You're not wrong, and I get the aversion to any [modern] precedent that nationalization sets. It's not one I'd like to see set either.
I think the more reasonable crux here is why there was no clearance revocation. The guy inserted himself into geopolitics in a manner that ran counter to DoD and USG foreign policy while operating critical defense infrastructure, temporarily (with limited scope) revoking an allied nation's access[0], and being privy to secrets involving said infrastructure.
If in the future we're putting SDI-like capabilities onto satellite constellations his company operates, why let someone with undeclared back-channel comms with a foremost strategic adversary be cleared on the design and operational details of something critical to US strategic defense and national security? The very adversaries that such programs are designed to counter and deter.
That's before you even consider instability from doing every drug under the sun, which normally would be sufficient grounds alone.
I've no doubt he believes himself to be a patriot and probably hasn't violated his oath. It's just that holding a clearance has traditionally been based on risk. Regardless, not like there's anything anyone can do about it now.
To put this in perspective, Canada's wondering lately if the US is going to attempt to annex them. Should that happen, it definitely seems like a foreign policy objective of an adversary of the US, rather than one in the interests of the US.
I'd like to think any reasonable person views this entire situation as nutty, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.
