What is the POTUS' level of clearance in top secret matters?

Factual Questions
1

I asked this question of Cecil, but he and his staff are busy geniuses and may not answer. So I’m throwing it open to the community:

I recently saw the now-famous video clip of President Carter stating how he once saw a UFO and I got to thinkin’, if the governement were really hiding something from us, wouldn’t any of the modern-day presidents have said something to the populace by now? Well, that is, if any of them really knew anything?

So exactly what is the President’s level of clearance? Does he have access to all top secret government information?

I mean, is it that any ordinary Joe/Jane can run for president, and then if elected, he/she then has the highest level of clearance of all government employees? Can he declassify documents? Can he request (demand) a tour of any top secret government facility? And if not, who in the government would actually have higher clearance than the POTUS?

2

We have done this exact question before but it might take a few minutes to find. IIRC, the president does have full access to virtually all government information. I am sure there are some weird exceptions though. I think it may not even be a clearance but just part of the president’s job. A clearance would imply applying for one and that isn’t necessary.

3

I seem to recall this being done here before too. I admit I find it disconcerting to think the president might have access to anything. For instance I would think the names of deep cover spies would be better kept a secret only known to a very select few necessary for overseeing their work.

4

So the president has full clearance? I saw a documentary on the employees of Area 51 last year, where they stated that the people employed at the facility are completely anonymous. They were brought to the facility by nondescript conveyances (private bus to private plane on private airfield) and are prohibited from disclosing their place of employment to anyone, upon what penalty I know not.

So whatever was at area 51 was something the government wanted isolated from the public.
I would figure that any elected official would be too close to the public to have full access to all levels of government information, no?

Carter for instance, doesn’t seem like a secretive guy. I don’t think he could have been trusted to hold any really important top secret government info. So if there was anything to know, he must not have known it.

I would be really interested to read the other thread on this topic. I’ll search for it!

5

The President, and members of Congress, do not apply for or hold a security clearance. Access to classified information is provided because of their constitutional positions.

Furthermore, under Executive Order, the President is the ultimate holder of authority to determine the classification of items, with a few exceptions (e.g., politically embarrassing material may not be classified in order to cover it up). There are actually only a few laws which govern the use of classified material, and they tend to be rather specific; so questions of how classified information is handled is usually (but not always) a matter handled by the Executive Branch, not laws.

Furthermore, many would argue that Article II of the Constitution (“The executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America”) would mean that no executive branch employee or official could refuse a lawful request by the President to see or do something. The Constitution simply does not contemplate an inferior officer overruling the exercise of executive power by the President on matters of administration of the executive branch. (Not talking about laws, here, folks.)

The point has frequently been brought up that anyone’s access to classified information is determined by a need to know. I suppose it is fair to say that there have been some differences of opinion on this point, but my view is that if the President holds ultimate authority on matters of classification, and he holds the executive power, there’s no way that an inferior officer’s opinion of need to know could limit the President’s near-plenary constitutional powers in this particular area.

6

Security clearances and classified information work on a need to know basis. You might have a “Secret” clearance, for instance, but that doesn’t mean you can now wander around reading everything that’s classified “Secret” just because you feel like it.

It works the same way for the President. As President, he 's going to be in situations where he has to see classified or restricted information, but that doesn’t mean he can go around reading stuff for the hell of it.

7

Thank you Ravenman, for stating the law on this matter.

But tell me: Do you believe that being an ordinary citizen, that the president upon taking office has full knowledge of and access to all levels of government information? I’m asking for your opinion, not the facts.

If so, then all the theorists are incorrect. Our government really has nothing to hide. Who can guarantee that a president, in his dotage, wouldn’t one day ramble on about what he saw at certain top secret installations?

Or, for the same reason, there are certain aspects of the government that the president has no knowledge of and by policy will never be informed about.

It seems that I’m unable to search threads. Can anyone post a link to the thread where this topic was discussed previously?

8

[QUOTE=pbase]

Carter for instance, doesn’t seem like a secretive guy. I don’t think he could have been trusted to hold any really important top secret government info. So if there was anything to know, he must not have known it.

[/QUOTE]

Carter was a submarine officer for several years. He almost certainly had fairly high security clearances during that time. I’m no fan of Carter, but the idea that he’d give away secrets that would damage the USA just because he could is ludicrous.

9

So Captain Amazing, the president decides he wants to read a top secret document, just for the hell of it. Who tells him “no?” Who has the authority over him in this case?

And muldoonthief, I doubt any former president would blab damaging information once out of office. But people get old, they grow ill, they may blab and ramble. Who’s to say what information a mentally ill former president may disclose. Isn’t it therefore sensible to keep him out of the loop on top secret matters?

10

[QUOTE=muldoonthief]
Carter was a submarine officer for several years. He almost certainly had fairly high security clearances during that time. I’m no fan of Carter, but the idea that he’d give away secrets that would damage the USA just because he could is ludicrous.
[/QUOTE]
He did give away the information about the development of the stealth bomber. The Pentagon was not amused.

But he merely announced its existence before it was supposed to be announced. You’re right in that he wouldn’t give out secrets that might damage the US (the Soviets probably knew that we had such a program, so it really wasn’t big news).

But the president is the chief executive officer in the government and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. If he asks for top secret information, you could try to dissuade him, but he has the final say, since he’s the boss.

11

[QUOTE=pbase]
And muldoonthief, I doubt any former president would blab damaging information once out of office. But people get old, they grow ill, they may blab and ramble. Who’s to say what information a mentally ill former president may disclose. Isn’t it therefore sensible to keep him out of the loop on top secret matters?
[/QUOTE]

Well someone presumably knows whatever secret information you care to posit. Why is there no concern over them growing old and blabbing?

I would imagine if the president asked for a list of all US spies abroad he’d get some pushback from the folks who keep that info. I would think they would politely suggest it is not something he needs to know but from reading the above answers it sounds like in the end the president would get it if he insisted.

12

I think I’ve made my opinion clear, for what it is worth, and I don’t think this is the forum to go deeper into my opinions. But suffice it to say that somebody who runs for and wins the presidency is by no means an “ordinary citizen,” no more than Warren Buffett is an “ordinary businessman.”

In terms of Presidents blabbing secrets, keep in mind that the President has the ultimate authority to determine what is a secret and what is not. That’s why he gets to live in that big house a few miles down the road from me.

If that were the reasoning, then nobody should know about top secret information, whether president, general, or rocket scientist.

13

As I understand it, the President has the authority to read or see anything held by the government. He holds the Federal executive power, ne plus ultra, and automatically gains top security clearance (even if it’s not called that, as such) when he swears his oath of office. He has the authority to declassify anything he deems fit and may apparently delegate that authority to others by executive order, for example, Bush did to Cheney (or so they argue, at least - I was tempted to say “Cite?” when that question arose in the Plame case).

That said, he’d be a fool to use the power carelessly. He could run afoul of various privacy laws if he asked to see the Medicare or Social Security files of private citizens without a damned good reason to do so. Eisenhower, among other Presidents, made it a point not to ask for the real names of American spies when receiving briefings from the CIA, because he recognized that he truly had no need to know. On the other hand, Nixon abused his executive authority by siccing the FBI, the CIA and the IRS on his enemies, making use of confidential information for political reasons, and it cost him his job. Good thing, too.

14

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
The President, and members of Congress, do not apply for or hold a security clearance. Access to classified information is provided because of their constitutional positions.

Furthermore, under Executive Order, the President is the ultimate holder of authority to determine the classification of items, with a few exceptions (e.g., politically embarrassing material may not be classified in order to cover it up). There are actually only a few laws which govern the use of classified material, and they tend to be rather specific; so questions of how classified information is handled is usually (but not always) a matter handled by the Executive Branch, not laws.

Furthermore, many would argue that Article II of the Constitution (“The executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America”) would mean that no executive branch employee or official could refuse a lawful request by the President to see or do something. The Constitution simply does not contemplate an inferior officer overruling the exercise of executive power by the President on matters of administration of the executive branch. (Not talking about laws, here, folks.)

The point has frequently been brought up that anyone’s access to classified information is determined by a need to know. I suppose it is fair to say that there have been some differences of opinion on this point, but my view is that if the President holds ultimate authority on matters of classification, and he holds the executive power, there’s no way that an inferior officer’s opinion of need to know could limit the President’s near-plenary constitutional powers in this particular area.
[/QUOTE]

I believe this is an outstandingly good answer. Without being in the least flip, the proper answer here is very much akin to “Where does the 800-pound gorilla sit?” The answer is, of course, “Anywhere he wants to.” And the President is, by the nature of his office, privileged to see any information held by the government, whatever its level of classification or secrecy. Under ‘We the People’, he is the source of any authority to classify or make secret, and he, as our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, has the right and authority to review whatever material he chooses, of whatever classification.

Note one minor distinction: we are talking here of national security. Suppose a psychiatrist working at a V.A. hospital. His patient files are confidential, not for security reasons but for personal privacy reasons. It’s within his professional power (and required by his professional ethics) to refuse a request by anyone, even the President, to review those files unless the patient himself has released them. If the President or a U.S. Attorney needs access to them for reasons of public safety, he needs to apply for a court order.

15

Mole, I would think that like the employees at Groom Lake, there a certain degree of isolation from the public for employees that hold positions with the government where they deal with top secret information. I remember that it was posited that one of the reasons for this would be to easily discredit a former employee if he/she happened to disclose sensitive information at any point later in life. The government can simply say the blabbermouth never worked for us, they’re insane, and that’s that.

But you can’t do that with a former president. Even Carter has a certain degree of credibility. If he discloses a national secret, people are more likely to take him seriously than someone they’ve never heard of.

And Ravenman, by ordinary citizen I mean an individual who has not been steeped in military/governmental protocol, may or may not agree with the reasons as to why certain information has been deemed classified and hasn’t been briefed and cleared by whatever officials give clearance to certain government employees.

He’s essentially “Joe,” and the moment he enters office he has access to the same documents that other government employees can never see unless they’ve worked inside for years and established a certain degree of trust?

It just seems a bit odd to me.

16

[QUOTE=pbase]
…But people get old, they grow ill, they may blab and ramble. Who’s to say what information a mentally ill former president may disclose. Isn’t it therefore sensible to keep him out of the loop on top secret matters?
[/QUOTE]

That’s true of anyone who’s ever had access to state secrets. How does the government deal with this? Are they specialized nursing homes for ex-spies? Did Ronald Reagan’s nurse’s need security clearances? Did Nancy?

17

Minor point: note that the very existence of a secret is, in and of itself, frequently a secret. In some instances, even if the President would be interested in something, if he’s not aware of its existence he would not request it.

18

Given the vast amount of secret+ information our government has access to, I don’t think the question of whether the President is allowed to look at it is the key here. I think the question is whether the President will even deduce the existence of any given piece of information.

If the government has been hiding something from us for decades, would the incoming POTUS even know to go looking for it?

19

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I seem to recall this being done here before too. I admit I find it disconcerting to think the president might have access to anything. For instance I would think the names of deep cover spies would be better kept a secret only known to a very select few necessary for overseeing their work.
[/QUOTE]

It’s worth noting that there’s a difference between what the President has a right to know and what he actually knows.

The President probably could call up the head of the CIA and say “I want a list of every one of your deep cover spies on my desk by the end of the day” and the CIA director would be duty-bound to comply (although I suppose if he lied the President might never find out about it). But why would the President ever make such a request?

20

[QUOTE=tim314]
It’s worth noting that there’s a difference between what the President has a right to know and what he actually knows.

The President probably could call up the head of the CIA and say “I want a list of every one of your deep cover spies on my desk by the end of the day” and the CIA director would be duty-bound to comply (although I suppose if he lied the President might never find out about it). But why would the President ever make such a request?
[/QUOTE]

The why would he need it part of course being the whole point.

It would not surprise me, as I mentioned before, if the director of the CIA pushed back and tried to discourage the president from acquiring that information. If it went far enough I could even see (possibly) the CIA director threatening to resign publicly and let it be known he did so because he could not, in good conscience, divulge that info without a very good reason even if it is the president’s right to see it.