In a defamation trial involving CNN, the plaintiff testifies that he lost his security clearance due to recent courtroom discovery.

On Thursday, Zachary Young, the plaintiff, testified that he does not possess a security clearance, despite CNN's suggestion that having one would prove he is still able to work and not harmed by the network's reporting, as his defamation lawsuit approaches its conclusion.

A Navy veteran named Young claims that CNN falsely accused him of profiting illegally when he helped people flee Afghanistan during the Biden administration's withdrawal in 2021. Young believes that CNN damaged his reputation and business by branding him as an illegal profiteer who exploited "desperate Afghans" in a November 2021 segment.

On Wednesday, Judge Henry was informed by Young's lead counsel, Vel Freedman, that his client had recently lost his security clearance, which had been renewed following the CNN report. The CNN legal team had previously argued during the trial that Young's ability to maintain a security clearance proved his ability to work despite the CNN segment.

Young discovered that he lost his security clearance in 2022 after testifying, and Freedman informed the jury that Helios Global, the firm that held Young's now-defunct security clearance, "dissolved" the relationship in 2022.

Government-issued permission to access and handle classified information is necessary for many jobs available to defense contractors. Young, who worked for a defense contractor, testified that private firms are responsible for maintaining and renewing security clearances.

On Thursday, Freedman summoned Young to the stand to clarify matters, inquiring about his current security clearance status.

"No, I don’t," Young said.

"When did you find out?" Freedman asked.

"Two days ago," Young answered.

David Axelrod, a CNN commentator with the same name as the network's lead counsel, questioned Young during cross-examination.

Does it hold true that if a company possesses your security clearance, they must be deemed acceptable or authorized to work with you? Axelrod inquired, to which Young admitted he lacks knowledge about the specifics of the process.

Axelrod asked, "Would you agree that a company granting your security clearance does not imply that they won't work with you?"

"That’s right," Young said.

Axelrod inquired, "Isn't it true that you discovered you lack a security clearance with Helios, as per your testimony?"

For many years, Helios was the only company that held Young's clearance.

Young said, "I just discovered that it hasn't been true for a couple of years."

In 2022, after the CNN report aired, Helios Global dropped Young's clearance.

Is it correct that you are unsure if the U.S. government has indeed revoked your security clearance? Axelrod inquired.

"It's common knowledge in our industry that you have to have a company hold your clearance for you, and you don't get to keep it as an individual," Young testified.

The government does not inform individuals when a clearance is terminated, according to Young.

"That’s not how it works," he said.

Axelrod observed that Young retained security clearance until November 2022. Young is uncertain if the CNN segment was the direct cause of the clearance termination.

After Young exited the stand, Judge Henry provided juror instructions before closing arguments.

On Thursday, Adam Levine, senior vice president of news and executive editorial director at CNN, admitted under oath that the network only apologized to Young for legal reasons. Several CNN staff members have testified that Young did not deserve an on-air apology.

The ongoing trial can be streamed live here.