After two years, FBI relents on whistleblower’s pay, clearance

A version of this story appeared in the On Background newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive On Background delivered directly to your inbox each Friday.

FBI whistleblower Marcus Allen proclaimed victory Tuesday after the bureau restored his security clearance plus full back pay and benefits Friday.

Mr. Allen voluntarily resigned under a settlement agreement with the FBI that includes full restoration of his pay and benefits for the entire 27 months of his suspension by the bureau.

“It’s been a difficult couple of years, and I am truly grateful for my friends and family who helped us through this. While I feel vindicated now in getting back my security clearance, it is sad that in the country I fought for as a Marine, the FBI was allowed to lie about my loyalty to the U.S. for two years,” Mr. Allen said in a statement. “Unless there is accountability, it will keep happening to others. Better oversight and changes to security clearance laws are key to stop abuses suffered by whistleblowers like me.”

In a series of exclusive reports, The Washington Times detailed Mr. Allen’s cases and those of several other FBI whistleblowers who said bureau officials retaliated against them or punished them for political views by revoking security clearances, resulting in their suspension without pay.

Mr. Allen was represented by Empower Oversight and the American Center for Law and Justice in his fight against the FBI leadership.

Empower Oversight said the FBI “totally capitulated,” and the attorney group is urging Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to release the facts found in its inquiry, “given that the FBI did a 180 after 27 months on the verge of a final [Office of Inspector General] report.”

In a letter to Mr. Horowitz, Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt recounted the 27-month ordeal for Mr. Allen and his family. They were forced to take early withdrawals from retirement accounts to survive.

“Although he also agreed to withdraw his complaints to your office and is no longer employed with the bureau, Mr. Allen believes that the public and the FBI’s oversight committees in Congress must learn the facts discovered during your extensive inquiry,” Mr. Leavitt wrote.

He stressed that FBI whistleblowers shouldn’t have to choose between feeding their families and fighting for their right to due process while being free from retaliation for protected disclosures.

“Until there is sunlight and accountability for the FBI’s abuses in this case, the chilling effect on future whistleblowing at the FBI cannot be overstated,” he wrote.

The FBI responded by denying charges of lying to Congress.

“While we can’t comment on the specifics of any settlement, both parties agreed to resolve this matter without either admitting wrongdoing. Any allegation that the Director lied to Congress is false. The FBI takes seriously its responsibility to FBI employees who make protected disclosures under whistleblower regulations, and we are committed to ensuring they are protected from retaliation,” the agency said in a statement.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who has spearheaded an investigation of abuses in the ​FBI’s security division, also called SecD, praised Mr. Allen’s perseverance.

“Marcus bravely stood up to expose misconduct at the FBI, despite attacks from FBI bureaucrats and congressional Democrats,” Mr. Jordan said in a statement. “All Americans owe Marcus a debt of gratitude, and the FBI must also reinstate the security clearances of whistleblowers Garret O’Boyle and Stephen Friend.”

Several FBI whistleblowers, including Mr. Allen, testified before House lawmakers last year about being punished by having their security clearances and pay revoked.

Mr. Horowitz faulted the Justice Department for not providing an inspector general appeal process for employees whose security clearances are suspended for more than one year and who say an agency is retaliating against them.

According to the inspector general’s office, federal law requires government agencies to establish a security clearance review process that “permit[s] … individuals [with retaliation claims] to retain their government employment status while [the security clearance review] is pending.”

According to the inspector general’s review, the Justice Department policy doesn’t restrict or provide guidance on how long an employee can be suspended indefinitely without pay while the security review process is pending.

Mr. Horowitz said the Justice Department doesn’t consider “any practicable alternatives to indefinite suspension without pay during a security investigation for employees.”

He made four recommendations to address the problems:

• Let employees file a retaliation claim with the inspector general’s office when a security clearance review or suspension lasts longer than one year.

• Ensure that employees are notified in writing of their right to file a retaliation claim with the inspector general’s office when a security clearance review or suspension lasts longer than one year.

• Ensure that employees whose security clearance has been suspended, revoked or denied and who have made retaliation claims have an opportunity to “retain their government employment status” during a security investigation.

• Implement a process to “make every effort to resolve suspension cases as expeditiously as circumstances permit.”

Mr. Allen’s security clearance was suspended after the FBI accused him of having conspiratorial views about the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and of sympathizing with criminal conduct.

According to a November 2023 protected whistleblower disclosure sent by a SecD employee to lawmakers, senior SecD officials Dena Perkins and Jeffrey Veltri opened an investigation into Mr. Allen because he emailed several news items within his office related to former President Donald Trump that were deemed conspiratorial.

The executives in Mr. Allen’s field office in Charlotte, North Carolina, were not pushing for him to lose his security clearance or even have an administrative misconduct charge leveled against him.

The Charlotte field office planned to handle the matter by having Mr. Allen transferred from working in domestic terrorism to another branch within the field office.

The investigation into Mr. Allen continued after SecD found no anti-American issues, the disclosure says.

According to the disclosure, SecD concluded Mr. Allen was sympathetic to conservative viewpoints when he performed two background checks on subjects with whom he found no glaring issues. SecD investigators did conduct subsequent checks and found information that they said was sympathetic to right-wing ideologies.

“There was no indication that Allen had actually ever seen the information. However, Perkins and Veltri had decided that Allen had hidden the information because he was sympathetic to anti-American conservative groups,” the protected disclosure said.

The disclosure also says a senior SecD employee challenged Ms. Perkins’ assessment that Mr. Allen was anti-American and told her she couldn’t devise information about a Marine who had fought in combat. Ms. Perkins responded by having that SecD employee transferred to a “do nothing” job until he left SecD.

Another SecD employee also complained to Ms. Perkins about her treatment of Mr. Allen. Ms. Perkins had her mind made up, and Mr. Allen’s security clearance was revoked, according to the whistleblower disclosure.