Trump should be ‘harassed’

As a social problem worthy of alarm and dismay, “presidential harassment” is unlikely to catch on. President Trump is giving it a go anyway, using the phrase to describe Congress’ newfound interest in examining his administration, more commonly known as doing its job.

The House’s new Democratic committee chairs hardly had a chance to hold a hearing before Trump was fuming about the mere prospect of oversight to the extent that a cynic might think he was hiding something. He equated congressional probes with war and feared they would leave him “no time ... to run the government” — which, after a 35-day federal shutdown, is a generous description of what Trump does.

Granted, the gathering investigations must be a shock to him after two years of moribund oversight under Republican leadership. The most jarring handover was that of the Intelligence Committee’s leadership, which passed from one California representative, Central Valley Republican Devin Nunes, to another, Los Angeles-area Democrat Adam Schiff. While Nunes was infamously preoccupied with running interference for the administration, Schiff this week announced plans to investigate any foreign influence over the president. That will raise questions about Trump’s and his company’s finances, an area he has tried to declare offlimits.

On Thursday, a House Ways and Means subcommittee began looking into the related question of Trump’s tax returns, which, unlike a long line of his predecessors, he has refused to release. The same day, another subcommittee considered the administration’s cruel separations of migrant children from their parents. The House Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, was facing off with acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker over the terms of his testimony, scheduled for Friday.

What these varied matters have in common is legitimate congressional and public concern. This isn’t harassment; it’s long-overdue oversight.