy.un.org/sites/default/files/files/documents/2020/Oct/spm_-_chapter_v_-_section_a_-_security_clearance_and_travel_request_information_process_trip_1.pdf
  115. https://popp.undp.org/document/3476/download
  116. https://dss.un.org/
  117. https://onehr.un.org/our-services-basic-reference-verification
  118. https://conduct.unmissions.org/prevention-vetting
  119. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2014/07/29/un-peacekeeper-selection-process-flawed
  120. https://conduct.unmissions.org/
  121. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/29/letter-un-under-secretary-general-peace-operations
  122. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm
  123. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111830.htm
  124. https://www.dcsa.mil/Portals/91/Documents/CTP/international/NATO-Certificate-Instructions-and-Form.pdf
  125. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/521060p.pdf
  126. https://www.act.nato.int/article/what-is-interoperability/
  127. https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/07/politics/obama-leaks-prosecutions
  128. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2013/03/31/why-the-obama-administration-cracked-down-on-whistleblowers/
  129. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-revocation-the-security-clearance-former-director-the-central-intelligence
  130. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/19/gabbard-security-clearance-00515195
  131. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/20/politics/trump-revokes-security-clearances-former-officials-hunter-biden-laptop-letter
  132. https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/spies-who-lie-leader-cosigners-were-cia-payroll-when-they-falsely-claimed-hunter
  133. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
  134. https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-797f390ee28b4bfbb0e1b13cfedf0593
  135. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP99-00777R000302610002-1.pdf
  136. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45203277
  137. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/holding-former-government-officials-accountablefor-election-interference-and-improper-disclosure-of-sensitive-governmental-information/
  138. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/us/politics/john-brennan-security-clearance.html
  139. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639516640/former-intel-chiefs-white-house-using-security-clearances-as-a-political-tool
  140. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/trump-cites-russia-probe-as-reason-for-revoking-john-brennan-clearance.html
  141. https://www.govexec.com/management/2018/07/white-house-can-revoke-anyones-security-clearance/149980/
  142. https://nypost.com/2025/08/19/us-news/tulsi-gabbard-strips-37-of-security-clearance-over-obama-ordered-intel-report-that-launched-russiagate/
  143. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/19/us/politics/trump-security-clearances.html
  144. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5492671-democrats-security-clearance-revocation-investigation/
  145. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/us/politics/fbi-security-clearance-jan-6.html
  146. https://www.newsweek.com/three-fbi-agents-security-clearance-revoked-january-6-1801160
  147. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/security-clearance-decisions-and-constitutional-rights
  148. https://www.nationalsecuritylawfirm.com/challenging-limits-egan-victory-constitutional-rights-security-clearance/
  149. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/national-security-or-nothing-to-see-clearances-as-the-site-of-executive-overreach/
  150. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324906304579039381125706104
  151. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-06/vetting-failures-prompt-agency-to-reclaim-some-usis-work
  152. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-firm-that-checked-snowden-may-have-repeatedly-lied-to-govt/
  153. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-did-accused-nsa-leaker-reality-winner-get-security-clearance-n768816
  154. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/federal-government-contractor-sentenced-removing-and-transmitting-classified-materials-news
  155. https://www.dcsa.mil/Portals/128/Documents/pv/mbi/DCSA_Self-Reporting_Factsheet_071321.pdf
  156. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/11/21/culture-of-self-reporting-potential-issues-critical-to-trusted-workforce-effort/
  157. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2019/04/overdue-overhaul-security-clearance-reform-in-a-decade.html
  158. https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2022/09/risk-revisited-societal-changes-and-their-impact-on-personnel-risk/
  159. https://mars.gmu.edu/bitstreams/1a69154e-983f-4585-9274-2165e60e5710/download
  160. https://chainbridgesolutions.com/insights/transition-guide-trusted-workforce/
  161. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/09/more-agencies-now-continuously-vet-staff-via-trusted-workforce-2-0/
  162. https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1noja00/trusted_workforce_20_security_clearance_initiative/
  163. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/inside-ic/2025/08/security-clearance-reforms-advancing-in-2026-defense-bill/
  164. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2296/text
  165. https://www.dcsa.mil/About-Us/News/Article/Article/3980228/dcsa-announces-its-new-role-in-supporting-dod-reform-of-due-process-and-appeals/
  166. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2025/07/13/new-dcsa-due-process-personal-appearance/
  167. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5900/all-actions
  168. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2025/05/dcsa-backlog-of-security-clearance-investigations-down-24/
  169. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2025/06/28/fluctuating-case-loads-for-background-investigators/
  170. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107325
  171. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/inside-ic/2024/02/goodbye-sf-86-omb-approves-new-personnel-vetting-questionnaire/
  172. https://www.dcsa.mil/About-Us/News/Article/Article/4240811/deadline-approaching-for-use-of-february-2024-version-of-standard-forms-sf/
  173. https://www.mdrxlaw.com/news-and-alerts/deadline-passed-february-2024-standard-forms-now-required-sf-85-85p-85p-s-86/
  174. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2024/01/03/ai-in-the-security-clearance-process/
  175. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Biometric-Sys-AppN_0615-508.pdf
  176. https://www.gao.gov/blog/what-are-biggest-challenges-federal-cybersecurity-high-risk-update
  177. https://cybersecjobs.com/clearance-reciprocity-between-agencies-myths-that-kill-job-offers/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.