Mark J. Rozell and Mitchel A. Sollenberger

Opinion contributors

The Trump White House claims that granting security clearances is the president’s unique prerogative and not subject to legislative review. This assertion comes amid reports that President Donald Trump ordered clearances for his daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner despite recommendations by the White House counsel, chief of staff and other officials against granting them.

Even before the news from Democrats last week that Kushner used WhatsApp for official White House business, and that both he and Ivanka conducted official business on personal email accounts, there was ample precedent for a congressional investigation. That’s particularly true given credible allegations that the president acted in a fashion that put national security at risk.

While the White House claims that the president has unique responsibility for protecting the national security, in fact that is a shared duty between the executive and legislative branches. And in this case, the legislative branch is acting in the interest of protecting the national security while the executive branch stonewalls.

Read more commentary:

I vetted judges and senior officials and never ran across anyone like Jared Kushner

Don't play games with security clearances

Trump's fact-free foreign policy decisions give US adversaries the upper hand

The New York Times, Washington Post and CNN reports on Trump's involvement in the Jared and Ivanka clearances, each attributed to several unidentified people familiar with or briefed on the matter, appeared between Feb. 28 and March 5. But Rep. Elijah Cummings, chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, has been asking the White House since January for information about the security clearance process, including potential breaches of national security information. The White House has refused to provide the requested information, citing the need to respect “the separation of powers and the constitutional prerogatives of the President.”

The White House responded in letters to Cummings that as commander in chief, the president has a “fundamental interest” in protecting national security information and the Congress’s investigative authority cannot intrude in this area. Also, the White House seeks to protect the president’s need for confidentiality when consulting with close advisers. The president therefore claims plenary authority over “selecting, and communicating with, his immediate advisers.”

It is contrary to the spirit of a system based on checks and balances and the rule of law to try to resolve intra-branch disputes by referencing the “constitutional prerogatives of the President” or other self-serving claims. Both Congress and the president have constitutional interests and authority regarding the security clearance process. The Supreme Court has long held that Congress’s investigative authority is an essential power in its ability to legislate as well as conduct oversight.

Congress, presidents are equals on security

The White House insistence that somehow national security is a unique and quintessential presidential responsibility is misguided at best and counterfactual at worse. Presidents since George Washington have tried to withhold information from Congress under the guise of national security concerns, but have often relented after legislative pressures. There are countless examples of Congress taking a co-equal, if not lead, role in the protection and ongoing maintenance of national security records.

Equally concerning is the argument that White House staff should be walled off from congressional inquiries based on separation of powers concerns. The presumption of withholding documents and-or testimony weakens in situations where there are allegations of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court made this fundamental point in U.S. v. Nixon when it held that executive privilege is a legitimate presidential power but it is not absolute and cannot be used to conceal wrongdoing. President Ronald Reagan even waived executive privilege in a national security case dealing with the Iran-Contra investigations and, instead, cooperated with Congress and turned over parts of his personal diary.

The White House claims that it is willing to accommodate “legitimate requests for information" but, like many presidential administrations, wants to be the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate requests. Neither branch is on higher ground than the other in these disputes. In fact, in most of these cases, the branches resolve information conflicts through an ongoing dialogue and eventual compromise.

Let Congress do its job on national security

Sens. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, want to standardize clearance procedures to avoid future uncertainty and partisanship. They have introduced a bill that sets criteria for considering security clearance requests; requires a written rationale to be given to candidates who are denied a security clearance; and establishes an appeal process before an independent panel.

For now, with so much doubt surrounding the current management of security clearances, the only reasonable resolution is for the White House to hand over the necessary documents so the House Oversight Committee can carry out its responsibility and determine if national security information has been disclosed — whether it be as a result of mismanagement or abuse of the security clearance process.

Indeed, the very information the White House seeks to protect relates not to any specific national security documents but to the process for granting security clearances. Seen in this context, the presumption should be in favor of disclosing the information which will — hopefully — answer the concerns of Congress and the public. And if the process of legislative review reveals additional issues, the public has a right to know about those as well.

Mark J. Rozell is dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and the author of "Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy, and Accountability." Mitchel A. Sollenberger is professor of political science at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and author of "The President Shall Nominate: How Congress Trumps Executive Power."