Pentagon revokes Frank Kendall security clearance; former Air Force secretary says he will sue Trump administration

The Pentagon has revoked the security clearance of Frank Kendall, a Biden-era Air Force secretary, and his eligibility for “any sensitive position,” prompting Kendall to say he will sue the Trump administration. The dispute centers on the Defense Department’s determination that Kendall disclosed classified information to the media, a conclusion the Pentagon conveyed when it withdrew his clearance last week and reiterated the action on Friday.

According to The Hill, the Defense Department pulled Kendall’s eligibility for access to classified information and stated that the decision also affected his “ability to hold any sensitive position.” The revocation marks a significant personnel and legal step because security-clearance eligibility decisions are tied to whether an individual may access classified materials or serve in certain defense roles, including roles that involve sensitive programs and information.

Kendall, who previously served in the Air Force senior civilian leadership during the Biden administration, said he would pursue litigation. The Hill reported Kendall would sue the administration after the Pentagon’s action. The report described Kendall as saying, “gonna sue,” framing the response as a direct challenge to the revocation.

The Pentagon’s reasoning, as described by The Hill, was that Kendall was accused of disclosing classified information to the media. That claim, as presented in the report, is what underpins the clearance and eligibility withdrawal. Security clearance revocations in the federal system typically hinge on whether the government concludes a person’s conduct undermines trust and reliability for access to classified information, but the Hill report focuses on the stated basis provided by the Pentagon rather than detailed underlying evidence.

Because clearance revocations can affect access to classified briefings, contractors and officials may face practical limitations after such determinations, including restrictions on attending certain meetings or performing duties that require sensitive access. The Pentagon’s statement, as summarized by The Hill, also extended beyond clearance eligibility to a broader “sensitive position” limitation, which can narrow the range of roles the government deems an individual able to hold.

Legal challenges to security-clearance actions can raise issues involving due process, the scope of judicial review, and the extent to which the government must disclose its reasons. In many clearance disputes, courts may be limited in what they can consider because much of the basis for decisions may involve classified information, though what process is provided and what can be challenged depends on the specific legal route and administrative framework.

The next steps, as described in the report, are expected to begin with Kendall pursuing litigation after the Pentagon’s clearance withdrawal and eligibility limitation. The case would likely require the parties to address both the factual basis for the Pentagon’s determination and the procedural standards that govern how clearance eligibility decisions can be contested.