A memo circulating among at least half a dozen advisers to former President Donald J. Trump recommends that if he is elected, he bypass traditional background checks by law enforcement officials and immediately grant security clearances to a large number of his appointees after being sworn in, according to three people briefed on the matter.
The proposal is being promoted by a small group including Boris Epshteyn, a top legal adviser to Mr. Trump who was influential in its development, according to the three people.
It is not clear whether Mr. Trump has seen the proposal or whether he is inclined to adopt it if he takes office.
But it would allow him to quickly install loyalists in major positions without subjecting them to the risk of long-running and intrusive F.B.I. background checks, potentially increasing the risks of people with problematic histories or ties to other nations being given influential White House roles. Such checks hung up clearances for a number of aides during Mr. Trump’s presidency, including Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Mr. Epshteyn himself.
The proposal suggests using private-sector investigators and researchers to perform background checks on Mr. Trump’s intended appointees during the transition, cutting out the role traditionally played by F.B.I. agents, the three people said. Once Mr. Trump took the oath, he would then summarily approve a large group for access to classified secrets, they said.
Asked about the proposal, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, responded with an attack on Vice President Kamala Harris, saying she and Democrats “have weaponized the Department of Justice to attack President Trump and his supporters” and that Mr. Trump would use “the full powers of the presidency” to build his administration starting on Inauguration Day.
A number of Mr. Trump’s advisers — and the former president himself — have long viewed background checks for security clearances with deep suspicion.
They believe that the process is designed to make challenges to outcomes difficult, and that personal pieces of information submitted during the vetting can be disseminated later for damaging results. Mr. Trump has long railed about the F.B.I. being part of a “deep state” conspiracy to undermine him.
It is not clear what positions the altered system would cover, but the people familiar with the proposal said it appeared to apply to a large number of potential Trump appointees in a second administration.
Mr. Epshteyn, who was indicted earlier this year in Arizona in connection with a so-called fake electors scheme to upend Mr. Trump’s 2020 loss and has two prior arrests in that state, speaks with Mr. Trump multiple times a day and is one of his most influential aides. He is a lawyer and consultant who has helped recruit and manage the legal team that has been defending Mr. Trump in the four criminal cases filed against him since he left office.
It is not clear whether Mr. Epshteyn would like to go into government, but his name is on at least one list compiled outside the official transition process as a possible White House counsel, or a top lawyer overseeing them, according to two people briefed on the matter. That list was prepared with Mr. Epshteyn’s input, according to a third person briefed on the matter.
Traditional federal background investigations for security clearances carry risks for potential appointees.
Lying on official application materials could lead to a criminal charge for making a false statement. Seeking a clearance also invites scrutiny that could turn up some other cause to open a criminal investigation. Potential Trump appointees would reduce or avoid those risks under the proposal, in which the privately assembled dossiers would apparently be seen only by the White House.
Security clearances have been a critical part of the government’s system for protecting national security secrets, which dates back to World War II and the early Cold War. Background investigations for clearances are intended to turn up hidden foreign conflicts or personal problems that could reveal that applicants are a security risk because they could be susceptible to blackmail by foreign spies or are otherwise untrustworthy.
The process is grounded in executive orders and memorandums — not federal statutes enacted by Congress — and the Supreme Court has said that presidents have ultimate authority over decisions about sharing and restricting national security information as part of their constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces.
Under the traditional system, when officials or contractors need access to classified information to do their jobs, they are considered for security clearances that would entrust them with access to secrets of various levels of sensitivity, from confidential to top secret. The rigor of the scrutiny increases based on how high the clearance’s level would be.
Many agencies investigate their own nominees, and sometimes basic vetting, including for employees of contractors, has been outsourced to private firms which then provide dossiers to the sponsoring agencies. But under a memorandum of understanding between the White House and the F.B.I., the bureau conducts background investigations for people named to the White House staff.
Starting with information provided by applicants in their clearance application forms, agents check law enforcement databases and interview people who know them in search of red flags. They look at any criminal conduct; psychological conditions and personal behavior; alcohol or substance abuse; foreign contacts; personal finances and similar matters.
If initial checks uncover no problems, people can be granted interim clearances to begin working with classified information while the investigation continues, though they can face greater restrictions on access to more sensitive data — especially more restricted forms of top secret information — until they receive permanent clearances.
Across the government, the findings of background checks are shared with the sponsoring agency, which makes the final decision. And when a background check uncovers evidence of a potential crime, it can lead to a criminal referral for further investigation.
But presidents subjecting their appointees to the FB.I. vetting process is a norm, not a legal requirement. As a matter of constitutional law, there is nothing to stop a president from cutting out the F.B.I. and granting a clearance to access classified information to anyone, based on his or her own discretion.
Like many other aspects of Mr. Trump’s first term and plans for a second term, the proposed move to do so for his appointees would exploit the gap between legal limits and traditional norms of presidential self-restraint.
A number of Mr. Trump’s appointees faced delays and roadblocks in getting clearances in his administration.
In addition to Mr. Epshteyn, who failed to get a clearance during a brief White House stint in 2017 before leaving the post, many aides worked with temporary security clearances for more than a year because they could not get permanent clearances approved. Others eventually left the government, too. (The Trump campaign said earlier this year that Mr. Epshteyn’s clearance issue, which was never clarified, was “resolved,” but provided no further details).
Mr. Kushner, who played a variety of roles including as an envoy to the Middle East brokering deals to get Arab states to recognize Israel, went through months of questions over his background check for reasons that were never publicly disclosed. Finally, in 2018, Mr. Trump overrode the normal process and ordered the government to grant him a clearance.
In 2019, a manager in the White House’s Personnel Security Office told a House committee that senior Trump administration officials granted security clearances to at least 25 officials and contractors whose applications had been denied by career employees for “disqualifying issues” that could put national security at risk. One of them appeared to be Mr. Kushner.
Mr. Kushner’s allies have claimed that the process was an attempt to damage Mr. Trump by extension.
There are other aides who have been investigated along with Mr. Trump over the past four years who might struggle under the current process if Mr. Trump wants to bring them into the government.
Among them are Walt Nauta, Mr. Trump’s personal aide, who was his co-defendant in the since-dismissed classified documents case, and Peter Navarro, who was Mr. Trump’s trade adviser and recently finished a federal prison sentence stemming from obstructing a congressional subpoena.
Another former White House adviser who is close to Mr. Trump, Stephen K. Bannon, is set to be released from prison in the coming days. He was also imprisoned after being convicted of contempt of Congress.
Mr. Kushner has said he does not plan to return to government. But if he changes his mind, the career officials handling security clearances inside the U.S. intelligence community under the current system would have to contend with the implications of the nearly $3 billion he raised for his investment firm from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Other supporters of Mr. Trump have proposed overhauling the system for vetting security clearances.
One came from the Project 2025 “Mandate for Leadership,” a policy program developed by a consortium of conservative think tanks to offer Mr. Trump ideas should he win the presidency.
The project proposed that the White House’s National Security Council — run by the president’s national security adviser — should be authorized to adjudicate internally whether its own staff receive security clearances, with investigators who “work directly for the N.S.C. and whose sole task is to clear N.S.C. officials.” (The Trump campaign has disavowed Project 2025, and a top Trump transition official said that its authors would not be involved in any transition.)
In December, the Center for Renewing America, a pro-Trump think tank run by Mr. Trump’s former head of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, published a policy paper calling for giving the president and his top appointees direct control over granting security clearances.
The paper said that it must be made “crystal clear that agency heads may grant, suspend or revoke security clearances — notwithstanding the recommendations of subordinates.”
The post Advisers Propose That Trump Give Security Clearances Without F.B.I. Vetting appeared first on New York Times.