Fact check: What are the charges against Adam Schiff?

1. What the allegation actually claims — sharp and narrow accusation

Republican leaders, most prominently House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, have alleged that Adam Schiff leaked classified material to damage President Trump; the public description centers on an unnamed Democratic House Intelligence Committee staff member who purportedly reported being pressured to leak during Trump’s first term ^[1]. The allegation is specific: unauthorized disclosure of classified information with political intent. Reports present this as a singular, targeted charge rather than a sweeping indictment of Schiff’s career; however, the primary reporting relies on secondhand accounts tied to one former staffer, making the factual foundation narrow and contested ^[1].

2. How Schiff’s office responds — denial and credibility attack

Schiff’s office rejects the allegation as a “smear” and “absolutely and categorically false,” stating the claims come from a disgruntled staffer fired by the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 and that prior reviews by the Department of Justice and an inspector general found that individual not credible ^[1]. The response frames the matter as politically motivated and previously examined; it stresses absence of corroboration and points to institutional vetting that, according to Schiff’s team, undermines the accuser’s reliability. That assertion, if accurate, shifts the debate to the accuser’s credibility rather than direct evidence about Schiff.

3. Source portrait: who’s saying what and why it matters

Reporting shows two camps: Republican committee leaders advancing the allegation and Schiff’s camp denying it and attacking the source ^[1]. All publicly cited accounts trace back to an unnamed former staffer, making source verification central. Given the political roles—Jim Jordan as a Republican chair and Schiff as a Democratic target—reports exhibit clear potential partisan incentives. The presence of an FBI or inspector general review referenced by Schiff’s office also matters for credibility, but public reporting in these pieces does not present independent confirmation of investigative outcomes beyond Schiff’s statement ^[1].

4. Timeline and procedural background — what we can confirm

The allegation, as reported, concerns events during Trump’s first term and a staffer dismissed in early 2017 ^[1]. Schiff’s denials explicitly reference prior internal and DOJ/inspector general attention to the staffer’s claims, implying the matter has appeared before official channels. Reporting dates for these accounts are mid-to-late September 2025, indicating a recent escalation tied to congressional oversight dynamics ^{[1] [3]}. The pieces do not document new criminal charges filed against Schiff, only allegations presented in committee settings and public statements ^[1].

5. Political context — why this allegation surfaced now

The allegations emerge amid ongoing partisan clashes: Schiff’s recent actions exposing alleged federal spending on banners and his positioning as an opponent on Trump-related investigations place him in the crosshairs of Republican oversight priorities ^{[2] [3]}. Statements that Schiff is on Trump’s “enemy list” and that the administration targets former critics help frame the allegation as part of a broader political campaign rather than a standalone legal development ^[3]. That context suggests both strategic timing by Republicans and defensive framing by Schiff’s allies.

6. What is missing from public reports — evidentiary gaps

Public reporting in these analyses does not present direct documentary evidence, such as classified materials traced to Schiff, interview transcripts, or formal criminal charging documents. Key missing elements include corroborating witnesses, details of the alleged leaks, and independent verification of the staffer’s claims beyond assertions by committee leaders. Schiff’s references to prior government reviews that found the accuser not credible, if verifiable, would be materially significant, but the reports here offer only Schiff’s account of those reviews ^[1].

7. Competing narratives and possible agendas — read the motivations

Republican committee leaders benefit politically from public allegations against a prominent Democratic critic; Schiff’s team benefits from discrediting the accuser and framing the claim as retaliatory. Both sides have incentives to shape the narrative: Republicans to justify oversight actions and Democrats to protect reputations and neutralize accusations. The presence of an unnamed source amplifies risk of mischaracterization and the potential for selective use of facts; the reporting reflects this tug-of-war without an independent adjudication presented in these pieces ^{[1] [3]}.

8. Bottom line — proven facts versus contested claims

Factually, the public record in these reports shows allegations that Adam Schiff leaked classified information, a categorical denial by Schiff’s office, and claims that the accuser lacks credibility based on prior reviews ^[1]. What is not shown is corroborating documentary or legal evidence against Schiff, any criminal charges filed, or independent verification of the accuser’s account within these reports. Readers should treat the claim as an unresolved allegation amid partisan contestation until investigators or courts produce verifiable, public evidence ^[1].