It is difficult to understand exactly what motivated Jared Kushner to propose secret back-channel communications with Russia last December. As first reported by The Washington Post last week — and still not denied by the Trump administration as of today — Donald Trump's son-in-law sought a secure communications channel between the Trump transition team and the Kremlin using Russian communications equipment, which strongly suggests the incoming administration wanted to avoid U.S. intelligence monitoring.
Why did Mr. Kushner make the request of Ambassador Sergey Kislyak? Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation, but so far, it's not been forthcoming from the White House, and that's distressing. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly's claim that back channel communications are "both normal, in my opinion, and acceptable" doesn't fully explain the circumstances of the request coming from someone who is so close to Mr. Trump and on the heels of an election in which Russian interference looms large.
One possible explanation is that top Trump transition members were seeking Russian help with Syria, which is potentially reasonable given the country's alliance with President Bashar Assad and the terrible price being paid by innocent civilians in the six-year-old civil war. But if so, why insist on using the communications through the Russian embassy or consulate? It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the effort involved Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser fired in February for providing misleading information about his own meetings with Ambassador Kislyak who also has financial ties to Russian insiders.
If this was the first example of questionable contact between Trump's associates and the Russians or if this was some minor functionary and not the husband of Mr. Trump's daughter, Ivanka, the concerns raised so far might not loom so large. But Russia's efforts to interfere with the last election are now well established, and the possibility that seemed more spy novel-inspired than real world — that there might have been collusion between the Trump campaign and allies of Vladimir Putin — no longer seems out of the realm of possibility.
We are inclined to agree with Republican Sen. John McCain, who recently observed that the situation has simply become "more and more bizarre" and that Mr. Kelly's explanation of back channel communications as standard procedure doesn't wash, particularly when it involves someone who wasn't even a government employee at the time. "I don't think it's standard procedure prior to the inauguration of the president of the United States by someone who is not in an appointed position," Senator McCain told the Australian TV news program, "7:30."
Mr. Kushner, who has sought to avoid the limelight, can not afford to do so any longer. The charge that he sought to use a hostile government's communications system to avoid scrutiny from his own country's government is too serious an allegation for the 36-year-old to continue his role as a top White House adviser at least until he's provided some explanation for it (as well as several other previously unreported contacts with Mr. Kislyak during the campaign). Democratic calls for a review of Mr. Kushner's security clearance appear perfectly reasonable under these unusual circumstances.
Tuesday's resignation by Mike Dubke, President Trump's communications director, in the midst of a rumored staff shake-up suggest the White House may see the current imbroglio as more of a messaging problem then a national security question. If so, that would be a serious mistake. It isn't the White House press corps that deserves answers about Mr. Kushner's behavior and what, if any, connection there is between Russian hacking of the election and the Trump team, it's the people who elected him to office. And the administration's pattern of attacking the media for offering "fabricated lies" and demanding investigations into those within the government who leak information has become a tiresome exercise in sidestepping this essential issue.