The Department of War revoked former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall's access to classified information after he publicly questioned the new Air Force One's capabilities, a move the Pentagon says followed unauthorized disclosures to the press.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell announced the revocation on X, stating that Kendall's eligibility for classified access and his ability to hold any sensitive position were terminated effective immediately. The action, Parnell's post made clear, stems from what the Department of War characterized as "unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Air Force One's capabilities to a media outlet."

Kendall, who served as Secretary of the Air Force under the Biden administration, had retained his security clearance after leaving office. Over the course of July, he gave a series of interviews raising pointed concerns about the Qatari-gifted Boeing 747-8 that President Trump designated as the new presidential aircraft. Those interviews appear to have drawn the Pentagon's formal response.

Kendall went on a media tour questioning Air Force One's readiness

On July 10, Kendall told CNN that the new jet required structural changes, including antennas for secure communications, and estimated the aircraft would need three to four years of modifications to match the capabilities of the outgoing VC-25A jets. Later that month, he sat for an NPR interview and cast further doubt on whether a one-month refit period could have accomplished anything meaningful.

"A month is not enough time to do anything significant. Software could be done. Software changes can be made relatively easily anyplace. Hardware modifications? I'm having a hard time imagining any that could be done in a month that are of any serious significance."

That was Kendall speaking to NPR, publicly second-guessing the security posture of the sitting president's aircraft on a national broadcast.

He also contributed to a Wall Street Journal report that, Fox News reported, revealed specific capability gaps between the Qatari-donated Boeing 747-8 and the older presidential jets. Among the shortfalls cited: the new aircraft lacked midair refueling capability and hardening against nuclear blasts, features built into the VC-25A models that had served presidents for decades.

The retirement of those legacy 747s after 35 years of presidential service made the transition to the new aircraft a matter of intense scrutiny. Kendall's public commentary turned that scrutiny into a political flashpoint.

Parnell called classified security a 'non-negotiable duty'

Parnell did not hold back in the announcement. His full statement framed the revocation not as a policy disagreement but as a breach of trust.

"Safeguarding classified information is a non-negotiable duty. Those who violate that trust forfeit the privilege of access and any role requiring it."

The Pentagon spokesman posted that statement alongside the formal revocation notice, linking the action directly to Kendall's media appearances. The Department of War did not specify which particular interview or report crossed the line, the CNN piece, the NPR interview, or the Wall Street Journal article, but the revocation followed the Journal's reporting.

White House communications director Steven Cheung pushed back on Kendall's assessments in July, well before the clearance revocation came down. Cheung defended the aircraft's security in direct terms.

"The new Air Force One is a state-of-the-art aircraft that has been fitted with high-level security protocols that ensure the safety of the President and his staff."

Cheung added a sharper note about the threat environment: "As the President has said recently, there are many enemies of America who have their sights on him, and we use every tool at our disposal to address those threats."

The context matters. When Trump unveiled the Qatar-gifted Boeing 747 as the new Air Force One, the transition was already generating questions about how quickly the jet could be fitted for presidential-level security. Kendall's decision to answer those questions on the record, and in granular technical detail, is what the Pentagon now says crossed a line.

Kendall denies disclosing classified material

Kendall has disputed the Pentagon's characterization. AP News reported that the former Air Force secretary denied wrongdoing, saying he was careful not to reveal classified details.

"I've always been extremely careful to not say anything classified, and as far as I know I have not."

That denial raises a question the reporting does not resolve: did Kendall actually disclose classified information, or did the Pentagon treat his public assessments of Air Force One's capability gaps as tantamount to a classified leak? The revocation notice itself uses the phrase "unauthorized disclosure," but neither Parnell's statement nor any other source in the available reporting identifies the specific classified detail Kendall allegedly revealed.

What is clear is that Kendall's media tour provided adversaries with a former Air Force secretary's expert assessment of the new presidential aircraft's vulnerabilities, including its lack of midair refueling and nuclear hardening. Whether or not those details were technically classified, broadcasting them on CNN and NPR gave hostile actors a roadmap of what the plane could and could not do.

The $400 million retrofit the aircraft underwent, AP reported, still left it short of the advanced antimissile capabilities and several security modifications built into the older Air Force One fleet. The security gap was serious enough that when President Trump left the NATO summit as the U.S. launched airstrikes on Iran, the Secret Service reportedly urged him to switch to an older Air Force One model for the flight.

Former officials who talk to reporters face a different Pentagon

For decades, former defense officials have retained security clearances after leaving government. The practice served a practical purpose: it allowed incoming administrations to consult predecessors on sensitive matters. But it also gave former officials a platform, and a credibility boost, when they chose to speak publicly about defense programs.

Kendall used that platform aggressively. He did not offer vague concerns about the new Air Force One. He provided specific technical critiques, antennas, communications architecture, modification timelines, to multiple national outlets over the span of a single month. The Pentagon's response signals that the current administration views that kind of public commentary from a clearance-holding former official as a security risk, not a policy debate.

Security breaches, whether through carelessness, political motivation, or outright leaks, have consequences that extend well beyond Washington turf battles. When a former cabinet-level official publicly catalogs what a presidential aircraft cannot do, the audience is not limited to American voters. Every foreign intelligence service in the world takes notes. The vulnerability of institutions to information breaches is a recurring problem in Washington, and the Kendall case is a reminder that the damage is not always measured in stolen emails or hacked servers. Sometimes it is measured in what a former official chose to say on the record.

Several open questions remain. The Department of War has not disclosed the formal legal authority or administrative process behind the revocation. Kendall has not indicated whether he intends to challenge the action. And the specific Wall Street Journal report that preceded the revocation, the one the Pentagon's statement appears to reference, has not been identified by date or headline in available reporting.

If Kendall truly disclosed classified information, the revocation is the minimum appropriate response. If he did not, the Pentagon owes the public a clearer explanation of what he said that crossed the line. Either way, a former Air Force secretary spent a month publicly detailing the security shortcomings of the aircraft that carries the president of the United States, and the people responsible for protecting that president decided they had heard enough.