President Donald Trump has announced the revocation of former President Joe Biden’s access to sensitive information, citing that there is no necessity for his predecessor to continue receiving classified data. The decision also includes halting Biden’s daily intelligence briefings.
Trump justified this action by referencing a report from Special Counsel Robert Hur, which portrayed Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Despite this characterisation, Biden has maintained that his memory is fine.
A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment on the matter when approached by Reuters. It is worth noting that Hur previously concluded in 2024 that Biden would not face charges related to handling classified documents during his vice presidency. At the time, Biden denied intentionally retaining such materials and called the accusations “just plain wrong.”
Traditionally, former U.S. presidents are afforded some level of access to intelligence briefings post-office as a courtesy and for advisory purposes if needed.
Trump also highlighted past actions by Biden during his presidency. In 2021, shortly after taking office, Biden directed the intelligence community to restrict Trump’s access to national security information due to concerns about Trump’s behaviour following significant political events.
“What value is giving him an intelligence briefing? What impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something?” Biden explained at the time.
The potential consequences of Trump’s decision are multifaceted. By revoking security clearances and halting intelligence briefings for his predecessor, Trump may be setting a precedent where future administrations more readily restrict predecessors’ access based on perceived trustworthiness or political considerations. This could lead to an ongoing cycle of retaliation between political leaders over issues like trust with sensitive information.
Additionally, limiting access could reduce former presidents’ ability to contribute meaningfully in national security discussions or crises—potentially diminishing their role as advisors and affecting continuity in critical situations. The move also raises questions about fairness and consistency in granting such privileges while influencing public perceptions about trustworthiness with classified data.