House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) issued a criminal referral against former special counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday, alleging Smith made false statements during congressional testimony about his investigation into former President Donald Trump. The referral, sent to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, claims Smith misled lawmakers by denying his team had access to the contents of text messages from lawmakers and White House staffers, despite later evidence showing otherwise.
Core Facts and Immediate Action
The Justice Department confirmed it received the referral and will investigate the allegations. Smith’s lawyers have called the claims "spurious," while top Judiciary Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) dismissed the referral as "baseless and vindictive."
Deeper Dive and Context
Background of the Allegations
During a December 2025 deposition, Smith testified that his team only obtained "toll records"—metadata showing call and text logs—from lawmakers as part of the "Arctic Frost" investigation into Trump’s post-election actions. However, new information revealed that Smith’s office received text message content from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) related to White House personnel communications.
Key Discrepancies
Jordan’s letter argues Smith’s testimony was intentionally misleading, as it did not disclose the NARA subpoena. The referral alleges Smith obstructed oversight by omitting relevant information. Smith’s team has not yet responded to the allegations.
Political Reactions
Republicans, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), have long criticized Smith’s investigations, while Democrats have defended his work. The DOJ’s decision to investigate the referral could prolong political tensions over the independence of federal prosecutors.
Legal Implications
If the DOJ pursues charges, Smith could face perjury allegations. Legal experts note that proving intent to deceive Congress is a high bar, and the case may hinge on whether Smith’s testimony was technically accurate or misleading by omission.