Transcript Episode 23: The Fragile Glue: Mark Zaid on Whistleblowers, Retaliation, and the Rule of Law
Government Transparency, Security Clearance Battles, and the Future of American Democracy
Former CIA officer Jim Lawler and former FBI senior executive Lauren C. Anderson host Mark Zaid, a renowned national security attorney who has represented whistleblowers, been personally targeted by a presidential clearance revocation, and fought for government transparency for nearly three decades. They discuss the real difference between a whistleblower and a leaker (using Edward Snowden as a cautionary example), the erosion of democratic norms under the second Trump administration, and why the rule of law has become “water soluble.” Zaid predicts that the loss of seasoned diplomats, intelligence officers, and FBI agents will take a generation to rebuild, and explains why, despite everything, the judiciary remains his beacon of hope. The conversation also covers FOIA in the digital age, his representation of clients across the political spectrum, and practical advice for law students entering national security law.
Key Insights
Government Transparency: Technology has increased the volume of accessible data, but the “digital age” has overwhelmed agency resources, significantly lengthening FOIA litigation timelines.
Whistleblowers vs. Leakers: Whistleblowers follow lawful internal processes to report wrongdoing, whereas leakers disclose classified “national defense information” illegally, often harming security interests (e.g., Edward Snowden).
Systemic Retaliation: Zaid details his personal experience with having his security clearance revoked by the administration, an act he views as part of a broader “weaponization” of clearances against political adversaries and their legal representatives.
Institutional Erosion: The loss of career expertise in diplomacy, intelligence, and law enforcement (FBI) due to partisan purges is described as a “generational loss” that degrades core national capabilities.
Hope in the Judiciary: Despite the erosion of guardrails, Zaid highlights the judiciary as the “shining light” still upholding the rule of law and due process.
Edited Transcript: Allies, Intelligence, and a Fraying Center
Hosts: Jim Lawler (Former CIA) & Lauren Anderson (Former FBI)
Guest: Mark Zaid (National Security Attorney)
1. Government Transparency in the Digital Age
Jim Lawler: You founded the James Madison Project nearly 30 years ago. Has government secrecy improved or deteriorated, and how has the digital age changed FOIA litigation?
Mark Zaid: In some ways, things are better; computers allow for faster searching and AI processing of documents is in its infancy. However, the sheer volume of emails and text messages is overwhelming. Additionally, the use of personal devices for work communications creates major obstacles to transparency. The biggest problem today is a lack of resources—Congress hasn’t funded FOIA programs to hire enough staff to manage this volume. A lawsuit that once took one year to resolve now takes several.
2. Whistleblowers vs. Leakers
Jim Lawler: How do you distinguish between a whistleblower and a leaker?
Mark Zaid: In D.C., “leaker” usually implies someone disclosing classified information illegally to the press. A whistleblower, by legal definition, reveals wrongdoing (waste, fraud, or abuse) through established U.S. government procedures and policies.
The Snowden Case: While some see Edward Snowden as a whistleblower, under the law, he is not. By disclosing classified “national defense information,” he violated the Espionage Act and lost all protection.
Motivation: My organization, Whistleblower Aid, helps people report wrongdoing safely without leaking. Snowden’s disclosures about lawful programs harmed relationships with allies like Angela Merkel and damaged national security.
3. The Weaponization of Security Clearances
Lauren Anderson: Was the president’s decision to remove your clearance last year an attempt to impact your ability to represent clients?
Mark Zaid: Yes. In February 2025, I discovered via the New York Post that the president was revoking my clearance. For several months, I could not represent clients in classified cases, including those involving anomalous health incidents (Havana Syndrome). My clearance was only reinstated in January 2026 after a judge ruled in my favor. This was clearly political retribution. I was on a list with names like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Liz Cheney—perceived political adversaries whose clearances were stripped despite many being out of government.
4. The Erosion of Institutional Trust
Lauren Anderson: What does this moment say about trust within our institutions?
Mark Zaid: Norms have been eroded. We are seeing how fragile our democracy is when the “glue” of the rule of law is treated as a “water-soluble marker” that can be easily erased. Congress has largely disappeared regarding oversight.
Generational Loss: We are losing decades of expertise. Experienced diplomats and FBI agents with 20 years of service are being fired for simply doing their jobs on assignments the administration finds personally offensive. This level of expertise cannot be learned from a book; it will take a generation or more to rebuild.
5. Advice to Students and Future Lawyers
Jim Lawler: What do you tell students who want to practice national security law but fear retaliation?
Mark Zaid: It is a fascinating time to watch the Constitution work—or fail. I tell them they must decide where their line is: the legal line and the ethical line. There is immense value in staying inside the system to be a “voice of reason” or a guardrail, but there is undeniable risk. I have clients currently inside the administration who are simply watching, learning, and documenting.
6. A Note of Hope
Lauren Anderson: What gives you hope?
Mark Zaid: The judiciary. Even judges appointed by President Trump have ruled against him to uphold the rule of law. If we didn’t have a court system that prioritized due process over political will, I would be powerless as a lawyer. The fact that the rule of law still holds in our courts is truly hopeful.
The Steady State Sentinel is produced by The Steady State, a community of former national security professionals who spent their careers safeguarding the United States at home and abroad. Today, we continue that mission by staying true to our oaths to defend the Constitution, uphold democracy, and protect national security. Each episode features expert hosts in conversation with accomplished guests whose experience sheds light on the crises and challenges facing the nation.
Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.