Here’s what Americans need to know.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith is facing renewed scrutiny after newly declassified records revealed that members of his prosecution team met with former CIA Director John Brennan while preparing the classified-documents case against President Donald Trump.
The disclosure is drawing attention because Smith was recently questioned by lawmakers about whether Brennan had provided consultation or counsel during his tenure as special counsel.
Smith responded by saying he had “never met” Brennan.
However, records released by the White House show that prosecutors working under Smith participated in a November 2023 meeting with Brennan at CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia.
The development does not establish that Smith personally met Brennan or that Brennan influenced the prosecution. But it has prompted Republican lawmakers to question whether Smith’s testimony gave Congress a complete picture of his team’s contacts with the former CIA director.
Newly Released Records Reveal Brennan Meeting
According to the declassified documents, two assistant special counsels working under Smith joined FBI personnel for a meeting with Brennan in November 2023.
The meeting concerned potential expert testimony involving National Defense Information in the federal classified-documents case against Trump.
That suggests prosecutors were exploring whether Brennan’s national security experience could be useful as they prepared for trial.
Brennan was not CIA director during the period covered by the Trump documents case, and the newly released records do not indicate that he had firsthand knowledge of Trump’s alleged handling of classified information.
His potential role appears instead to have involved national security expertise.
Grassley Pressed Smith About Brennan
During Smith’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa asked whether Smith had ever received consultation or counsel from Brennan.
Grassley’s question was broader than simply asking whether the two men had personally met.
Grassley asked Smith whether former CIA Director John Brennan had ever advised or consulted with him, either while he served as special counsel or at any other time, and if so, when the interaction occurred and what it concerned.
Smith answered: “I’ve never met John Brennan.”
That response has now become a central part of the controversy.
The declassified records do not contradict Smith’s claim that he personally never met Brennan.
They do, however, show that members of Smith’s team met with Brennan while working on the Trump prosecution.
Grassley argues that distinction matters.
Grassley Calls Smith’s Response Misleading
After the records became public, Grassley criticized Smith’s testimony and said the answer failed to address the broader question he had asked.
According to Grassley, the meeting between Brennan and members of Smith’s team could reasonably be viewed as consultation involving the special counsel’s office.
Grassley described Smith’s answer as evasive and misleading.
Later in the same hearing, Grassley asked Smith more specifically whether he had ever personally spoken with Brennan.
Smith replied that he had no recollection of having a conversation with him.
That leaves two separate issues.
The first is whether Smith personally communicated with Brennan.
The second is whether Brennan provided information, expertise or assistance to prosecutors working under Smith.
The newly released documents provide evidence regarding the second question, but they do not establish that Smith personally participated in the meeting.
Why Brennan’s Involvement Is Drawing Attention
Brennan served as CIA director under President Barack Obama and became a prominent public critic of Trump after leaving government.
Because of that history, news that members of Smith’s team consulted with Brennan is attracting considerable attention from Republican lawmakers and Trump supporters.
Critics of the special counsel have long argued that the investigations surrounding Trump deserve additional congressional oversight because of their political sensitivity.
Smith has consistently rejected claims that his investigations were politically motivated.
He has maintained that prosecutors followed the evidence and carried out their responsibilities according to federal law.
The Brennan records do not by themselves prove political bias.
But they are likely to intensify questions about who prosecutors consulted while building their case and what information those individuals provided.
Declassified Notes Contain Redactions
The White House release also reportedly included two pages of notes connected to the Brennan meeting.
The documents contained CIA headquarters markings and Brennan’s name, while portions of the material were blacked out through government redactions.
Those redactions leave unanswered questions about what specifically was discussed.
For lawmakers seeking greater transparency, the missing information may become another point of inquiry.
Republicans are expected to continue asking whether Brennan was merely considered as a potential expert witness or whether his involvement went further.
Smith’s Investigations Remain Under Scrutiny
The Brennan disclosure comes as Republican lawmakers continue examining other aspects of Smith’s investigations into Trump.
One area of focus has been the federal investigation involving efforts surrounding the 2020 election.
Lawmakers have also scrutinized investigative steps involving phone records, financial information and other materials connected to Republican officials and Trump supporters.
Critics contend that those investigative methods deserve closer review because federal law-enforcement agencies have enormous power to obtain private information.
Supporters of Smith’s work argue that prosecutors were carrying out lawful investigations based on evidence and court-authorized procedures.
That disagreement has become part of a much larger debate over the Justice Department, political accountability and the limits of federal investigative authority.
Dershowitz Has Criticized Smith’s Conduct
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who previously served on Trump’s defense team during his first impeachment trial, has been an outspoken critic of Smith.
Dershowitz has accused the former special counsel of allowing politics to influence the prosecution and has questioned several legal decisions made during the investigations.
Investigative journalist John Solomon has also argued that the investigations surrounding Trump should be viewed as part of a broader pattern of government actions directed against him.
Smith and his defenders strongly reject those claims.
The newly released Brennan material does not settle that broader debate.
Instead, it adds another piece of information for Congress and the public to evaluate.
The Wording of Smith’s Testimony Matters
One reason the controversy has gained attention is the difference between the question Grassley asked and the answer Smith provided.
Grassley asked whether Smith had received consultation or counsel from Brennan.
Smith responded that he had never met Brennan.
Both statements could technically be true at the same time.
Smith may never have personally met Brennan, while prosecutors under his authority still consulted with him.
That is why lawmakers are examining whether Smith’s answer was sufficiently complete.
A fuller response could potentially have acknowledged that members of his team had met Brennan while clarifying that Smith himself had not.
Whether Smith was aware of the meeting at the time, or how directly involved he was in decisions surrounding Brennan, remains an important unanswered question based on the publicly released information.
Questions About Transparency Remain
The larger issue extends beyond the personalities involved.
Federal prosecutors have significant authority, particularly when investigating presidents, candidates or other major political figures.
That makes transparency and careful congressional oversight especially important.
The newly declassified records show that members of Smith’s team consulted Brennan as prosecutors prepared the classified-documents case.
They do not prove that Brennan directed the investigation, that Smith personally met him or that improper conduct occurred.
But the records do raise legitimate questions about how the prosecution developed its case and what role outside experts may have played.
Smith has defended the work of his prosecutors and investigators and rejected accusations that his decisions were politically motivated.
Republican lawmakers continue to dispute that assessment and are seeking additional records.
As more documents become public, Congress may obtain a clearer picture of Brennan’s involvement and whether Smith’s testimony accurately conveyed the full extent of his office’s contacts.
For now, the central question remains simple:
If members of Smith’s prosecution team consulted John Brennan while preparing the Trump case, should that relationship have been disclosed more clearly when lawmakers asked about it?
