On February 7, 2025, President Donald Trump announced the immediate revocation of former President Joe Biden's security clearance, citing concerns over Biden's "poor memory" as highlighted in the recent Hur Report.12 This decision effectively ends Biden's access to daily intelligence briefings, a courtesy typically extended to former presidents.3 Trump framed the action as a measure to protect national security, stating there was "no need for Joe Biden to continue receiving access to classified information."4

The move is seen as a retaliatory response to Biden's similar action against Trump in 2021, marking a significant shift in the tradition of providing intelligence briefings to former presidents.56 This decision has sparked discussions about its potential impact on future transitions of power and the handling of classified information by former leaders.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden set a precedent by revoking Donald Trump's security clearance, citing Trump's "erratic" behavior as the primary reason12. This decision was particularly influenced by the events surrounding the 2020 election and the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. Biden's action at the time marked a departure from the longstanding tradition of allowing former presidents continued access to classified information. By denying Trump access to national security details, Biden established a new approach to handling sensitive information with regard to former leaders, which has now been reciprocated by the Trump administration in 2025.

The revocation of Biden's security clearance raises concerns about potential impacts on national security and the ability of former presidents to offer insights on ongoing issues. This decision further cements a new precedent of incoming presidents revoking their predecessors' access to classified information, potentially altering the landscape of post-presidential roles and responsibilities12. The move is likely to intensify the already contentious relationship between Trump and Biden, as well as their respective political parties3. Some experts worry that this trend could disrupt the continuity of knowledge and experience typically leveraged by sitting administrations, potentially hindering informed decision-making on complex, long-term national security matters45.