House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff will permit President Donald Trump's new intelligence chief to declassify additional portions of a 2018 Republican-led committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Democrats have derided the report as a whitewash of the episode, contending that Republicans closed their inquiry without seeking testimony from central witnesses and refused to subpoena others who wouldn’t answer fundamental questions. But an aide to the Schiff-led committee said Thursday that Schiff "won't object" to John Ratcliffe's request to view the unredacted report and consider whether additional portions might be declassified for the public.

The move is the latest indication that the administration is pursuing Trump's demands to relitigate the investigations that dogged the first three years of his presidency. Trump has repeatedly assailed the Russia probes as a "hoax" and "witch hunt. Since Trump survived a Senate impeachment trial, he has sought to oust officials across government he viewed as disloyal, and he has installed some of his fiercest allies in senior intelligence roles amid this effort.

The GOP report, based on nearly 60 witness interviews, produced no evidence that Trump or his associates conspired with Russians during the Kremlin's 2016 interference. The panel also raised questions about the intelligence "tradecraft" used by the Obama administration to determine that Russia favored Trump to win, though that conclusion has since been reaffirmed by special counsel Robert Muller and the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee.

“The Republican report was properly met with derision at the time, and conflicts not only with the unanimous conclusion of the intelligence community, but special counsel Mueller’s evidence and findings, evidence presented in criminal indictments, the bipartisan findings of the SSCI, and the report of the then-HPSCI minority," a House Intelligence Committee aide said. "The GOP report remains a transparent effort to rewrite the history of the 2016 election by disputing the clear and proven finding that Putin preferred Trump’s election to the presidency."

The panel's response followed Ratcliffe's request for a new look at the 2018 GOP report, revealed in a letter to Senate Republicans made public earlier Thursday. In the letter, Ratcliffe provided a newly declassified portion of the Obama administration's review of Russian interference in the election and told the senators he would seek Schiff's permission for a new look at the 2018 GOP report.

"To ensure that the IC does not encroach on Congressional prerogatives, I have requested that the Chairman of HPSCI share a copy of the report with me so that the IC can conduct a classification review," Ratcliffe wrote in the June 10 letter.

Ratcliffe, a former GOP congressman who was confirmed last month as the director of national intelligence, was in his first term on the House Intelligence Committee when Trump nominated him to the post. He didn't play a role in the panel's crafting of the 2018 report, but he emerged as a sharp critic of the Mueller investigation from his perch on the panel, as well as on the House Judiciary Committee.

The office of the DNI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Schiff's reply.

Former State Department watchdog Steve Linick — ousted last month by President Donald Trump amid ongoing inquiries into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — told lawmakers last week that he has no idea whether the Pompeo probes were halted once he left the department in mid-May.

"I would have no indication one way or the other," Linick told lawmakers last week during a private, virtual interview held by the House Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees, according to a 253-page transcript released Wednesday.

The acknowledgment had Democratic lawmakers fretting that Linick's investigations into whether Pompeo and his wife misused State Department resources, as well as of Pompeo's handling of an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, may have been stopped or slowed down by the new leader of the inspector general's office.

Linick told lawmakers that he was shocked by his removal, which came abruptly on May 15. He said he had just concluded a coronavirus briefing with staffers that morning when Undersecretary Brian Bulatao and Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun, senior aides to Pompeo, asked him for a meeting.

"The deputy said to me: The president decided to exercise his power to remove you," Linick recalled.

Linick was then placed on administrative leave, losing access to his office and files. He was allowed back in the following day, with an escort, to reclaim his personal effects.

Linick's interview is the first in an ongoing review by congressional Democrats into allegations that Pompeo sought the watchdog's removal to blunt the ongoing reviews of his conduct.

The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump told reporters he removed Linick at Pompeo's request, but he provided no details about the rationale, despite a legal requirement to do so. His letter to Congress, required by law, simply stated that he had lost confidence in Linick. He later told reporters he had no knowledge of Linick or his performance — only that he had been appointed to the post by President Barack Obama.

Linick noted that the State Department informed Congress that the reviews were still ongoing, but he acknowledged that his successor, acting inspector general Stephan Akard, would have discretion over whether to continue it and how many resources to put into it. Akard has raised flags on Capitol Hill on both sides of the aisle because he is retaining his position as a senior State Department aide, in addition to the acting inspector general role. That dual-hatted position could jeopardize whistleblower protections or other confidential information that would normally be shared with the inspector general's office, lawmakers have warned.

Much of Linick's interview focused on allegations by Pompeo aides that Linick was suspected in the 2019 leak of an internal review to The Daily Beast, one that accused senior State Department officials of exacting political retaliation on some employees. Linick and a slew of his senior aides were ultimately cleared by the Pentagon inspector general, who he tapped to conduct the review.

The report of that investigation was provided to lawmakers, and Republicans raised questions about whether it was thorough enough and whether the Pentagon watchdog, Glenn Fine, was a neutral investigator. Fine was demoted by Trump in April after he was tapped by colleagues to monitor the federal coronavirus response. He resigned from his post last month.

Linick accused Bulatao, in particular, of "bullying" him and said he had never been given any indication that his performance was in question. Though Trump needs no cause to remove an inspector general, Linick said he never got any explanation for why the president might have lost confidence in him.

Linick also recounted his role in providing documents to Congress during the House's late-2019 impeachment inquiry and said he had been unaware that the files he turned over were the only ones provided by the State Department to lawmakers during that inquiry.

"When the impeachment proceedings started and the issues began concerning the whistleblower and so forth, I realized I was sitting on documents that might be relevant to that, and, in accordance with my obligations and to make sure that the right folks had the documents, I provided them to the Hill," Linick said.

Two House committees intend to interview senior State Department officials believed to be witnesses to matters that were being investigated by State Department inspector general Steve Linick before President Donald Trump abruptly fired him earlier this month.

The Oversight and Foreign Affairs panels, chaired by Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Eliott Engel, respectively, are probing Linick's firing and have emphasized that the watchdog was pursuing investigations related to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when Trump forced him into administrative leave, triggering a 30-day countdown to Linick's removal.

Trump told reporters he made the decision at the behest of Pompeo but otherwise knew little about Linick.

Among the officials the committees intend to call are Brian Bulatao, undersecretary of State for management; Lisa Kenna, Pompeo's executive secretary; senior adviser Toni Porter; Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs R. Clarke Cooper; former Deputy Assistant Secretary Marik String, a legal adviser to the department; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Political-Military Affairs Mike Miller; and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Charles Faulkner.

The committees believe the seven officials played a role in Linick's firing or are fact witnesses to Linick's ongoing investigations when he was sidelined — or both.

A State Department spokesperson indicated that officials are weighing the requests for interviews.

"As we communicated directly to Chairman Engel yesterday, the Department is carefully reviewing various requests for information, records, and interviews with State Department personnel, and is committed to engaging in good faith discussions with the Chairman concerning these requests."

The new investigation hearkens to the impeachment inquiry launched by the House Intelligence Committee, in conjunction with the Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees. At the time, the panels called a similar list of high-ranking State Department and Trump administration officials to investigate whether Trump had abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to probe his Democratic rival, Joe Biden.

It's unclear where the transcribed interviews will take place or whether the panels will issue subpoenas to compel testimony for any witness who refuses to appear voluntarily. But the committees say they intend to release public transcripts of the interviews "as quickly as possible."

After Trump removed Linick, reports revealed that the watchdog was reviewing whether Pompeo had relied on taxpayer-funded aides to do household chores for him and his wife. The inspector general was also examining the Trump administration's arms sale to Saudi Arabia, which were made over the objections of many senior officials, as well as Pompeo's role in hosting lavish taxpayer-funded dinners that often featured high-profile conservative guests.

Top House committee chairs are demanding that President Donald Trump reinstate the State Department watchdog he ousted at Mike Pompeo's request earlier this month.

In a Thursday letter to Secretary of State Pompeo, the Democrats who lead the Oversight Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee described the ouster of inspector general Steve Linick as "politically motivated" and suggested that Pompeo's role in it appeared meant to undercut Linick's ongoing investigations into his conduct — including his role in a series of lavish taxpayer-funded dinners that reports suggest were largely oriented toward conservatives and with little diplomatic value.

"Any attempt by you or your office to interfere with the Inspector General’s investigation of yourself is illegal and will be thoroughly examined by Congress," Oversight Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) write in the letter, also signed by subcommittee chairmen Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) and Joaquin Castro (D-Texas).

The lawmakers are asking Pompeo to provide by June 4 details about his contacts with the White House regarding Linicks' removal, as well as the rationale behind the choice of his temporary replacement, Stephen Akard, who Democrats worry will be a conduit to provide information about Linick's confidential work to agency leaders. The Democrats are also asking Pompeo for guest lists connected to his series of "Madison Dinners," as well as invoices, approvals and ethics decisions regarding the use taxpayer funds on the events.

The lawmakers sent a second letter to Akard, similarly asking him to provide details of his appointment by June 4. They also ask him to catalogue any of the ongoing investigations, audits and reviews Linick was conducting before his removal.

They're also urging Akard to resign from a separate State Department post in which he reports to Pompeo. The dual role, they say, could be used to funnel information from the inspector general's office to the officials being scrutinized, including Pompeo, and that would likely chill whistleblowers from coming forward, the Democrats write.

"This inherent conflict of interest will prohibit you from having the independence necessary to conduct fair and rigorous oversight of the Department and the Secretary," the lawmakers say.

Linick's ouster was the latest in a string of moves by Trump to either remove or fire inspectors general he deems disloyal to his administration. Trump has attacked all of the watchdogs appointed to their posts by President Barack Obama, even though some have worked across administrations of both parties for decades. Trump has relied heavily on acting inspectors general, who are more easily removed from their roles compared to Senate-confirmed appointees, whose ousters require notification to Congress.

Linick is the second Senate-confirmed inspector general removed by Trump in recent months. Trump also abruptly ousted intelligence community watchdog Michael Atkinson, citing his handling of a whistleblower complaint that accused Trump of wrongdoing in his effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. The report, which Atkinson sought to provide to Congress before the Justice Department blocked him, was later made public by the administration and ignited the House's impeachment of the president in December.

Though just two inspectors general have been fired abruptly, Trump has also demoted the watchdog tapped by fellow inspectors general to monitor his administration's handling of the coronavirus response. He also nominated a member of the White House counsel's team to fill a newly created watchdog role for Treasury's $500 billion economic stabilization fund created to bolster the economy amid the pandemic, a move that sparked outcry from Democrats.

Though lawmakers of both parties have urged Trump to nominate permanent inspectors general, Democrats also criticized Trump for picking a replacement for the acting Health and Human Services inspector general, Christi Grimm, who drew Trump's ire when she issued a report cataloging a lack of federal preparedness for the coronavirus crisis.

It's unclear if Democrats will be able to procure any details from the State Department. The House has struggled to obtain information from the State Department in previous efforts, including during its impeachment process, when Pompeo ignored Intelligence Committee subpoenas for documents about the president's efforts regarding Ukraine. Pompeo testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this year but faced no questions about Ukraine.

The intelligence community has completed a long-delayed review of transcripts connected to the House Republican-led investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, a development that could reignite the furor over the long-dormant probe.

Ric Grenell, President Donald Trump's acting director of national intelligence, informed lawmakers this week in newly disclosed correspondence that the White House has dropped its demand to review aspects of the testimony, which had led to a year-long standoff with Chairman Adam Schiff, who took control of the committee last year.

The move paves the way for as many as 53 transcripts from that investigation to be released publicly, more than two years after the probe concluded.

“After more than a year of unnecessary delay, the ODNI has finally concluded its protracted classification review of the Committee’s transcripts, and it also appears the White House has now abandoned its improper insistence on reviewing key transcripts, which the Committee appropriately rejected," a House Intelligence Committee spokesman said in a statement.

The spokesman indicated that the panel would be reviewing the intelligence community’s proposed redactions: “Our review of ODNI’s newly proposed redactions will be as expeditious as possible given the constraints of the pandemic, and we look forward to releasing these transcripts, which relate to misconduct by the Trump campaign and the president himself.” Aides to Grenell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The release of the transcripts themselves has been a saga. The GOP-led intelligence committee voted to send them to the intelligence community for a classification review in September 2018, and then-chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) suggested they could be released in time for the midterm elections. But the panel didn't transmit the transcripts to the DNI's office until November, nine months after the conclusion of an investigation riven by partisan sniping and distrust.

In March 2019, the ODNI informed lawmakers that the White House intended to review the transcripts — a prospect that Schiff rejected as an inappropriate incursion on the committee's request for a classification review. Intel officials agreed not to share the transcripts with the White House, but the episode led to a lengthy standoff. In June, intelligence officials proposed redactions for 43 of the 53 transcripts but indicated the White House wanted access to the remaining ten.

By September, as the House was gearing up for impeachment hearings against Trump, Schiff convened the committee for a vote to release the 43 vetted transcripts as well as two of the 10 stalled transcripts that were determined to include no classified information. The panel unanimously supported his proposal. Nunes, at the time, dinged the DNI's office for foot-dragging, and Schiff said the White House had "hijacked" the process. He indicated he intended to quickly release the vetted transcripts.

But as the impeachment process raged, the transcript matter went on the backburner, where it remained until last week, when Trump allies began demanding that Schiff produce them publicly. As the calls from conservatives mounted, Grenell sent his letter indicating that the issue with the 10 disputed transcripts had been resolved and there are no remaining impediments to releasing them.

It's unclear how quickly the panel can review ODNI's redactions, but the transcripts are expected to reach thousands of pages and reopen matters related to the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia — and the insistence of Trump and his allies that the entire matter was a "hoax" meant to derail his presidency.

President Donald Trump’s pick to police his administration’s massive coronavirus economic rescue effort vowed Tuesday that he would not seek Trump’s permission before reporting to lawmakers.

“Do you plan to gain presidential approval before investigating contacts, issuing reports or communicating with Congress?” asked Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), during a confirmation hearing for Brian Miller, Trump’s pick as a newly created special inspector general for pandemic response.

“No senator,” Miller replied.

Miller’s sworn assertion suggests he plans to uphold the language in the $2 trillion CARES Act, which requires the new inspector general to report to Congress anytime he is impeded in his investigative work. It’s a rejection of the position held by Trump, who in a March 27 signing statement said the newly established watchdog could not be permitted or required to report to Congress without “presidential supervision.”

“I do not understand, and my Administration will not treat, this provision as permitting the [IG] to issue reports to the Congress without the presidential supervision required [by the Constitution],” Trump said in the statement.

In the exchange with Cortez Masto, Miller also indicated that he would inform Congress “immediately” if any agencies asked him to withhold information, and that he would consider any effort to dole out massive sums of taxpayer money to states based “for political gain” a violation that he would review.

The back-and-forth was the most critical of Miller’s two-plus hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, which featured a slew of questions from Democrats about whether Miller’s current role as a White House lawyer disqualified him from acting as an independent inspector general.

Miller repeatedly vowed to resist any pressure from the president or other administration officials seeking to undermine his independence. He cited his track record of battling with officials from George W. Bush’s administration as a federal watchdog and vowed he wouldn’t “bend” for anyone in Trump’s orbit either.

But Miller sidestepped questions about whether he played a role, as a White House lawyer, in Trump’s abrupt dismissal of intelligence community watchdog Michael Atkinson last month or the president’s subsequent move to sideline another watchdog, Glenn Fine, who was initially picked to oversee the government’s broad coronavirus response. Miller, too, declined, to say whether he agreed with Trump’s characterization of Atkinson as a “disgrace to IGs.”

The hearing quickly became a skirmish in Congress’ broader confrontation with Trump’s efforts to dismantle or assert control over the independent watchdogs charged with monitoring his administration. Republicans largely backed Miller, rejecting suggestions that he might not be independent enough of the president. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) called such suggestions “innuendo.”

Miller is the first inspector general nominee to come before the Senate since Trump began a concerted effort to remake the community of federal watchdogs and remove those he has deemed, without basis, as acting with an anti-Trump bias. And Senate Democrats have raised concerns about whether a White House aide can truly exercise independence from a president determined to tighten his grip on the inspector general community.

“Looking at the last 20 years, we found only one IG candidate was nominated while serving in the White House counsel’s office, another nominee served in the White House counsel’s office under an earlier administration,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee. “Both of them resigned, one for politicizing the office, the other for a lack of independence. Not a great track record.”

Miller and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who appeared via video, sparred as she pressed him to make commitments on what might constitute potential abuses worthy of investigation.

Though he first resisted engaging in what he called "hypotheticals" — she said he made the commitments earlier to her in private — he agreed that a bailed-out corporation that lays off employees could spur an investigation, as well as companies that lobbied the White House and Congress before receiving funds.

"Certainly, situations where companies are spending the money for profits and laying off workers seems to be a situation that I would want to investigate," he said.

Under questioning from Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Miller said all inspectors general should be willing to face firing for providing honest information to their superiors.

"You should never be afraid of stating the truth and if you have to be fired, you’re fired," he said. "But you always have to be prepared, at least, to walk away from your job."

For his part, Miller, who Trump tapped as “special inspector general for pandemic response,” pledged to operate free of political influence, in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Miller, who is likely to be confirmed in the Republican-controlled Senate, would oversee a $500-billion fund managed by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve meant to shore up companies and industries ravaged amid the coronavirus crisis.

“I think independence is vital for the effective operation of any inspector general,” Miller said in response to questioning from the committee’s chairman, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). “I met with resistance throughout my tenure as inspector general. I conducted investigations of major contractors, much to the chagrin of leaders at the GSA … Ultimately I was proven right.”

To emphasize his willingness to buck a Republican administration, Miller recounted an investigation of President George W. Bush's GSA administrator, Lurita Doan, in which she marshaled agency officials to resist his investigation and described him as a "terrorist." He said he persisted with his probe and that ultimate Bush demanded her resignation.

The hearing became Democrats’ first chance to shine a public light on the independence of IGs since early April, when Trump fired Atkinson over his handling of a whistleblower complaint accusing the president of wrongdoing — one that ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate.

Since then, Trump also demoted Glenn Fine, the inspector general picked by colleagues to broadly overseeing the government-wide coronavirus response and nominated a replacement for the Health and Human Services inspector general, after accusing her without evidence of being an anti-Trump partisan.

Warren said Miller should have been disqualified for the position after working as one of Trump's impeachment attorneys, but she said "you will however have the chance to defend your independence and your integrity by your actions."

"If you stick to the commitments that you have made here, and you are an aggressive watchdog, then I'm prepared to work with you," she said.

"I would like to work with you, even if you don't vote for my confirmation as you indicated yesterday," he responded.

Democrats bristled at Miller’s response to questions about his role, as a White House lawyer, in responding to a GAO investigation of the president’s handling of military aid to Ukraine — a central issue that led to Trump’s impeachment. Miller replied to a GAO inquiry on the matter by deferring to a response from the White House budget office and declining to provide additional information to auditors. Miller told lawmakers Tuesday that his response was simply to avoid a duplicative response and that he was simply “answering the mail.”

The Federal Reserve, backstopped by Treasury funds, last month revealed programs designed to provide $2 trillion in support for the economy for a wide range of businesses as well as state and city governments with hemorrhaging budgets.

Trump indicated in his signing statement that he rejects requirements that inspectors general unilaterally communicate with Congress — and that he will ultimately decide whether the inspector general is able to speak to lawmakers about that issue, emphasizing that inspectors general are executive branch officials who report to him. His statement, though, ignores the long-standing independence afforded to inspectors general, which Trump has repeatedly tested during his term.

Though Democrats have raised the loudest alarms about Trump’s treatment of inspectors general, some Republicans, too, have gently encouraged him to reconsider his posture, including Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

The House voted Thursday to establish a new investigative committee to monitor President Donald Trump's implementation of nearly $3 trillion in coronavirus relief measures, a step they said would safeguard the massive sums flowing to businesses, hospitals and individual taxpayers.

"It will be laser-focused on ensuring that taxpayer money goes to workers' paychecks and benefits and it will ensure that the federal response is based on the best possible science and guided by health experts — and that the money invested is not being exploited by profiteers and price gougers," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi in remarks on the House floor.

But the measure passed on a party line vote of 212-182, with Republicans unanimously slamming the effort as a veiled attempt to damage Trump politically. They described it as redundant to the multiple congressional committees already have jurisdiction to monitor the law.

"Why do we need another oversight committee? Speaker Pelosi said it's all going to be bipartisan. I'm sorry, I don't believe it," said Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), who accused other Democrat-led committees of working "nonstop to criticize President Trump and try to influence the 2020 election."

"I'm sorry. I call B.S.,” she added.

Democrats said the newly established select committee, which will operate under the umbrella of the House Oversight Committee, is a crucial addition to an lengthening list of entities tasked with guarding against waste or mismanagement by the Trump administration, which has been notoriously averse to any form of independent scrutiny.

They noted that Trump has already begun resisting efforts by internal watchdogs — the inspectors general placed inside each federal agency — to communicate potential problems to Congress. Trump has also repeatedly stonewalled congressional oversight in non-coronavirus-related probes, eventually fueling an article of impeachment in the House.

But Republicans insisted from the start that Pelosi's intention could not be bipartisan. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, said the panel appeared to be an effort to aid former vice president Joe Biden's presidential bid.

He noted that multiple congressional committees were already responsible for conducting oversight, as well as several new mechanisms created in the multitrillion-dollar coronavirus relief laws. Those include a five-member Congressional Oversight Commission, a committee of inspectors general given broad authority over implementation of the law and a newly established inspector general for pandemic response. Lawmakers also sent millions of dollars to shore up the auditing power of the Government Accountability Office.

The measure passed after a remarkable House floor debate that featured lawmakers and aides clad in face masks, adhering to social distancing on the House floor. Several members, including Pelosi, removed their masks to deliver remarks.

A handful of Republicans, including Jordan, disregarded the House physician's recommendation that lawmakers wear masks when in the chamber and in other Capitol rooms shared by colleagues. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) thanked Pelosi for setting the trend of briefly removing face masks to speak, though some lawmakers wore theirs during floor remarks.

Pelosi reiterated that she intends to name House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) to lead the new select committee, citing his work overseeing the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. The new panel will be established as a 12-member subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, but it allows the speaker to name seven members and House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to name five. McCarthy previously told Pelosi he would hold off on appointing Republicans until he sees whom Democrats tap.

The new subcommittee will begin with a $2 million budget, and Clyburn will be authorized to issue subpoenas or take depositions. The committee's official charge is to examine the use of taxpayer funds to address the coronavirus crisis, potential waste or mismanagement, the effectiveness of new laws meant to address the pandemic, federal preparedness, the economic impact of the crisis, socioeconomic disparities in the impact of the crisis, the Trump administration's handling of the crisis, the ability of whistleblowers to report waste or abuse and the Trump administration's cooperativeness with Congress and other oversight entities.

Pelosi quickly dismissed Republican assertions that the panel would be a partisan weapon, suggesting it would focus less on Trump and more on those who would seek to exploit the massive infusion of taxpayer funds for wasteful or nefarious purposes.

"This isn't about assigning blame," Pelosi said, citing scam artists who have already sought to divert funds from pots of money meant to aid small businesses or support hospitals with lifesaving equipment. "This is about taking responsibility."

President Donald Trump's acting intelligence chief, Richard Grenell, has rebuffed a request from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for details about his efforts to reorganize the leadership of the office he is temporarily running.

In a Monday letter to Schiff, obtained by POLITICO, Grenell chides Schiff for asking about the leadership changes without acknowledging the appointment of two women as acting leaders of the National Counterterrorism Center.

"Diversity of the IC workforce should always be celebrated, and I am proud that we increased diversity within the ODNI's senior ranks, to include more women and members of the LGBT community," said Grenell, who is openly gay.

But Grenell's sharply worded missive is not responsive to any of Schiff's requests for details about the acting intelligence chief’s efforts to remake aspects of the intelligence community while serving in his role. Schiff said wholesale changes to the operation of the crucial national security apparatus would be inappropriate without a Senate-confirmed leader in place. He asked for details about the changes Grenell has reportedly imposed, as well as justification for the decisions.

"President Trump did not nominate you for confirmation as permanent DNI, and it would be inappropriate for you to pursue any additional leadership, organizational, or staffing changes to ODNI during your temporary tenure," Schiff wrote in an April 7 letter.

Grenell is seen as a diehard Trump loyalist, and his installation as acting DNI came amid Trump's fury at intelligence community leaders for their role in the investigation of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia in 2016, as well as their handling of the evidence that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political adversaries, including former vice president Joe Biden.

Since Grenell's appointment, other senior DNI officials have been pushed out or resigned, a high-level personnel shift that has accelerated as Trump tightened his grip on the intelligence community in the aftermath of his Feb. 5 acquittal in the Senate's impeachment trial. Trump's abrupt removal of Atkinson earlier this month has left the agency without any Senate-confirmed officials in its leadership ranks. In his letter, Grenell attributed the shakeup to his efforts to implement recommendations from career officials.

"Career IC officials have conducted four studies in the last two years calling for reforms at the ODNI, and the career officials are eager to implement the recommendations. It is my duty to listen to these ODNI career employees who have ideas on how to improve the work we do for the American people," Grenell wrote.

In a statement Tuesday, Schiff ripped Grenell's letter as insufficient and unresponsive.

“In his letter, Acting Director Grenell did not respond in any way to our oversight requests regarding the decision to fire the IC IG, sudden staffing changes at the NCTC, and his pursuit of structural and personnel changes at the ODNI without the approval of Congress," Schiff said in a statement. "And the Acting Director failed to respond to important questions about whether [DNI inspector general Michael Atkinson] was investigating matters that may go uninvestigated as a result of his firing by Trump. The simple fact he was not willing to respond to a reasonable request from his agency’s oversight committee raises new basis for our concerns, particularly given this Administration’s history of covering up blatant misconduct."

“The Office of the Director of National Intelligence owes us, and the Senate as well, answers to these questions," Schiff continued, adding. "We remain ready to work with ODNI to ensure compliance with our oversight requests, consistent with its legal obligation to keep the Committee fully and currently informed of its activities.”

Amid growing alarm over these changes in Congress, Schiff in his April 7 letter also asked Grenell for confirmation that Atkinson was never prohibited from conducting any investigations or audits before he was ousted. He also asked Grenell to certify that he would not allow any agency officials to be retaliated against for perceived disloyalty to Trump, particularly if they share evidence of misconduct to Congress.

Schiff also asked for details about whether any agency officials were blocked from sharing candid assessments with Congress about election security and potential foreign efforts to undermine the integrity of the 2020 election. He cited reports that "one or more members of your staff" might be interfering with the evidence provided to Congress.

Grenell rejected Schiff's characterization and said he felt "compelled to defend these career officers from unsubstantiated indictments of their motivations and judgment."

"Many are offended by the accusations that they did not share unvarnished assessments," Grenell said, asking Schiff to provide more evidence of his assertions.

Grenell also told Schiff "to think of the relationship between your committee and the IC as that between the legislative and executive branches of government, rather than that between a hedge fund and a distressed asset, as your letter suggests." And he needled Schiff for sending the letter without a Republicans co-signer.

Schiff and his committee's top GOP lawmaker, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have had a toxic relationship in recent years, with Nunes emerging as one of Trump's fiercest defenders in Congress while Schiff ramped up investigations into Trump's conduct and ultimately led the House's effort to remove the president from office.

"I strongly agree with your statement of a bipartisan legislative commitment to the IC," Grenell wrote. "I would hope to see this commitment reflected on the signature line of your future letters.

Two top House Democrats are asking internal Justice Department watchdogs to investigate Attorney General William Barr for recent comments they say misrepresented the facts about President Donald Trump's decision to fire Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) say Barr's comments, in an April 9 interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, may have violated DOJ's code of professional conduct, which requires officials to operate with "candor."

The two lawmakers asked Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz to investigate whether Barr violated professional responsibilities in his comments about Atkinson and also whether he improperly interfered in Atkinson's efforts to alert Congress to alleged misconduct by Trump last fall.

"The role of Attorney General Barr and other senior DOJ officials, in coordination with the White House, in attempting to prevent the whistleblower complaint from reaching Congress—as required by law—warrants your attention," they wrote, referring to the complaint that sparked Trump’s impeachment trial.

Trump abruptly fired Atkinson earlier this month, citing Atkinson's decision to inform Congress about the existence of a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate his Democratic adversaries. Atkinson deemed the complaint "urgent" and credible, which triggers a legal requirement to inform Congress. However, the White House and Justice Department intervened, overruling Atkinson's determination and blocking him from sharing it with Congress.

Ultimately, Atkinson did not share the complaint with Congress but the public pressure surrounding the incident led the administration to share the details with lawmakers in September.

Yet Barr, in his Fox interview, suggested Atkinson deserved to be fired because he violated Justice Department protocols, a characterization that Nadler and Schiff say falsely impugns his actions.

Justice Department officials acknowledged receiving the letter from the Democratic chairmen.

A senior DOJ aide said despite the allegations, Barr's assessment of Atkinson's conduct was correct. Atkinson, the official said, should have deferred to the Justice Department's legal opinion that Congress was not entitled to the substance of the complaint and was incorrect to inform lawmakers of its existence and that that he disagreed with DOJ's opinion to bar them from receiving it.

Schiff and Nadler noted that Atkinson's decision to inform Congress of the existence of the complaint was subsequently blessed by the acting intelligence director Joseph Maguire, who told lawmakers the same month that Atkinson handled the matter "by the book."

It's unclear if Horowitz will consider the lawmakers' request — he received an identical one from Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Mark Warner of Virginia last week as well. But the veteran watchdog has tangled with Trump repeatedly in recent years. Most notably, Horowitz defended Atkinson's actions surrounding the whistleblower report after Trump's decision to remove him.

"Inspector General Atkinson is known throughout the Inspector General community for his integrity, professionalism, and commitment to the rule of law and independent oversight," Horowitz said at the time. "That includes his actions in handling the Ukraine whistleblower complaint, which the then Acting Director of National Intelligence stated in congressional testimony was done 'by the book' and consistent with the law."

Horowitz also issued reports sharply critical of the FBI's handling of both the Clinton email investigation and Trump-Russia investigation, simultaneously providing fodder for Trump and his allies while also debunking a string of conspiracy theories about the handling of both probes.

In their letter, Nadler and Schiff also copied Jeffrey Ragsdale, the head of DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility, which handle internal disciplinary matters.

Lawmakers handed President Donald Trump $2 trillion in coronavirus relief — and then left town without activating any of the powerful new oversight tools meant to hold his administration accountable.

But with little fanfare, Congress’ independent, in-house watchdog is preparing a blizzard of audits that will become the first wide-ranging check on Trump’s handling of the sprawling national rescue effort.

And even as Trump has gone to war against internal watchdogs in his administration, the Government Accountability Office remains largely out of the president’s grasp because of its home in the legislative branch.

The GAO has quickly taken advantage of its perch, exploring the early missteps inherent in launching a multitrillion-dollar law that touches every facet of American life. By the end of April, at least 30 CARES Act reviews and audits — "engagements," per GAO lingo — are expected be underway, according to interviews with senior investigators.

Topics will range from the government’s handling of coronavirus testing to its distribution of medical equipment, and from the nation’s food supply to nursing home infections and any missteps in distributing the emergency cash payments that began landing in millions of Americans’ bank accounts this week. The office’s top fraud investigator said it’s already received a complaint about a check landing in the account of a deceased person.

“We’re moving forward very quickly,” said Angela Nicole Clowers, chief of the GAO’s health care unit. “We’re an existing institution and have a lot of institutional knowledge about all these programs. It gives us sort of a leg up.”

At a time when Trump has sought to undermine nearly every independent review of his administration’s conduct, the GAO is likely to dispatch most of its 3,000 investigators, experts and analysts into an arena that could make it a target for the president’s fury. And its quiet early work could soon become very loud: The office is required under the new law to brief Congress every month and issue a bimonthly public report on its findings.

But as an independent agency that works for Congress — not the president — the GAO has far more protection from Trump. A nonpartisan entity responsive to both Democratic and Republican requests for investigations, the office is also more insulated from partisan attacks than the traditional congressional committee investigations that Trump has stonewalled to the brink of irrelevance.

The office's head, U.S. Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, first started in the role in 2008 and was confirmed unanimously to the position in 2010 for a 15-year term, a lengthy tenure meant to protect against politics seeping into the post.

And the GAO will enter the fray with reinforcements at its disposal: The CARES Act provided a $20 million funding boost and the agency is now deciding where to target the funds to add auditors and experts who can aid its work.

“Within GAO, we have everyone from policy analysts or public policy people like myself,” Clowers said, “we have nurses, we have scientists, we have engineers, we have lawyers. You sort of name an occupation, we have ’em.”

With other oversight mechanisms established in the CARES Act languishing — or stymied by Trump — the GAO, at least for now, is on its own.

The GAO also has the benefit of having analyzed the federal response to the 2008-09 financial collapse, a similarly far-reaching effort whose successes and failures are now informing the office’s handling of coronavirus oversight.

“Things are always shifting and changing as the agencies shift and change to the evolving pandemic needs,” Clowers said, comparing it to the breakneck pace of the response to the financial meltdown. “We have experience doing that. We try to be as nimble as possible.”

Trump has already tangled with the GAO during the most perilous moment of his presidency, and the agency does face some hurtles in investigating him.

The office probed his decision to delay $400 million in military aid to Ukraine and found that he violated the law by failing to inform Congress of the move. It was a politically explosive finding even if Republicans largely ignored it during the impeachment trial. GAO also noted that the White House budget office and State Department were largely uncooperative in the probe — and the administration could impose similar limitations in its coronavirus work.

Clowers argued the GAO’s strong relationships with the agencies it oversees should minimize similar resistance to coronavirus relief oversight. The office has already been coordinating its efforts with internal agency watchdogs to ensure they bolster, and don’t duplicate, one another’s efforts. Clowers said she’s spoken with the inspectors general at the departments of Health and Human Services and of Veterans Affairs.

That’s allowed audits and investigations to begin even as the other policing bodies set up in the CARES Act are stuck in neutral.

Congressional leaders have yet to appoint a chair to lead a five-member commission meant to monitor a new $500 billion Treasury fund for distressed industries and companies. Trump nominated a White House lawyer to fill a newly created watchdog post to oversee the same $500 billion fund, but the choice has generated controversy and is unlikely to see confirmation for weeks.

And earlier this month, Trump upended a newly created committee of existing inspectors general — granted broad power to oversee the massive rescue package — when he effectively ousted its chairman and left the panel scrambling to regroup.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed creating a new bipartisan House committee to conduct oversight of the CARES Act, but it likely will need a House vote to be established and won’t launch for weeks since Congress is recessed until early May at least. Other congressional committees are holding telephone conferences with senior federal officials and attempting to wrest crucial information from the notoriously tight-lipped administration. But they’re finding it extremely challenging to put the squeeze on Trump from afar.

That’s left the GAO, which has existed in its current form since the Nixon era, standing as the only fully functioning oversight mechanism empowered to watch Trump’s handling of the new law. And it’s taking requests: The agency prioritizes reviews required by laws such as the CARES Act but it also handles asks from congressional committees — giving equal weight to requests from either party.

And in a rare example of unity, Republicans and Democrats have both hailed the office as a valuable nonpartisan overseer that has served both parties well.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who requested the office’s review of Trump’s handling of Ukraine aide, said the GAO is as important as ever in its role as coronavirus relief monitor. Notably, it has subpoena power as well as routes to circumvent Trump blockades by pursuing records from states, companies and other entities that receive coronavirus funds, not just agencies that dole it out. And Van Hollen said Congress might even consider empowering GAO further.

“We may need to strengthen GAO’s arsenal going forward,” he said. “They can bring lawsuits and seek court orders to provide information but those can be a long process. We may need to allow them to expedite that process to enforce their subpoenas.”

Other lawmakers emphasize that the real-time work by GAO is a slight shift from its normally long-term top-to-bottom reviews. The office is slated to confer with the House Energy and Commerce Committee about how it will provide its analyses and reports to Congress and what details they’ll include.

“GAO is always significant,” said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the top Republican on Energy and Commerce. “Their expertise and resources is a major asset that our committee taps often.”

In the early weeks of CARES Act implementation, the office’s fraud unit is counting on witnesses to potential fraud to come forward proactively. That was the case, said Howard Arp, the office’s fraud unit chief, when someone recently reported the delivery of a coronavirus cash payment to the account of someone who died in 2019. The one-off error is already prompting a wider look at whether this could become a systemic issue.

“Thankfully, that family was nice enough to return the fund,” Arp said in an interview. “That then causes us to start asking questions. How could that happen? What control was missed? That is already starting.”

There is anecdotal evidence that the matter has cropped up more than once: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) indicated he was told of a similar error from a friend, and similar stories made the rounds on Twitter.

In fact, under the structure of the law, the IRS is set to send money to anyone who filed a 2018 or 2019 tax return, so more dead people are likely to be receiving funds. Tens of thousands of the departed also received aid under the Obama-era recovery package because of a similar setup, though many checks were returned.

GAO relies on its anonymous reporting network known as FraudNet to receive tips and complaints about fraud or mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. Arp said GAO will aggressively market its existence in the early days of the CARES Act, and he said his unit will focus on areas of government that received massive infusions of funding and a short timeline to start spending it.

“Our pace has picked up,” Arp said.

GAO has already encountered one early, unavoidable roadblock to its investigations — one it hasn’t had experience with despite its long history. The agencies it oversees are largely working remotely because of the coronavirus threat. Arp said that this “environment of adjustment” may result in slowdowns in responses to GAO inquiries.

Clowers, too, underscored that widespread telework would limit one of GAO’s classic functions: site visits where “we go observe, we touch, we feel, we see.”

“Right now, we’re not able to do that,” she said, “but we’re leveraging technology to the extent we can.”