Newly declassified documents from an FBI interview have reignited serious claims that Senator Adam Schiff allegedly authorized the release of classified information during the peak of the Trump-Russia investigation. According to the material, between 2017 and 2023, an unnamed whistle-blower—a Democratic intelligence officer previously assigned to the House Intelligence Committee—asserted that Schiff, then the committee’s ranking Democrat and later its chairman, directed the dissemination of sensitive material designed to politically damage President Donald J. Trump.

The whistle-blower claimed that the leaks were not the work of an isolated staffer, but rather part of a broader scheme orchestrated in an all-staff meeting called by Schiff. “When working in this capacity, [redacted staffer’s name] was called to an all-staff meeting by SCHIFF,” one FBI interview summary reads. “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.” According to the source, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) was likely the direct conduit for the leaks. Swalwell has vehemently denied the allegations and asserted that FBI actions targeting him are politically motivated.

The witness also alleged that before the 2016 presidential election, Schiff promised to the whistle-blower the position of CIA Director, contingent on Hillary Clinton winning the presidency. Although Clinton’s loss rendered that pledge moot, the whistle-blower says Schiff nonetheless persisted in urging the release of classified materials that could disrupt Trump’s tenure. The source claimed firsthand involvement: they reported witnessing Schiff give approval for the disclosures, and they alerted federal officials before being terminated soon after contacting the FBI.

Despite the gravity of the claims, Justice Department officials, per the documents, showed limited interest in pursuing an investigation into Schiff’s role. The declassified records suggest the matter was largely dropped, raising questions about accountability at the highest levels.

Adding to the intrigue, investigative journalist Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations linked the alleged leaks to prominent media outlets. He cited documents suggesting that Schiff’s disclosures may have been aimed at guiding material to Washington Post national-security correspondent Ellen Nakashima. Sperry pointed to earlier reports identifying Nakashima as a go-to reporter for senior intelligence officials—including former CIA Director John Brennan—during the early stages of what became known as “Russiagate.” According to the records, officials such as Brennan used Nakashima to plant at least three major stories between 2016 and 2017 that significantly shaped public perception of Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia—despite Special Counsel Robert Mueller later finding insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

If the whistle-blower’s assertions are accurate, they would represent more than a journalistic controversy: they would indicate a serious breach of national-security protocol and potentially criminal conduct. Members of the House Intelligence Committee handle highly classified information and are legally obligated to safeguard it; sanctioning leaks to the press would violate those obligations and undermine the committee’s credibility.

Schiff’s office has not yet issued a public response to this round of allegations. In prior instances, Schiff has denied any leaks of classified data and has argued that criticisms of him are part of a larger effort to weaken congressional oversight of the Trump administration. He maintains he has done no wrongdoing, despite repeated claims—many from Republican critics—questioning his conduct during the probe.

The broader significance of these revelations cannot be overstated. The allegations underscore deep partisan divisions over how intelligence and law-enforcement tools were used—or misused—during and after the 2016 election. Moreover, the whistle-blower’s core claim—that the decision to leak classified information originated from a committee-wide meeting chaired by Schiff, rather than from a rogue aide—raises the possibility of significant legal and political consequences.

For now, it remains uncertain whether these disclosures will trigger formal criminal or congressional proceedings. Nevertheless, the most explosive element of the story is the assertion of direct approval from Schiff himself: that he convened the meeting, directed the leaks, and set in motion a plan to use highly sensitive material against a sitting president. Should those claims ever be conclusively proven, they would alter the narrative around the Trump-Russia probe and raise profound questions about the use of intelligence for political ends.