Fact check: Which congressional committees are involved in the investigation into Adam Schiff?

1. Why this looks like two separate tracks — criminal prosecutors versus House ethics scrutiny

The materials describe a federal criminal probe led by Maryland federal prosecutors and the Justice Department that has, according to reporting, shown hesitancy to charge amid evidentiary concerns. That investigation is described as operationally within the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, with no mention of congressional investigative jurisdiction in the criminal matter ^[1]. Separately, the House previously advanced H.Res.521, a censure resolution which explicitly names the House Ethics Committee as the vehicle for congressional disciplinary scrutiny. These are institutionally distinct processes: criminal prosecutors pursue potential crimes, while the House Ethics Committee adjudicates member conduct under House rules ^{[2] [1]}.

2. What the sources say about the Justice Department’s role and limits of congressional involvement

Reporting from October 2025 emphasizes that the DOJ and Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office are driving the investigative work, with decision-making centered on prosecutorial thresholds rather than congressional oversight. Those pieces note prosecutors in Maryland and DOJ officials deliberating on whether evidence supports charges, and they do not list standing congressional committees as participants in the criminal inquiry ^{[1] [3]}. This framing underscores separation of prosecutorial authority from congressional discipline, and indicates that any congressional role would be separate and administrative, not substitutive of criminal processes ^[1].

3. The House Ethics angle: H.Res.521 and the committee named in the record

H.Res.521, dated in the provided material to mid-2023, is explicit in its censure language and names the House Ethics Committee as the body tied to that disciplinary action, criticizing Schiff for alleged misleading statements and conduct unbecoming a member. That House action is a legislative, not criminal, mechanism and carries political and reputational consequences rather than criminal penalties. The presence of H.Res.521 in the record demonstrates that congressional disciplinary mechanisms have been used historically against Schiff, separate from any federal prosecutorial inquiry ^[2].

4. Conflicting or absent claims about Senate committees and Schiff’s current committee assignments

Some provided analyses note Senator Schiff’s membership on several Senate committees—Judiciary, Agriculture, Environment and Public Works, and Small Business—which reflect his 2025 committee placements but do not indicate those committees are investigating him. The materials clearly separate committee membership from investigatory involvement, emphasizing that Senate committees named in personnel announcements are not reported as participants in the Maryland criminal probe ^{[4] [5]}. This distinction mitigates conflation between committee service and investigative jurisdiction ^[4].

5. How reporting frames uncertainty and the current status of the criminal probe

October 2025 reporting in the dataset characterizes the criminal investigation as stalled or hesitant on charging decisions due to perceived insufficient evidence, with prosecutors and the DOJ weighing next steps. That portrayal underscores prosecutorial discretion and evidentiary thresholds rather than legislative oversight as determinative of whether charges proceed. The reporting explicitly ties these deliberations to DOJ actors rather than identifying a parallel congressional investigatory effort into alleged mortgage-related conduct or other criminal matters ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Where partisan motives or narrative framing appear in the sources

The H.Res.521 censure material originates from a 2023 House measure and carries explicit accusatory language, which signals a partisan legislative maneuver with political aims beyond neutral fact-finding. The criminal-probe pieces emphasize prosecutorial caution and the limits of available evidence, which can be framed by different outlets either as prudence or as reluctance to prosecute. Given the differing institutional incentives—House members aiming at political accountability and DOJ guided by legal standards—readers should note the potential for agenda-driven framing in both congressional and media contexts ^{[2] [1]}.

7. Bottom line: which committees are involved, per the provided record

Based solely on the supplied material, the House Ethics Committee is the only congressional committee explicitly tied to any formal action regarding Adam Schiff via H.Res.521, while no congressional committee is reported as participating in the DOJ’s Maryland criminal investigation. Senate committee listings reflect Schiff’s assignments but not investigatory roles. Therefore, the most accurate summary from these sources is that congressional involvement is disciplinary (House Ethics) and criminal investigation authority rests with DOJ prosecutors in Maryland ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

8. What to watch next and questions left open by the record

Future clarity will depend on whether the DOJ announces charges or refers matters to Congress, and whether any congressional committees open their own formal inquiries beyond the Ethics process. The record supplied does not show a congressional criminal probe or coordination between DOJ and a congressional investigatory committee, leaving open whether the House Ethics matter will evolve or whether new committee actions will be initiated. Observers should track DOJ filings, any formal committee subpoenas, and updated public statements from the House Ethics Committee and the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office for corroboration or change ^[1].