New national security guidelines reflect significant semantic changes

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

At the end of last year, National Security Advisor Stehpen Hadley did some word tinkering with the “Adjunctive Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information.” The result is that the government now has broader, vaguer power to deny information to those seeking it. The overall change puts emphasis on loyalty to the U.S. government, and allows those holding information to look at various “suspect” factors rather than singling out a specific violation as grounds for denying classified information. It also places particular burdens on gay citizens that did not exist before.

For example, in addition to the already existing requirements for U.S. loyalty–things such a voting in a foreign election or expressing a desire to divest oneself of American citizenship–the new version says that the vocalization of allegiance to another country disqualifies a person from receiving information.

Under the category of “personal conduct,” Hadley has added:

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.

Deliberately providing “false or misleading” information to an employer could also disqualify a person from receiving classified information under the revised guidelines.

And under “psychological conditions,” there is a definition of “adverse behavior”:

Behavior that casts doubt on an individual’s judgment… that is not covered under any other guideline” is now a condition that could render an individual unfit for approval.

However, a former sentence that would permit access to be denied because of “reliable, unfavorable information from neighbors or coworkers” has been removed.

In the area of leaks, the earlier version of the document listed one condition that could arouse a security concern; the current version lists nine, many of which are related to computer technology, and some of which are related to efforts to gain information “outside one’s need to know.”

The 1997 version stated that sexual orientation “may not be used” to disqualify applicants, but Hadley’s new version states that clearances cannot be denied “solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.” Also, the 1997 version eliminated “adverse sexual behavior” from disqualifying an individual if the behavior was “not recent.” However, the new version states that the behavior cannot be used for disqualification if it “happened so long ago, so infrequently, and under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur.”

In the “criminal conduct” section of the document, Hadley has removed the word “acquittal” from a list of factors to be considered in granting access to information. He has also added discharge from the military “under dishonorable conditions” as a reason to deny access. And though it was removed in the past, Hadley has re-instated the abuse of prescription drugs after a prolonged illness as a reason to deny access.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend