# Presidents and Top Secret clearance. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057 "2017-02-17T15:13:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Renee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/renee/32/287_2.png) [@Renee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/1 "2017-02-17T15:13:09Z")
Getting Top Secret security clearance is a pain in the ass. You have to basically list everyone you’ve ever met. You need multiple references from every place you’ve ever lived, and many of those people will be personally interviewed to make sure you’re not a spy. You aren’t allowed to be on certain medications. If you’ve visited certain countries, it’s a problem. It seems obvious to me that Trump would not even come close to passing this test if he were trying to get a normal job requiring TS clearance. By getting elected president, is this whole process just tossed out the window, or what? What about his advisors? Are they checked out at all? Why don’t we require people running for high office to get a TS clearance before they can even apply? We do it with military personnel. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/2 "2017-02-17T15:28:24Z")
> [@Renee](#): > > Why don’t we require people running for high office to get a TS clearance before they can even apply? We do it with military personnel. We don’t elect military personnel to their positions. We DO elect a president, in a constitutionally-mandated political process, which both predates and precludes any consideration of clearance-worthiness (other than the political competition itself – as a campaign tactic, for instance. E.g., “My opponent is so crooked he can’t possibly be trusted with the great secrets a President has access to.”) If someone is elected, then they have clearance. If they do bad enough stuff with their clearance, they only recourse is impeachment and conviction in the Senate. You can’t even indict, try, and convict a sitting president for overt and intentional treason. The only response is in the Congress. In “civics terms”, it’s “a political matter.” Among many other reasons, this is why elections matter. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/3 "2017-02-17T15:30:21Z")
On the final question: for the same reason they are not required to have a clean arrest record either (you can run from prison) --because it would make it trivial to block out candidates from even running, and the Constitution does not mandate any other qualification than age, citizenship and residence. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/4 "2017-02-17T15:32:09Z")
Here’s a previous [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=608961&highlight=president) (pre Trump) that deals with pretty much the same question. Short answer is that yes, the President has access to all classified info, since the power to classify is derived from Executive orders issued by the President: > [@Are there any government activities so secret that even the president doesn't know about them?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-government-activities-so-secret-that-even-the-president-doesnt-know-about-them/582319/10): > > It is perfectly clear and incontrovertible that the President is in charge of what goes on in the Executive Branch. The Constitution says so. > > How the government keeps secrets is a matter that is primarily regulated by a series of Executive Orders. In short, the “need to know” is based on a Presidential order, and as the chief executive, there is no higher authority in government on who can determine need to know. All classification authority derives from the President, so barring a “can God make a burrito so big that He cannot eat it” type of metaphysical question, of course the President is entitled to knowledge of all classified information. I’d say it’s a safe assumption that would extend to his advisors as well - if he says “Advisor X should have access to all top secret information”, no one has the power to say no to that. As regards your second question - the Constitution spells out the requirements to be President - 35 years old, natural citizen, 14 years resident in the USA. An attempt to add further requirements by the legislature (Congress or state) would likely result in a challenge/constitutional crisis. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/5 "2017-02-17T15:34:14Z")
[I asked a related question years ago that got many good answers](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=220632). In short, the POTUS does not need any type of clearance by definition. [Another related thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180999) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/6 "2017-02-17T16:53:17Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > I’d say it’s a safe assumption that would extend to his advisors as well - if he says “Advisor X should have access to all top secret information”, no one has the power to say no to that. [Not so.](http://www.voanews.com/a/security-clearance-explainer/3602747.html) Constitutional officers do not require security clearances. Otherwise they are attached to jobs, rather than people, and clearances must be granted by the appropriate sources not by the President’s whims. > [@](#): > > Jared Kushner, a real estate developer married to Ivanka Trump, helped engineer his father-in-law’s successful run for the White House. This week brought news that President-elect Donald Trump is seeking a top-secret clearance for Kushner, likely to remain a close adviser, so he can attend security briefings. … > > Neither congressman has a security clearance, nor does Trump. “Security clearances are not mandated for the president, vice president, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, or other constitutional officers,” the Congressional Research Service recently reported, citing constitutional criteria. … > > But it is important to note that clearances aren’t given to people; they are attached to jobs… > > Clearance parameters are less straightforward when it comes to presidential transition teams. If the president-elect wants an individual to participate in his security briefings, Burgess says the government would use the “need to know” formula… > > the government can grant someone “interim clearance.” Think of it as an “innocent until proven guilty” approach. Every candidate has to submit a standard form, called an SF-86, which lists every job they’ve ever had, every place they’ve lived, every country they’ve visited, and a host of other minutiae, including contact information for neighbors and close friends. > > While the government investigates everything on the SF-86 (see one here), Burgess says an “interim clearance” gets them in the door, “so when they show up [they] can operate.” … ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/7 "2017-02-17T17:03:51Z")
I appreciate what the OP went through to get their clearance … but that’s nothing even close to what a candidate has to go through to run for President … if The Donald couldn’t hide his crotch-grabbing ways, he probably couldn’t hide funneling money into ISIS … ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/8 "2017-02-17T17:16:54Z")
There were plenty of spies and traitors in the Revolution. Not just Benedict Arnold, but people like Benjamin Church. The Founding Fathers knew enough about security risks to have made background checks a requirement for office if they had wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/9 "2017-02-17T17:31:34Z")
“Why” questions are more appropriate for Great Debates than GQ. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/10 "2017-02-17T20:56:54Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > [Not so.](http://www.voanews.com/a/security-clearance-explainer/3602747.html) > > Constitutional officers do not require security clearances. Otherwise they are attached to jobs, rather than people, and clearances must be granted by the appropriate sources not by the President’s whims. If I’m not mistaken, classification and security clearance procedure is almost entirely a creature of Executive Order (see, e.g., [EO 13526](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526)). Pursuant to those orders, there are procedures in place by which access is evaluated, but the President presumably does have a great deal of discretion to issue new orders altering or creating exceptions to those procedures. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/11 "2017-02-17T21:09:32Z")
> [@Renee](#): > > Why don’t we require people running for high office to get a TS clearance? To get a top secret clearance, you have to be interviewed and approved by somebody in authority. The President has been approved by 50 million people—the ultimate authority. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/12 "2017-02-17T21:26:24Z")
I think the OP is hinting at “in order to be eligible to run for president one ought to be also clearable in the standard business way”. Would adding that requirement to presidential eligibility require a constitutional amendment? The it’s dead in the water - too many red states. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2017, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/13 "2017-02-17T21:43:32Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > The it’s dead in the water - too many red states. Too many blue states too. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/14 "2017-02-18T03:36:43Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > [Not so.](http://www.voanews.com/a/security-clearance-explainer/3602747.html) > > Constitutional officers do not require security clearances. Otherwise they are attached to jobs, rather than people, and clearances must be granted by the appropriate sources not by the President’s whims. Largely incorrect. As I state in almost all of these threads, constitutionally, the President IS THE executive branch. Some HR director at the State Department has no power to overrule his boss’ boss’ boss. If Trump decides he wants MY advice on a matter of national importance, he can share national secrets with me and ask my opinion. The only check on that power would be impeachment and removal from office if Congress thought that was reckless. As the head of the executive branch, Trump does not need pre-approval from an “appropriate” source. He is the sole source of power in the executive branch. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/15 "2017-02-18T04:44:20Z")
> [@Renee](#): > > Why don’t we require people running for high office to get a TS clearance before they can even apply? Because it turns the country into a one-party state as soon as somebody sees fit to exploit it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/16 "2017-02-18T05:17:18Z")
It would be a fundamental reversal in how our government works. Our political system is managed by the President. We should not have our President being managed by the political system. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2017, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/17 "2017-02-18T05:47:57Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > On the final question: for the same reason they are not required to have a clean arrest record either (you can run from prison) --because it would make it trivial to block out candidates from even running, and the Constitution does not mandate any other qualification than age, citizenship and residence. Plus how such citizenship was gained. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/18 "2017-02-19T06:18:54Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I appreciate what the OP went through to get their clearance … but that’s nothing even close to what a candidate has to go through to run for President … if The Donald couldn’t hide his crotch-grabbing ways, he probably couldn’t hide funneling money into ISIS … This is not actually true since a clearance requires a fair amount of financial disclosure aimed at detecting foreign financial interests (any foreign interests, not just enemies of the USA). It was true that candidates did disclose this type of thing in the recent pass, but apparently the voting public DGAF. ---
**Author:** ![Renee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/renee/32/287_2.png) [@Renee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-and-top-secret-clearance/780057/19 "2017-02-19T14:31:43Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > I think the OP is hinting at “in order to be eligible to run for president one ought to be also clearable in the standard business way”. Would adding that requirement to presidential eligibility require a constitutional amendment? The it’s dead in the water - too many red states. Yeah, and despite arguments to the contrary, I feel like it would improve the process. I’d be curious to see what portion of the population would support amending the constitution to require higher standards for our presidential nominees. I suspect it would be pretty high for both parties. Thanks for the replies, everyone.