In the realm of U.S. defense contracting, maintaining security clearances is paramount for safeguarding sensitive information. Recently, several contractors faced severe repercussions for lapses in this regard. One contractor established a method to remotely access an office computer, another forwarded 37 sensitive yet unclassified emails to a personal account, and a third sent three emails containing classified information via an unauthorized system. These actions led to the revocation of their federal security clearances, resulting in their termination from Pentagon-related work.
The Washington Post conducted an in-depth review of numerous cases involving defense contractors who mishandled sensitive government information or employed unauthorized technology. These violations echo the concerns raised about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who allegedly disclosed details about upcoming airstrikes in Yemen through the commercial messaging platform Signal. This information was shared with high-ranking national security officials and a journalist, raising eyebrows regarding the appropriateness of such communication methods for classified discussions.
Many contractors who lost their security clearances had a history of violating expectations regarding technology use and information handling. Some had even breached other security clearance guidelines related to financial responsibilities and substance abuse. However, The Post identified cases where contractors lost their clearances despite claiming that their infractions were unintentional or for convenience, and they asserted that no sensitive information was compromised. R. Scott Oswald, managing principal at the Employment Law Group, emphasized the disparity, noting that individuals faced severe consequences for actions considered less serious than Hegseth's Signal exchange.
Hegseth has recently come under fire for sharing sensitive information about Yemen airstrikes with multiple Signal groups, including his family members. Such attack plans are typically highly classified, necessitating a codeword and secure communication channels. In response to inquiries, Kingsley Wilson, acting press secretary for the Defense Department, referred to Hegseth’s remarks during a Fox News interview, where he described the shared information as informal and unclassified, aimed at media coordination.
The guidelines for security clearances apply uniformly to contractors, civil servants, and military personnel. These 13 guidelines encompass various behaviors, including how individuals manage their interactions with foreign entities and criminal conduct. Notably, two guidelines stipulate that individuals can lose or be denied their security clearance for negligently disclosing protected information or utilizing unauthorized information technology. The Defense Department's inspector general has announced an investigation into Hegseth’s use of Signal to ascertain compliance with policies regarding commercial messaging applications and adherence to classification and records retention requirements.
To comprehend how the Pentagon enforces regulations governing the handling of sensitive information, The Post analyzed clearance cases documented by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals. These cases illustrate the strict enforcement of guidelines, although they represent only a fraction of the clearance cases processed across the government. The outcomes of other nonpublic cases involving similar violations remain unclear. National security lawyers caution that the results of clearance cases can vary widely based on numerous factors, including the presiding administrative judge.
One notable case reviewed involved a 56-year-old man who had held a clearance since 1988. He stored both personal and protected Defense Department information on a spreadsheet, which he frequently transferred between personal and government computers. This led to his security clearance being denied in 2021. Similarly, another case featured a senior principal design engineer who, in an attempt to transfer sensitive data, mistakenly plugged a classified USB drive into an unclassified laptop, resulting in the denial of his clearance in 2014.
Experts like Steven Aftergood, former director of the Project on Government Secrecy, noted that many contractors were negligent rather than malicious in their actions, yet they still faced clearance denials. Robert Deitz, former general counsel at the National Security Agency, emphasized that the rules governing classified information are well-known and apply universally, regardless of an individual's tenure in the intelligence community. Bradley Moss, a security clearance lawyer, expressed certainty that if rank-and-file employees or contractors had engaged in activities similar to those of Hegseth, they would have likely lost their clearances and faced potential criminal prosecution.
There is a historical precedent for senior officials receiving leniency compared to lower-level employees regarding security breaches. Moss pointed to previous incidents involving figures such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former CIA Director David H. Petraeus. Hegseth's situation serves as a contemporary example of this troubling trend, as he continues to handle classified information despite his questionable conduct.
