Newly declassified FBI interview documents have reignited claims that Senator Adam Schiff ordered the leak of confidential information during the height of the Trump-Russia probe.
According to documents, between 2017 and 2023, an unidentified whistleblower — described as a Democratic intelligence officer working for the House Intelligence Committee — repeatedly told the FBI that Schiff approved classified material leaks to damage then-President Donald Trump politically. Schiff was the committee’s ranking House Democrat at the time, and he ultimately became chairman.
The whistleblower claimed that Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California was most likely the direct source of the leaks, which they stated were intended to advance the so-called “Russiagate” narrative.
“When working in this capacity, [redacted staffer’s name] was called to an all-staff meeting by SCHIFF,” one FBI interview summary states. “In this meeting, SCHIFF stated the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP. SCHIFF stated the information would be used to indict President TRUMP.”
Swalwell has refuted any such implication and asserted that FBI Director Kash Patel is pursuing him for political motives.
According to the whistleblower, Schiff promised him the role of CIA Director if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 presidential election. That pledge was never fulfilled following Clinton’s defeat, but the whistleblower alleges Schiff continued to press for leaks that would disrupt Trump’s presidency.
The same source claimed they directly watched Schiff approve such disclosures and reported their concerns to federal officials. According to the declassified records, Justice Department officials expressed little interest in investigating Schiff’s alleged actions. The whistleblower claims they were immediately fired after informing the FBI.
The charges took on new dimensions when investigative journalist Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations alleged that Schiff’s leaks may have been directed to Washington Post national security reporter Ellen Nakashima.
Sperry cited previous reports that identified Nakashima as a significant media contact for senior intelligence officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, during the early years of the Russiagate scandal.
Declassified records reviewed by Sperry show that Brennan and other intelligence officials employed Nakashima to plant at least three significant news stories on the Russia probe.
Those stories, published between 2016 and 2017, contributed to the public perception that Trump’s campaign was seriously suspected of colluding with Moscow — a narrative that persisted for years despite Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s eventual finding of insufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy.
Critics contend that if Schiff did really allow the release of secret information to the press, it would be a significant breach of national security and a possible criminal offense. The Intelligence Committee’s work frequently entails access to highly sensitive information, and its members are required by law to secure classified data from unauthorized disclosure.
Schiff’s office has yet to provide a public reaction to the most recent charges. Previously, he denied leaking sensitive information, accusing his detractors of aiming to undermine legitimate oversight of the Trump administration.
The revelations also underscore enduring partisan differences regarding the application of intelligence and law enforcement powers in the 2016 election and its aftermath.
It’s unclear whether the fresh disclosures will lead to any legal prosecution.
For the time being, the most explosive claim — and there are many of them to date — is that the decision to leak classified information was not the result of a renegade staffer but rather was explicitly endorsed in a committee-wide meeting conducted by Schiff himself.
If true, such a claim might have serious legal and political ramifications, especially considering Schiff’s current position as a US senator. Schiff, however, has maintained for years that he has done no wrongdoing despite dozens of allegations from Republicans and many others.
Through his leadership PAC, Barr contributed multiple times to lawmakers including Reps. Anthony Gonzalez, John Katko, David Valadao, and Jaime Herrera Beutler—all of whom broke with Trump after the January 6 Capitol riot. A Trump adviser called Barr’s support “a slap in the face,” and others have labeled him a McConnell protégé unlikely to stand with Trump in tough moments.
Barr is competing against former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron and businessman Nate Morris. Cameron lost the 2023 governor’s race despite Trump’s endorsement, while Morris has come under fire for donating to Nikki Haley shortly before she challenged Trump in the 2024 GOP primary.
Barr’s team argues he remains a strong Trump ally and that his PAC has made hundreds of donations aimed at building GOP unity. His spokesman highlighted Trump’s past support for Barr and pointed to Morris’ backing of Haley and his business record as reasons to question Morris’s commitment to conservative principles.With Trump maintaining broad influence in Kentucky—where he won by over 30 points—his endorsement could be decisive in the 2026 Senate primary, shaping the future of GOP leadership in the state and beyond.