Trump office cleared 25 officials originally disqualified over security fears, whistleblower claims

A White House whistleblower has claimed that at least 25 officials originally denied security clearance later had their rejections overturned during Donald Trump’s presidency.

Tricia Newbold, a White House security adviser who has worked for the executive office of the president for 18 years, made the allegation during an interview with a congressional committee.

She said the reasons why the 25 officials had been initially rejected included foreign influence, conflicts of interest, concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use and criminality.

Explaining her decision to come forward, Ms Newbold said: “I would not be doing a service to myself, my country, or my children if I sat back knowing that the issues that we have could impact national security.”

Two of those people whose rejections were overturned are “senior White House officials” who remain in their jobs to this day, according to Ms Newbold.

None of the 25 officials were named publicly by Ms Newbold, who gave evidence to the House Oversight and Reform Committee over the weekend. A summary of her comments was circulated to members on the committee on Monday.

Figures on the committee, which is controlled by the Democrats, have said previously they are scrutinising how Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s daughter and son-in-law, gained their security clearance. They have denied any wrongdoing.

The White House carries out checks before granting people security clearance to make sure they are not compromised in any way or could cause the president embarrassment.

The system helps ensure that figures who gain access to sensitive classified material are not exposed to potential blackmail from foreign adversaries.

The US president has the power to overturn any initial rejection, as do senior staff in the vetting process.

Ms Newbold said she decided to give evidence because she feared her repeated warnings about how the clearance system was working under Mr Trump were not being heeded.

“I feel that right now this is my last hope to really bring the integrity back into our office,” Ms Newbold said, according to the summary of her comments.

During her testimony, Ms Newbold, who has worked in Republican and Democrat administrations, outlined three real but anonymised examples of White House officials whose cases she has concerns about.

The first, a “senior White House official”, had their security clearance initially denied because of fears over foreign influence, business links and personal conduct. The decision was overruled by a more senior official who allegedly failed to address all the disqualifying concerns.

The second, also a “senior White House official”, was going to be rejected for a security clearance by Ms Newbold, who outlined a 14-page summary describing “multiple disqualifiers” including foreign influence. She was allegedly told “do not touch” the case. It was later approved.

The third, a “high-profile official” at the White House’s National Security Council, was denied the clearance by Ms Newbold. She says she was then urged to change her recommendation by a colleague. She refused and the denial was sustained. The official is no longer in the White House.

As well as the examples, Ms Newbold detailed a list of other concerns about how the clearance system has changed under the Trump presidency and how she was treated when raising red flags.

Ms Newbold said that the system of automatic credit checks, which helps ensure proposed employees are not susceptible to blackmail, has been stopped.

She said a senior colleague defended the change by arguing that the FBI does credit checks as part of its screening. But she noted that only applied to totally new White House employees and not those coming from other government agencies.

Ms Newbold also expressed fears that interim clearances – which allow an official to temporarily get access to classified material while waiting for full approval – were being used too much.

She “expressed concern about the amount and sensitivity of classified information that was provided to officials who operated for extended periods of time with interim clearances,” according to the summary circulated to the committee.

Ms Newbold raised concerns about the security of personnel files and the lack of staff to meet demand, saying she has “never seen our office so ill-staffed and with such lack of experience”.

She also expressed frustration with how her complaints were handled, noting she had recently been suspended for 14 days without pay for not following a new policy about scanning certain documents in separate pdf files rather than a single pdf file.

Ms Newbold accepted that Mr Trump had the power to overturn rejections of security clearance but questioned whether the right process was being followed.

“[If] the President wants to override us, he can, but that doesn’t mean at any time that we should alter the way we do business based on what someone may have come out with in the end,” she said.

The White House has not yet commented.