Trump Faces Backlash for Retaliating Against Rivals, Breaking His Own Promise

President Donald J. Trump is once again at the center of political controversy, facing mounting criticism after issuing a sweeping presidential memo that strips numerous high-profile political rivals of their security clearances and access to classified information. Critics are calling it an act of political vengeance, a move rooted in personal grievances rather than national interest. 

Even more damaging is the growing narrative that Trump has broken one of the key promises of his second term: not to target his political enemies.

The memo, released late Friday, lists a wide array of individuals who are no longer permitted access to classified materials. Among them are current and former government officials, lawyers, prosecutors, political opponents, and even members of President Joe Biden’s family.

Specifically named are Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jacob Sullivan, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, attorneys Mark Zaid and Norman Eisen, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Special Counsel Andrew Weissmann, and notable political figures like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Fiona Hill, and Alexander Vindman.

But what caught the most attention was the inclusion of former President Joe Biden himself and “any member of the Biden family.” This broad wording has fueled accusations that the move is not just targeted but personal—and that it violates Trump’s own public commitment to refrain from using the power of the presidency to punish his enemies.

“I have determined that it is no longer in the national interest for the following individuals to access classified information,” the memo read. While couched in the language of national security, the motivations behind the action have come under intense scrutiny.

On CNN, anchor Victor Blackwell addressed the memo directly during a live segment on Saturday, pressing the issue with Washington Post political reporter Mariana Alfaro. “Is there anything other than revenge here?” Blackwell asked, pointing out the glaring contradiction between Trump’s actions and his 2025 promise not to target political opponents. “Remember that this is the president who came in in 2025 saying that he would not target his political rivals. What is this?”

Alfaro responded that while the move is technically legal, it is “unprecedented” and represents one of the most aggressive and personal uses of executive authority to punish critics in recent memory. She described it as the “quickest and sharpest tool” Trump could reach for to strike back at those who have opposed him, including figures who played key roles in his first impeachment and those currently involved in legal battles against him.

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, one of the people named in the memo and a former impeachment co-counsel, responded with a mix of sarcasm and disbelief. “It’s like the third time he’s announced he’s revoking my security clearance,” Eisen said.

“Does he revoke it and then give it back to me so he can revoke it again? Who does he think I am—a big law firm or a billionaire who’s gonna back down? It just makes me file even more lawsuits!”

Eisen’s reaction underscores a broader criticism: that the revocation of security clearances is more symbolic than functional. Many of the individuals named in the memo no longer require access to classified information in their current roles. The practical impact may be minimal—but the political message is undeniable.

This move marks a sharp departure from presidential norms. Traditionally, former presidents, senior officials, and even political rivals have retained certain security clearances in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation and continuity in matters of national defense.

Trump’s decision to revoke those clearances en masse, and specifically name political adversaries, signals a new and more divisive chapter in his presidency.

The backlash has not been limited to Democrats or legal experts. Even some Republicans have voiced discomfort with the optics and implications of the memo. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger—both included in the list—are Republicans who served on the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

Their inclusion further fuels the argument that the memo serves as a political “hit list,” aimed squarely at those who have publicly criticized Trump or challenged his legitimacy.

Furthermore, the inclusion of prosecutors like Letitia James and Alvin Bragg, who are actively involved in investigations or legal proceedings involving Trump, suggests a deeply personal motive. By revoking their clearances, Trump appears to be sending a clear warning to those who attempt to hold him accountable: oppose me, and you will be punished.

The memo has reignited a fierce debate over the use—and abuse—of presidential power. While Trump’s defenders argue that the move is a necessary step to protect national secrets from those who may misuse them, the majority of observers see it as an escalation in Trump’s long-running feud with the so-called "deep state" and the political establishment.

And perhaps most damaging of all is the perception that Trump is violating his own word. In the early days of 2025, he had promised Americans that he would not govern out of spite or retaliation, vowing instead to focus on unity, progress, and restoring the strength of the country.

This latest move appears to run completely counter to that promise, casting doubt on Trump’s ability—or willingness—to rise above personal grudges.

Victor Blackwell’s question echoes far beyond the CNN studio: “What is this?” For many Americans, the answer seems clear. It is revenge. It is retribution. It is a president using the power of his office not to heal or unite, but to retaliate and dominate.

Whether this action will have long-term consequences remains to be seen. Legally, the memo stands. Politically, it may further divide an already fractured nation. But one thing is certain: Donald Trump has drawn a line, and he has done so without apology.

In doing so, he has invited a new round of criticism, legal challenges, and fierce debate about the boundaries of presidential power—and the promises made along the campaign trail.