Should retired/replaced government officials retain their security clearances after leaving office?

It pretty much depends on weather there is a need to know or if the individual is actively performing official consultation work for the government at the governments request.
As it is you can have a clearance , but not have access to information until the government needs you to have it incidental to a project or mission.
I think the press has done a poor job in educating the public in as much as a clearance and access to classified information is a privilege extended to folks to work on behalf of and for the interest of national security, not a rite.
I listened to Professor Dershowits last night who is a renowned constitutional scholar botch this point and conflate clearances with the 1st amendment, as though it was a rite to poses a clearance. If you have to apply for something then it is not an inherent rite and is subject to denial or revocation.
In the end when the smoke clears and the next crisis draws eyes away from this. It will turn out that the security managers who advise the CoC acted appropriately and within their authority and the folks who have their clearances revoked, suspended or access levels reduced will have earned those consequences. Because believe it or not there are staff folks out there that actually know what they are doing.

This is an easy yes. Everybody else has to. But this is a government issue. Troops get read off when they leave, but it seems flag officers don’t, elected officials don’t, and a certain level of being comfortable takes over. Maybe they should sit through mando training slides like the rest of us? How about getting screened by the investigators at Ft Meade instead of the FBI? Mine took 18 months due to my GF at the time. Imagine the SECDEF or comparible having to wait and lawd help them if they ‘forgot’ to announce who they dealt business with.

Information is power.

Only for as long as the new administration believes it is useful to keep them in the loop.

As an almost retired Army Major with an active TS/SCI, I know my clearance with go “inactive” automatically at 24 month’s post-separation unless I actively continue to use it. Why does the Chancellor of the University of Texas need a security clearance?

Just my opinion. Having to ask this question is part of the Problem. NOT slamming 2LT Kyle Brooks. But if we need to ask the question then that in its self is the problem. If I need a T/S then the command will decide that, if I do not need the T/S then the command will down grade it. It is not punishment it is Need to know basis. Now that being said the unit, the command, and the civilian corporation, should be the ones to decide if it is needed and when it is no longer needed. It takes a lot of man hours to keep-up with clearances which cost money to keep security issues to a minimum. Politicians Who served in and area that they need a certain level clearance should have it. But when they no longer work in that area the clearance should be suspended just the same as it is for the Military or anyone else. Politicians Get a Government clearance and no longer work in that job Yet keep the clearance so access to information that does NOT Benefit the U.S. of America, These clearances allow those Politicians to get employed by corporations as advisers with a clearance that they do not need. If the Corporations Need that information they need to apply for it. Having people with access to information that they no longer need allows information to be leaked to people who do NOT HAVE A NEED TO KNOW, I see several laws being broken here. Pull the Clearances when they leave the Job if they start a new Job that requires a clearance it is easy to reinstate it. Other wise they don't need it. Let Corporations pay for a clearance and the maintaining of it if the Government decides they need the information this would provide stronger security of the U.S. information as a whole and at least minimize leaks if you don't have the information then you can not leak it. Hope this helps People understand, It was real hard to write this on a level where everyone might understand. Thanks for reading.

No. If an individual of the stature of a General Officer or appointed senior civilian is required for a specific reason, an interim clearance and access limited to the subject at hand can easily be arranged by the department in question.

When you are discharged or no longer have the need to know then your clearance is revoked...
I had a secret clearance.... when I got my DD214 it was revoked because I no longer had a need to know...
The media is making a big deal out of this and it happens many times a day whenever someone is discharged

There are TONS of consultants who serve the government in that role. Why take their ability to continue to contribute away?

Given the responses of those foregoing commentators who are all right or provide valid points, the issue in fact is - "need to know". If, the "need to know" is seen as - "old buddy"-based, meaning "hey dude, you know my clearance is good, can you share........'ostensibly off the record'.... this or that."

If they, as a part of their civilian work, are on a "cleared list" to provide information and the sponsoring agency has determined they in fact passively or actively have a "need to know" in an on demand fashion, then the head of that agency's head should roll when it is determined that such access is or has a conflict with the oaths we all took "...to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic."

It seems simple, yet the past 44 Presidents and all who have taken the oath nearly 20 million living veterans and our current active duty/guard & reserve forces are held to uniformed standard. The President, like him or not, is exercising that portion of the sentence regarding "...preserving, protecting and defending..." as he sees it.

All this said, we have to be transparent. Having a security clearance is not a right it is a privileged granted by a government that believes you will exercise prudence in its use for the greater good and not for personal gain in any form! There is much more I'd like to say, about this regarding human nature, but I am afraid RP would blow up. So, the above is a place to continue to focus this discussion.

Yet, we have to honest and be smart enough to realize BS when we hear it from all sides. Having this discussion from a political point of view is pointless. It is about the Oath of Office and how committed we are to its proper execution at our respective levels. As my sister, a current DoD civilian, often says ... brother (sister), I am just saying.....!