Foreign Influence and Security Clearance Determinations
The House Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing July 13 on the role that considerations of foreign influence play in decisions to grant or deny security clearances for access to classified information.
One of the principal considerations leading to denial of a security clearance is when the applicant has relatives or relationships or other ties abroad in countries of concern, and particularly in the Middle East and the Far East.
This approach, if applied too rigidly, can be counter-productive since the best linguists and the most accomplished area experts will almost invariably have “relationships” of one kind or another with persons in their region of expertise.
But the process for adjudicating disputes over clearances seems distinctly skewed against the applicant.
In a new report (pdf), attorney Sheldon Cohen identified a peculiar anomaly in the performance of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), which rules on disputed clearance matters for the Defense Department. In the large majority of disputes presented to it, he found, DOHA has consistently ruled against the applicant.
“If Department Counsel appeals a decision granting a clearance, it is virtually assured that the Appeal Board will reverse. Yet, if an applicant appeals a decision involving a foreign connection denying a clearance, the Appeal Board will assuredly affirm the denial,” found Cohen, who specializes in security clearance cases.
See “Appeal Board Decisions of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals: Are They Arbitrary and Capricious?” by Sheldon I. Cohen, July 10, 2006.
It is in the interests of the United States to appropriately protect information that needs to be protected while maintaining our participation in new discoveries to maintain our competitive advantage.
The question is not whether the capital exists (it does!), nor whether energy solutions are available (they are!), but whether we can align energy finance quickly enough to channel the right types of capital where and when it’s needed most.
Our analysis of federal AI governance across administrations shows that divergent compliance procedures and uneven institutional capacity challenge the government’s ability to deploy AI in ways that uphold public trust.
From California to New Jersey, wildfires are taking a toll—costing the United States up to $424 billion annually and displacing tens of thousands of people. Congress needs solutions.