Pentagon Revokes Frank Kendall's Security Clearance Over Alleged Disclosure of Air Force One Details

The United States Department of Defense has withdrawn the security clearance of Frank Kendall, former Secretary of the Air Force, effectively preventing him from accessing classified information or occupying positions that require such clearance. This action follows allegations that Kendall disclosed sensitive details about Air Force One's capabilities to the media.

The announcement came from Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell, who confirmed that the revocation was immediate. According to the Pentagon, this decision was based on accusations that Kendall had leaked classified information about the security and operational features of the presidential aircraft.

Parnell emphasized in a statement the critical duty of all present and past government officials to protect classified information. He noted that those who breach this trust lose the right to access such information and hold roles linked to national security responsibilities.

However, the Pentagon did not disclose the media outlet involved or the specific nature of the information deemed classified. Furthermore, it remains unclear if the issue will lead to criminal investigation or prosecution.

Kendall, refuting the claims, expressed his confusion over the decision. He insisted that during his tenure, he had diligently avoided disclosing classified information and stated that no agency had informed him of the specific details he was accused of revealing.

The situation arises amid recent media reports about a Boeing 747 provided by Qatar for use as a temporary Air Force One. The aircraft, reportedly modified at a cost of about $400 million, has been utilized for domestic journeys and President Donald Trump's trip to Turkey.

Reports had indicated that the plane lacked several advanced security, communication, and defensive features found on the current Air Force One fleet. The New York Times reported Kendall's comments that time constraints had prevented the incorporation of all standard modifications, leaving out certain security and communication capabilities.

Kendall had raised concerns over the use of the aircraft outside the US, especially given rising tensions with Iran, pointing out the potential implications of missing specialized features. He had also noted that achieving full Air Force One standards would require an additional three to four years for engineering modifications.

During his visit to Turkey for a NATO summit, President Trump traveled on the aircraft but switched to an older Air Force One following US military actions against Iran and subsequent attacks on several Gulf Arab states by Tehran. Reports suggested the US Secret Service recommended the switch for security reasons, though the President denied that the aircraft's capabilities were a factor.

The US Air Force defended the expedited conversion process, claiming the aircraft was modified without sacrificing security, safety, or secure communications. Nonetheless, officials admitted that it lacks every feature of the traditional Air Force One fleet, with some complex engineering modifications deliberately excluded. These omissions reportedly include certain structural adjustments like wider emergency exits and integrated boarding stair systems.

The case has drawn further attention due to previous efforts by the US Justice Department to identify sources behind media reports about the aircraft. The department had issued subpoenas to New York Times journalists to reveal confidential sources, but these were later withdrawn following judicial criticism.

Kendall's case marks the latest instance of security clearance revocations under the Trump administration involving national security officials, both current and former. Although no criminal charges have been announced in Kendall's case, unauthorized disclosure of classified information in the US could lead to investigations under the Espionage Act if it is determined that national security details were improperly shared.

The Pentagon has not provided additional information regarding the evidence backing its decision, leaving the issue to face ongoing scrutiny amid continuing debates over the balance between classified information, public accountability, and official commentary on national security matters.