April 1, 2019
Mr. Pat Cipollone
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Dear Mr. Cipollone:
On March 1, 2019, I wrote to you in order to request—for a “final time”—that the White
House cooperate voluntarily with the Committee’s investigation of security clearance processes
at the White House in response to grave breaches of national security at the highest levels of the
Trump Administration.
My letter followed multiple previous requests for documents and witnesses, which
included detailed explanations of the congressional precedents, investigative bases, and
legislative purposes of the Committee’s review.
In response, the White House has refused to produce a single piece of paper or a single
requested witness. Instead, you claim to have “accommodated” the Committee’s interests by
providing a 90-minute briefing on general policy matters and an in camera review of a handful
of guidance documents. You have refused to provide any information about the specific
individuals the Committee is investigating, the specific instances of abuse, wrongdoing, or
mistakes we have identified, or the problematic practices of the White House Security Office
over the past two years.
The Committee has given the White House every possible opportunity to cooperate with
this investigation, but you have declined. Your actions are now preventing the Committee from
obtaining the information it needs to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities.
Despite White House efforts to obstruct the Committee’s investigation, we have not been
idle. Although much of our work over the past several months has been out of public view, the
Committee has been active in collecting information from multiple additional sources.
We have now conducted a detailed, on-the-record interview with a whistleblower who
currently works at the White House. Her name is Tricia Newbold, and she has come forward at
great personal risk to warn Congress—and the nation—about the grave security risks she has
been witnessing first-hand over the past two years. As she told us:

 Mr. Pat Cipollone
Page 2
I would not be doing a service to myself, my country, or my children if I sat back
knowing that the issues that we have could impact national security.
This whistleblower, who currently serves as the Adjudications Manager in the Personnel
Security Office, has worked in the White House under Republican and Democratic
Administrations for the past 18 years. She handles security clearance determinations for some of
the most senior officials in the White House and throughout the Executive Office of the
President.
She has informed the Committee that during the Trump Administration, she and other
career officials adjudicated denials of dozens of applications for security clearances that were
later overturned. As a result, she warned that security clearance applications for White House
officials “were not always adjudicated in the best interest of national security.”
She also reported to the Committee that she has been targeted for retaliation after
declining to grant security clearances based on longstanding national security protocols. She
stated: “I’m terrified of going back. I know that this will not be perceived in favor of my
intentions, which is to bring back the integrity of the office.”
Yet, despite these risks, she has agreed to identify herself publicly at this time because
she strongly believes that Congress must intervene immediately to safeguard our national
security. She implored the Committee to act now, warning that “this is my last hope to really
bring the integrity back into our office.”
In light of the grave reports from this whistleblower—and the ongoing refusal of the
White House to provide the information we need to conduct our investigation—the Committee
now plans to proceed with compulsory process and begin authorizing subpoenas, starting at
tomorrow’s business meeting.
Our first subpoena will be for a deposition of Carl Kline, who served as the Personnel
Security Director at the White House during the first two years of the Trump Administration and
who now works at the Department of Defense. Mr. Kline did not respond to letters from the
Committee on February 11, 2019, and March 18, 2019, asking him to participate in a voluntary
interview. The Department of Defense informed the Committee that it is deferring to your office
regarding Mr. Kline’s testimony, but you have repeatedly refused to schedule his interview.
The Committee will depose Mr. Kline about the security clearance practices in place
when he was at the White House, the treatment of specific security clearance adjudications
during his tenure, and his interactions with the whistleblower.
There is clear precedent for Mr. Kline to testify before the Committee. In 2007, the
George W. Bush White House made available James Knodell, the Director of the White House
Security Office, for public testimony before our Committee. He testified that, after the leak of
covert CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity, his office failed to conduct the required security

 Mr. Pat Cipollone
Page 3
investigation and allowed Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Chief of Staff to the Vice
President Scooter Libby to maintain their security clearances despite their roles in the leak.1
Following Mr. Kline’s deposition, the Committee will proceed to interview other current
and former White House employees, including the current Chief Security Officer, former Chief
Security Officer Cory Louie, Chief Operating Officer Samuel Price, former Deputy Chief of
Staff Joseph Hagin, and Deputy Director of Administration William Hughes. The Committee
will proceed with additional witnesses thereafter.
I hope the White House will begin cooperating voluntarily with these requests and that
additional subpoenas will not be necessary. The Committee remains open to the possibility of
foregoing interviews with certain White House officials if you produce documents the
Committee is seeking.
To facilitate this process, the Committee is prioritizing the production of the following
subset of documents from our previous requests:
•

A document created by Ms. Newbold listing approximately 25 individuals who
were granted security clearances or eligibility to access national security
information despite recommendations to deny their applications;

•

All White House security clearance policy documents pre-dating June 21, 2018;

•

Data from the Executive Office of the President People Information Center
(EPIC) database for John Bolton, Michael Flynn, Sebastian Gorka, Jared Kushner,
John McEntee, K.T. McFarland, Robert Porter, Robin Townley, and Ivanka
Trump, including audit log data;

•

Adjudication summaries for John Bolton, Michael Flynn, Sebastian Gorka, Jared
Kushner, John McEntee, K.T. McFarland, Robert Porter, Robin Townley, and
Ivanka Trump; and

•

Post-decisional documents memorializing the circumstances under which
security clearances were granted or denied to, or suspended or revoked from,
John Bolton, Michael Flynn, Sebastian Gorka, Jared Kushner, John McEntee,
K.T. McFarland, Robert Porter, Robin Townley and Ivanka Trump, including any
documents, correspondence, or memoranda drafted by or for former White House
Personnel Security Director Carl Kline, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly,
Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, or
White House Counsel Don McGahn.

1

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on White House Procedures for Safeguarding
Classified Information, 110th Cong. (Mar. 16, 2007) (online at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG110hhrg38579/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg38579.pdf).

 Mr. Pat Cipollone
Page 4
Please advise the Committee by April 5, 2019, whether the White House will produce
these additional witnesses and documents voluntarily.
The Committee respects the President’s authority to grant security clearances. However,
the White House must respect Congress’ co-equal and independent authority to investigate who
has been given access to our nation’s secrets, how they obtained that access, the extent to which
national security has been compromised, and whether Congress should amend current laws to
improve national security and enhance transparency over these decisions.
Finally, the Committee requests that your office personally ensure that all White House
employees are fully apprised of their responsibilities under the laws and regulations regarding
the protection of whistleblowers who report waste, fraud, or abuse, as well as the rights of these
whistleblowers not to have adverse personnel actions taken against them.
Any additional retaliatory actions taken by White House employees against this particular
whistleblower—or any other whistleblowers with whom the Committee may be in contact—may
constitute violations of law that carry significant penalties. 2
Enclosed with this letter is a memorandum sent to Committee Members describing the
specific concerns raised by this whistleblower, as well as additional information about Congress’
authority to conduct investigations and legislate on these matters.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely,

Elijah E. Cummings
Chairman
cc:

The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member

2

See, e.g., Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2302; 5 U.S.C. §7211; P.L. 115-31, §713.

 ATTACHMENT
Congressional Authority to Investigate and Legislate in the
Oversight and Reform Committee Security Clearance Investigation
The White House has sent multiple letters to the Committee on Oversight and Reform
claiming that the Committee lacks the authority to investigate matters relating to White House
security clearances because “the Constitution vests the President with plenary authority over
national security information.” 1 This contention is not supported by the law.
As the Supreme Court has made clear, Congress has broad authority to inquire about a
wide array of topics that could be the subject of legislation and appropriations:
The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the
whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide
upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what
to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power
of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and farreaching [sic] as the potential power to enact
and appropriate under the Constitution. 2
This broad investigative authority includes multiple areas relating to this investigation in
which Congress has legislated, and may legislate in the future, including: (1) national security;
(2) corruption, misconduct, and abuse; and (3) whistleblower protections.
National Security
Contrary to White House characterizations, the Supreme Court has held that “Nationalsecurity policy is the prerogative of the Congress and President.” 3 The White House claim that
the Executive Branch has exclusive domain over national security matters “rests on a theory of
separation of powers that is not and has never been the law.” 4
1
Letter from Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel, to Chairman Elijah E. Cummings, Committee on
Oversight and Reform (Feb. 25, 2019) (online at
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-0225%20Cipollone%20to%20EEC%20re%20Security%20Clearances.pdf); Letter from Pat Cipollone, White House
Counsel, to Chairman Elijah E. Cummings, Committee on Oversight and Reform (Jan. 31, 2019) (online at https://
oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-0131%20Cipollone%20to%20EEC%20re%20Security%20Clearances.pdf); Letter from Pat Cipollone, White House
Counsel, to Chairman Elijah E. Cummings, Committee on Oversight and Reform (Mar. 4, 2019) (online at
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-0304_2%20Cipollone%20to%20EEC%20re%20Security%20Clearances.pdf ).
2

Barenblatt v. U.S, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959).

3

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1861 (2017). See also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 696 (2001)
(recognizing that the judicial branch may owe “heightened deference to the judgments of the political branches with
respect to matters of national security”).
4

Stillman v. Dep’t of Defense, 209 F. Supp. 2d 185, 212-13 (D.D.C. 2002) (rejecting the Government’s
argument that “any and all conflicts between national security interests and individual constitutional rights can not
be resolved by the Article III courts because the Constitution commits the protection of national security to the

 The legal position advanced by the White House relies on a misreading of the Supreme
Court’s decision in Dep’t of Navy v. Egan. 5 At issue in Egan was whether a statute that
Congress established to govern the removal of federal employees—including for national
security reasons—permitted the Merit Systems Protection Board to review the merits of a
security clearance denial. 6 An important premise of the Court’s decision in Egan was that
Congress had not authorized the Board to review national security clearances. 7 The Court
recognized that courts “traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the
Executive in military and national security affairs,” but it cabined that recognition by noting that
this is true “unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise.” 8
In Egan, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Congress has the power to modify the
Executive’s military and national security affairs authority through legislative action. Congress
has done just that through several major statutes—including the Freedom of Information Act, the
Classified Information Procedures Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act—specifically enabling judicial review of Executive Branch claims and decisions
relating to protected information.
Similarly, Congress has passed legislation requiring the Executive Branch to make
disclosures to the public, or to Congress, about its national security processes—thereby altering
the authority of the Executive Branch to keep secret information about national security affairs.
For example, Congress recently passed a law requiring the Executive Branch—including the
White House—to provide substantive reports on the security clearance process. 9 This law was
passed by both houses of Congress and signed by President Trump. 10
In addition, on March 26, 2019, the Committee passed the Transition Team Ethics
Improvement Act, which would require Presidents-elect to disclose to Congress the names of

Executive Branch”), rev’d on other grounds, Stillman v. C.I.A., 319 F.3d 546 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
5

484 U.S. 518 (1988).

6

Id. at 520.

7

Id. at 530.

8

Id. (emphasis added).

9

SECRET Act, Pub. L. No. 115-173 (2018). The White House is currently in breach of this statute.

10
The White House’s February 25, 2019, letter asserts that “the White House has provided to Congress the
information requested under section 4 of the SECRET Act.” The White House claimed that the requirement to
submit to Congress a report about the “process for conducting and adjudicating security clearance investigations for
personnel of the Executive Office of the President, including personnel of the White House Office,” was satisfied by
the five-page memorandum issued by former Chief of Staff John Kelly on February 16, 2018. However, the
SECRET Act became law on May 22, 2018—three months after General Kelly circulated his memorandum. It is
not a legitimate argument to assert that a document made publicly available prior to the enactment of the SECRET
Act satisfies the reporting requirement in that statute. Moreover, the substance of the memorandum does not satisfy
the requirements of the SECRET Act, as it proposes broad reforms to be “carefully considered and implemented as
appropriate”—but does not set forth an affirmative description of the process.

2

 individuals for whom a Transition Team is seeking security clearances, as well as the names of
individuals granted security clearances. 11
With regard to security clearances, Congress has passed numerous statutes governing the
adjudication and investigation of security clearance applications, as well as the handling of
classified information.12
The White House’s implication that there is no “potential legislation that Congress could
legitimately enact to alter the standards or the process that the Executive Branch follows for
granting clearances to the President’s closest advisors in the Executive Office of the President” is
incorrect. Below are some of the many legislative acts that the Committee could consider to
address flaws in the White House security clearance system:
•

Legislation establishing new protocols and procedures for adjudicating security
clearances, including legislation requiring audit reports to Congress about the
sufficiency of adjudicative summaries created by agencies and offices, including
the White House Security Office;

•

Legislation creating or amending criminal penalties for the improper disclosure or
possession of national security information, including the disclosure of such
information over social messaging services;

•

Legislation requiring risk analyses relating to classified information accessed by
officials who were granted interim security clearances but denied permanent
security clearances;

•

Legislation generally prohibiting the grant of security clearances to individuals
with certain disqualifications;

•

Legislation requiring written notification to Congress if security clearances or
access to national security information is granted against the advice of career
officials in the White House Security Office, the intelligence community, or
senior White House advisors, stating why the clearance was necessary despite
countervailing advice, and documenting the process through which the clearance
application was adjudicated and how underlying recommendations were
overruled;

•

Legislation enhancing interagency coordination and information-sharing
regarding security clearance holders accused of wrongdoing;

11

Committee on Oversight and Reform, Committee Passes Legislation to ‘Ban the Box,’ Support
Transparency, and Protect Inspectors General (Mar. 26, 2019) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/news/pressreleases/committee-passes-legislation-to-ban-the-box-support-transparency-and-protect).
12

See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 3341; 18 U.S.C. § 798; and 5 U.S.C. § 9101.

3

 •

Legislation enhancing criminal penalties for individuals who submit inaccurate
information in security clearance applications or other federal forms; and

•

Legislation altering the appropriation of funding to processes underpinning the
security clearance system, including background investigation services.

The Committee’s legislative efforts require detailed information about the White House’s
actual practices and specific problems relating to security clearances to enable the effective
consideration of legislative reforms aimed at addressing those shortcomings.
Corruption, Misconduct, and Abuse
Congress enjoys “broad authority to investigate, to inform the public, and, ultimately, to
legislate against suspected corruption and abuse of power in the Executive Branch.” 13 This
authority encompasses Congress’ inquiries into the administration of Executive Branch
departments—including discretionary Executive actions. 14
For example, Congress has investigated the misuse of the White House Office of Political
Affairs; 15 the White House’s disclosure of covert CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity; 16
allegations that senior Reagan administration officials secretly facilitated arms sales to Iran in
contravention of an arms embargo and used the proceeds to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua; 17
and the events surrounding the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Campaign
headquarters at the Watergate Hotel.18
Similarly, Congress possesses the power to inquire whether the White House’s security
clearance decisions were motivated by improper or corrupt motives. Indeed, Congress
“possesses that power, as it possesses every other power essential to preserve the departments

13

Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 498 (1977) (Brennan, J., concurring) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
14

McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 177 (1927). The White House’s letter cites McGrain for dicta but
ignores the substantive holding that Congress’s investigation into discretionary functions of the Executive Branch is
a legitimate legislative function. See also Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 78 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(it “defies both reason and precedent” to assert that Congress, charged with oversight of the Executive generally,
cannot investigate specific exercises of the Executive’s discretion).
15

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Draft Report: The Activities of the White House Office
of Political Affairs, 110th Cong. (Oct. 2008) (online at https://wayback.archiveit.org/4949/20141031185123/http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov/documents/20081015105434.pdf).
16

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on White House Procedures for
Safeguarding Classified Information, 110th Cong. (Mar. 16, 2007) (online at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG110hhrg38579/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg38579.pdf).
17
The Iran-Contra Report: The Overview, New York Times (Jan. 19, 1994) (online at
www.nytimes.com/1994/01/19/world/iran-contra-report-overview-walsh-criticizes-reagan-bush-over-irancontra.html).
18
What to Remember About Watergate, New York Times (May 20, 2017) (online at
www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/opinion/sunday/trump-nixon-watergate-congress.html).

4

 and institutions of the general government from impairment or destruction, whether threatened
by force or by corruption.” 19
Whistleblower Protections
For more than a century, Congress has protected the rights of federal employees to make
disclosures about waste, fraud, and abuse in the Executive Branch. The protection of the rights
of federal whistleblowers, and the investigation of their claims, has been at the core of this
Committee’s legislative and investigative powers—which has operated on a bipartisan basis for
decades.
This Committee has the constitutional authority to assess whether legislative protections
for whistleblowers are sufficient and to investigate whether and how White House officials have
taken impermissible personnel actions against whistleblowers, including those who make
protected disclosures about the national security flaws in the White House security clearance
system. These authorities remain undisputed and are one of several justifications for various
interview and document requests made by the Committee.
Ample Congressional Precedent
As the Committee noted in its February 11, 2019, letter, over the past several decades, the
Committee has obtained security clearance information regarding the President’s closest
advisors, sworn hearing and deposition testimony from top White House security officials, and a
wide range of other documents and witnesses relating to the security clearance process at the
White House.
Although there is no legal requirement for the Committee to set forth precedents for
obtaining the same or similar material previously, in the interests of further accommodation,
additional congressional precedents are set forth below.
•

19

In 1996, the Clinton White House produced to the Committee the entire FBI
background investigation file of former White House Travel Office Director Billy
Dale and other documents and information about the White House’s background
investigation process—including testimony by senior political personnel—in
connection with this Committee’s investigation of unauthorized possession of FBI
background files by the White House. In this investigation, the Committee
conducted depositions of White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum; Assistant
White House Counsel Bill Kennedy; Special Counsel to the President Jane
Sherburne; White House Security Office Director Craig Livingstone; and FBI
Special Inquiry Unit Chief James Bourke. The Committee posed specific
questions, on the record, about the White House’s protocols for requesting and
maintaining personnel security files and conducting personnel security

Burroughs v. U.S., 290 U.S. 534, 545 (1933).

5

 investigations, as well as the White House’s treatment of Mr. Dale’s background
investigation information. 20
•

In 2007, the Committee held a public hearing with White House Security Office
Director James Knodell, during which he testified regarding whether specific
White House officials’ security clearances were revoked following the leak of
covert CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity. Contrary to the characterization of
that testimony in the White House’s February 25, 2019, letter, Mr. Knodell
testified about steps taken and not taken by his office in connection with the
Plame identity leak, including confirming that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove
and Chief of Staff to the Vice President Scooter Libby continued to maintain their
security clearances after the breach of Ms. Plame’s identity, and that no White
House Security Office investigation had occurred regarding the involvement of
Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby in the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity. 21

•

In connection with the Plame investigation, the Committee also reviewed FBI
interview summaries with senior White House officials, including Chief of Staff
to the Vice President Scooter Libby; White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card;
White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Karl Rove; National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice; Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley;
Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett; and White House Press Secretary Scott
McClellan. 22

•

In 2017, in response to a bipartisan request from then-Chairman Jason Chaffetz
and then-Ranking Member Cummings, the Committee obtained portions of
former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s SF-86 application relating to
his foreign contacts. The Committee also obtained FBI summaries of interviews
conducted as part of General Flynn’s background investigation, including
interviews bearing on his foreign contacts and foreign business interests, as well
as communications and other documents related to General Flynn’s reporting of
his contacts with foreign nationals outside of the background check process.

•

In 2018, the Oversight and Judiciary Committees obtained information as part of
their joint investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails and actions taken or not taken
by the FBI during the 2016 election, including a spreadsheet with the dates White
House officials entered the security clearance process and were granted or denied

20
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Interim Report: Investigation into the White House
and Department of Justice on Security of FBI Background Investigation Files, 104th Cong., H. Rpt. 104-862 (Sep.
28, 1996) (online at www.congress.gov/104/crpt/hrpt862/CRPT-104hrpt862.pdf).
21

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on White House Procedures for
Safeguarding Classified Information, 110th Cong. (Mar. 16, 2007) (online at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG110hhrg38579/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg38579.pdf).
22

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Draft Report Regarding President Bush’s Assertion of
Executive Privilege in Response to the Committee Subpoena to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey (Dec. 5,
2008) (online at https://wayback.archive-it.org/4949/20141031184627/http://oversightarchive.waxman.house.gov/documents/20081205114333.pdf).

6

 clearances, a background investigation interview summary for Jared Kushner, and
an internal readout of the background investigation of former Deputy Assistant to
the President Sebastian Gorka.
•

In 2018, in response to a request from then-Chairman Trey Gowdy, the
Committee obtained information about four dates on which the FBI provided
derogatory information to the White House as part of former Staff Secretary
Robert Porter’s background investigation, including specific offices at the White
House to which the FBI communicated this information.
Failure of White House “Accommodations”

The White House has refused to produce any documents or witnesses requested by the
Committee, any information about specific White House officials, or any information about
policies or practices used during the first eighteen months of the Trump Administration.
Instead, the White House has provided two purported “accommodations”: (1) an in
camera review of approximately 50 pages of policy documents drafted in June and November of
2018; and (2) a 90-minute briefing by the Chief Security Officer about White House processes in
place since June 2018 for adjudicating security clearances. These accommodations are
inadequate.
The Committee accepted the in camera document review and briefing despite the
significant limitations in their scope. However, even the extremely narrow document review and
briefing raised additional questions that the White House refused to answer.
For example, it was immediately apparent from the review of the documents that none of
the White House policies had been developed before June of 2018. Committee staff asked to
review the policies in place at the beginning of the Administration, but those requests were
denied. For example, Committee staff repeatedly asked to review prior versions of the
“Reciprocity” policy (No. 4208-03), which had a “last revised” date of January 5, 2018, and an
effective date of June 21, 2018. Those requests were denied.
The information the White House provided about how current security processes should
work fails to address the serious and significant problems that actually occurred over the past
two years. The White House continues to withhold information about the ways in which the
security clearance practices put national security at risk.
The concerns raised by the whistleblower highlight why the limited information provided
by the White House is insufficient to accommodate the Committee’s legitimate investigative and
legislative interests.
The White House’s most recent letter to the Committee claims that “the Committee has
shown no willingness to accommodate legitimate Executive Branch prerogatives.” That claim is
also inaccurate.

7

 In the spirit of accommodation, the Committee engaged in extensive letter and phone
communications to identify priorities, answer questions, and urge compliance in an effective and
efficient manner. The Committee explained the allegations it is investigating in detail, cited
legal and institutional precedent, and provided specific evidence that further explains the need
for the investigation and for obtaining these documents and interviews.
As an additional accommodation, the Committee postponed consideration of potential
compulsory measures while it accepted the extremely limited in camera document review and
briefing. The Committee explained at length why the limited information provided by the White
House is insufficient.
The Committee has requested specific documents and witness interviews about
significant allegations of dysfunction in the White House’s security clearance process. This
information is necessary for the Committee’s factual assessment of how the security clearance
system failed and what legislative reforms may be necessary to address these failures.

8