Jim Jordan Accuses Adam Schiff of Leaking Classified Intel to Damage Trump During Patel Hearing

In a dramatic and highly charged congressional hearing this week, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) accused Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) of authorizing the leak of classified information in 2017 in an effort to politically damage then-President Donald Trump. The allegations, revealed during testimony by former Director of National Intelligence official Kash Patel, have ignited a firestorm in Washington.

Jordan’s claims center around newly declassified FBI documents and whistleblower testimony, which suggest that during the early days of the Trump presidency, Schiff—then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee—held a closed-door meeting with Democratic staffers. According to the whistleblower, Schiff allegedly told aides to leak classified material that cast Trump in a negative light, particularly regarding the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative.

“This wasn’t about oversight,” Jordan said during the hearing. “This was about weaponizing classified intelligence for political warfare. And the American people deserve to know how far it went.”

The whistleblower’s account, which was provided to the FBI and partially summarized in declassified 302 interview reports, claims that staff members raised concerns about the legality of leaking such sensitive material. Schiff allegedly reassured them that “they wouldn’t get caught.” Patel, who was involved in national security oversight during the Trump administration, confirmed that the whistleblower provided this information under oath in 2018.

While the evidence presented is still being vetted, Jordan emphasized that the whistleblower was a long-serving Democratic committee staffer—not a partisan appointee—lending the claims more weight in the eyes of Republicans on the panel. Patel described the alleged actions as “a coordinated disinformation campaign, carried out under the guise of congressional oversight.”

In response, Schiff’s office forcefully denied the accusations, calling them “categorically false and defamatory.” Schiff’s spokesperson stated, “This is a recycled smear campaign, using cherry-picked documents and discredited sources, designed to distract from the real threats facing democracy.” Schiff has not publicly addressed the hearing as of this writing, but allies say he is preparing a formal response.

Still, Jordan’s remarks have reignited longstanding Republican concerns about Schiff’s role during the Russia investigation, where he frequently appeared on cable news claiming to have “seen evidence” of Trump’s collusion with Moscow—evidence that never materialized in the Mueller Report. For conservatives, this hearing feels like validation of years-long suspicions that intelligence was manipulated for political ends.

Legal analysts, however, caution that the allegations—while serious—do not yet constitute definitive proof of criminal behavior. “There’s a big difference between internal political discussions and the unlawful leaking of classified information,” one national security expert noted. “Intent, authorization, and verification are critical here.”

Still, the political implications are undeniable. With Republicans now controlling key oversight committees, the calls for accountability are growing louder. Jordan has indicated that more witnesses may be called, and further whistleblower disclosures could follow.

Whether these revelations lead to formal investigations—or remain a partisan flashpoint—remains to be seen. But what’s clear is that the battle over the legacy of the Trump presidency, and the Russia investigation that haunted it, is far from over.