Aboard Air Force One, President Donald Trump fielded questions from reporters during a flight on January 25, 2025, en route from Las Vegas to Miami. This wasn’t just any ordinary flight—it carried echoes of tension and retribution as the President’s recent actions were turning heads both in political circles and the public.
In Washington, a sense of unease is palpable among those who’ve found themselves at odds with Trump. The President seems determined to settle scores swiftly. Take John Bolton, for instance. The former national security adviser authored a critical book about Trump’s presidency and has now lost his Secret Service protection, crucial due to threats from Iran. Similarly, Anthony Fauci, a key figure during the Covid-19 crisis whose relationship with Trump soured, found his protection revoked, prompting him to hire private security.
Meanwhile, a peculiar incident occurred at the Pentagon. A portrait of Mark Milley, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who clashed with Trump over a controversial photo-op, was mysteriously removed. No one seems to know who orchestrated this or why.
President Trump also made moves to revoke the security clearances of several former national security officials. These individuals had penned a letter during the 2020 election, suggesting that emails linked to Hunter Biden had signs of Russian interference. The swiftness with which these actions were executed since Trump’s inauguration has left many contemplating what his political future holds in terms of leveraging presidential power.
There were ominous signs throughout Trump’s campaign in 2024, hinting at potential retribution against his political adversaries. With these latest moves, some already see their fears materializing. David Laufman, a former senior official in the Justice Department, voiced concerns about the direction of the administration, questioning whether sufficient checks and balances would exist to ward off a tilt towards authoritarianism.
The White House hasn’t clarified whether these decisions came directly from Trump or were meant as acts of reprisal. Nevertheless, Trump has not shied away from justifying these actions. When queried about removing protection details, Trump’s comments on Bolton were dismissive, emphasizing that lifelong security isn’t feasible for all public servants, despite the allowance for ex-presidents.
A spokesperson for the White House National Security Council, Brian Hughes, argued that the revocation of security clearances was deserved due to these individuals allegedly undermining national credibility. Trump’s stance on retaliation has been somewhat inconsistent, on the one hand, dismissing notions of pursuing past grievances while simultaneously lamenting the treatment he faced during his tenure.
Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of his grievances can be seen in a recent interview with Sean Hannity, where Trump lamented the trials of his presidency–legal battles and political skirmishes that taxed him but ultimately resulted in triumph, albeit with bitterness.
The implications of these moves are wide-ranging. John Bolton has taken additional security measures following the loss of his Secret Service detail. His protection was initially granted by President Biden, renewed intermittently, and crucial given past assassination threats linked to Iran.
The risk remains real, and some view these revocations as part of a broader campaign of retribution. Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration official, argues that such actions not only jeopardize individuals like Bolton but could escalate international tensions if Iran responds aggressively.
Moreover, pulling security clearances from retired officials who now work in the private sector could impact their livelihoods, as these clearances are often critical for governmental contracts. One affected individual expressed concern about the lack of a legitimate policy rationale behind these punitive measures, emphasizing how they infringe upon the freedom of speech and conscientious warnings about foreign influence in U.S. politics.
As the dust settles, there’s uncertainty about the administration’s exact motivations. Many of those stripped of clearances reportedly no longer needed them, as attorney Mark Zaid highlighted. Yet, for some, like Bolton, these actions carry little practical consequence; he remains uncertain if he ever had a clearance to lose. However, the symbolic message is clear, emphasizing the administration’s readiness to confront perceived disloyalty head-on.
