Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has insisted that Jared Kushner's plans to create a secret back channel between the Kremlin and the Trump transition team were perfectly 'normal' and 'acceptable'.

Kushner had proposed the back channel during a meeting with the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, last December - before he was given his official role as assistant to the president and senior adviser.

Today, Kelly defended Kushner, who is being investigated by the FBI over his contacts with Russian officials, saying that 'any communication to a country, particularly a country like Russia, is a good thing.'

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly insisted on This Week (pictured) that Jared Kushner's plans to create a secret back channel between the Kremlin and the Trump transition team were perfectly 'normal' and 'acceptable'

The Homeland Security secretary told This Week co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday that all communications gathered through a back channel would be 'shared across the government, so it's not a bad thing to have multiple communication lines' with any country.

Kushner's involvement in the proposed back channel, first reported by The Washington Post, which said he proposed using Russian diplomatic facilities for the discussions, apparently to make them more difficult to monitor.

Kelly said that such back channels would be considered 'both normal… and acceptable'.

However, he did concede that communications conducted using Russian diplomatic facilities - as the Washington Post reports that Kushner sought - 'would be considered to be … somewhat compromised.'

Kushner (right) had proposed the back channel during a meeting with the Russian ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak (left) last December

'You consider it in terms of its reliability,' Kelly said. 'You just have to assume, like in this case, that it's constructed in a way that they're trying to get you to do certain things.'

Kushner has come under fire since news of his meeting with the Russian ambassador was made public.

Former acting CIA Director John E. McLaughlin went as far as to compare his actions to 'espionage.'

The 38-year-old, who is married to the president's oldest daughter Ivanka, had reportedly proposed creating that line of communication to facilitate sensitive discussions aimed at exploring the incoming administration's options with Russia as it was developing its Syria policy, during his meeting with Kislyak.

The White House did not acknowledge the meeting or Kushner's attendance until March. At the time, a White House official dismissed it as a brief courtesy meeting.

Back from a nine-day trip to the Middle East and Europe, Trump on Sunday immediately sought to dismiss the reports.

Kelly defended Kushner, who is being investigated by the FBI over his contacts with Russian officials, saying that 'any communication to a country, particularly a country like Russia, is a good thing'

The Homeland Security secretary told This Week co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday that all communications gathered through a back channel would be 'shared across the government

'It is my opinion that many of the leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies,' he tweeted.

He added: 'Whenever you see the words 'sources say' in the fake news media, and they don't mention names... it is very possible that those sources don't exist but are made up by fake news writers.'

The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, California Democrat Adam Schiff, has since called for a review into Kushner's security clearance in light of the meeting with Russian officials.

'There is another question about his security clearance and whether he was forthcoming about his contacts on that,' Schiff said during an interview with ABC's This Week on Sunday morning.

'If these allegations are true and he had discussions with the Russians about establishing a back-channel and didn't reveal that, that's a real problem in terms of whether he should maintain that kind of a security clearance.'

He was then pressed on whether the president's son-in-law should immediately lose his clearance, and stopped short of calling for it to be revoked.

'I think we need to get to the bottom of these allegations, but I do think there ought to be a review of his security clearance to find out whether he was truthful and candid, if not, there's no way he can maintain that kind of a clearance.'