Samantha Vinograd is a CNN national security analyst. She served on President Obama's National Security Council from 2009-2013 and at the Treasury Department under President George W. Bush. Follow her @sam_vinograd . The views expressed in this commentary are her own. View more opinion articles on CNN.

(CNN) During my four years at the White House and six years in the US government, I went through various rounds of security clearance processes. The first time, it was to get the clearance I needed to join the US Treasury Department and deploy overseas to Iraq, and later to renew that clearance and gain access to higher levels of classified information. Never, at any point, did I hear about the two Presidents that I served under -- President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama -- nor any member of their team intervening to get someone a clearance when experts advised against doing so.

Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings has shared that a whistleblower said that the White House pushed for 25 security clearances to be granted despite "serious disqualifying issues."

This means that there is a larger chance that foreign intelligence services have access to what should be our most private places and sensitive information.

While my former bosses understood the benefits of letting experts determine who is responsible enough to handle classified information, the Trump administration's failure to take such a basic set of security precautions is already imperiling our national security.

The White House has not yet made a comment, but Congressman Jim Jordan -- who sits on the Oversight Committee -- has discounted the whistleblower's allegations, and the intent behind the whistleblower's testimony and Cummings' oversight investigation.

White House staffers have historically been appointed to positions based on some underlying characteristics which include being qualified for the job and being able to responsibly conduct their work on behalf of our government, not anyone else's.

To ensure that prospective White House personnel can responsibly handle classified information, a team of experts review their background and official answers provided in a security clearance application, known as an SF-86 . One of the primary goals of a security clearance investigation done by the FBI or CIA is to ensure that a foreign government doesn't know something about an applicant that the US government does not -- drug use, a secret marital affair, debts, and other imbroglios that an applicant may want to keep secret. That's why behavior before government service -- and how an applicant represents it -- is so carefully considered.

JUST WATCHED Whistleblower: White House ignored 'grave security risks' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Whistleblower: White House ignored 'grave security risks' 02:10

These could all prove to be manipulation points that a foreign government could use against a US official. Lying on that form or failing to disclose foreign contacts or dealings (which Jared Kushner reportedly failed to do ) is often a major red flag for that reason.

Kushner's lawyer said in a statement that Kushner's application "was prematurely submitted and, among other errors, did not list any contacts with foreign government officials. The next day, Mr. Kushner submitted supplemental information stating that he had had 'numerous contacts with foreign officials' about which he would be happy to provide additional information."

The goal is to mitigate the chances that anyone with a clearance divulges classified information to an unauthorized person -- especially a foreign one. This could result in grave damage to national security.

If red flags about an applicant are raised -- and later overruled by senior White House officials or the President himself -- that means that the very people supposedly charged with protecting our national security are knowingly taking steps that could damage it. The outstanding question is why.

JUST WATCHED Ivanka Trump's security clearance comes under scrutiny Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Ivanka Trump's security clearance comes under scrutiny 02:39

The public nature of these clearance mishandlings means that they could already be having an impact. We rely on foreign governments -- our intelligence partners -- for some of our most critical intelligence, including on issues that we don't have great eyes and ears on. It is logical that if our partners know that people who experts don't think can be trusted are accessing intelligence, they'll stop sharing it as readily because it could cost them their own sources and methods.

Those who did get clearances based on expert recommendations may also feel less comfortable having candid, substantive, classified conversations at work. I never once sat down with my White House colleagues and knew that there were "disqualifying issues" that could mean that they were counterintelligence risks. Having people who should have been disqualified from any White House role participating in a classified discussion will probably lead others to censor what they're saying, because they can't be sure who is really listening.

White House staff are prime targets for foreign intelligence services because of their access to classified information and influence over US policy. That's why they have historically been thoroughly vetted and investigated and also why the staff gets regular security and counterintelligence briefings. If experts thought that at least 25 people on this administration's White House staff shouldn't get clearances, but they were awarded over experts' objections, the President and other senior officials at the White House created a perfect storm.

Stay up to date... Sign up for our new newsletter. Join us on Twitter and Facebook

Although it is legally accurate that the President can award clearances to whomever he chooses, relying on that talking point when trying to explain why officials insisted on awarding security clearances -- against experts' objections -- is a game of high stakes dodgeball.

It purposely avoids answering the question of why he and his team would want to increase the chances that a foreign government has easy access to our most private places.

Whether the President or whoever else was involved thought they knew better than the experts, or they just didn't care that they were making it easier for a foreign government to spy on us, or there was an urgent need to have staff cleared (every White House deals with the challenge of transitioning staff in), the decision to ignore disqualifications has pervaded this White House -- and it's going to impact America's national security.