Former special counsel Jack Smith has recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding his investigations into President Trump. The session took place on January 22, 2026. Currently, House Republicans are calling on the Justice Department (DOJ) to initiate a criminal investigation against Smith. They claim that Smith made false statements last year concerning his efforts to gather phone records of lawmakers.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan from Ohio is spearheading this initiative. On Wednesday night, Jordan sent a letter to the DOJ claiming Smith “seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements” during his December testimony under oath.
This step is part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration and its congressional allies. The campaign aims to scrutinize individuals who have previously investigated Trump. The DOJ has already pursued criminal cases against former FBI Director Jim Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Smith has been a frequent subject of criticism from Trump on social media. Early Thursday morning, Trump reacted to the criminal referral, posting “Justice at last???” on his platform.
Jack Smith previously headed the DOJ’s public integrity unit, overseeing two major criminal investigations into Trump. The cases involved alleged interference in the 2020 election and failure to return classified materials from Mar-a-Lago. Both cases concluded before trial partly due to Trump’s victory in the 2024 election that returned him to office.
A response came from Smith’s legal team on Wednesday night. Lawyers Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski wrote to Jordan and the DOJ stating that Smith had provided “truthful, responsive answers” to Congress last year.
This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee from Maryland, commented that the referral against Smith would be “laughed out of court” if it reached a federal judge. He argued that the referral twisted and misstated facts, including the focus of questions Republicans asked during Smith’s interview.
The testimony in question involves subpoenas issued by Smith’s prosecution team for phone records of lawmakers connected with senior White House officials and allies from six years ago. Smith also collected texts from the National Archives from White House phones, involving exchanges between White House aides and lawmakers.
According to Smith’s lawyers, the Republicans in Congress never directly asked about these specific matters. Therefore, they argue Smith should not be punished for not “proactively disclosing that.”