Things got tense.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith is pushing back after House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) referred him to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution, accusing the former prosecutor of making false statements during sworn congressional testimony.
The high-profile referral marks the latest chapter in the ongoing legal and political battle surrounding the investigations into President Donald Trump. Republicans argue Smith misled lawmakers during a December 2025 deposition, while Smith’s attorneys insist the accusations are baseless and politically motivated.
In a letter sent Wednesday to Jordan and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Smith’s legal team dismissed the criminal referral as “meritless” and defended his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
According to Smith’s attorneys, he agreed to testify knowing that Trump’s Justice Department would closely examine every answer for possible criminal liability. They argued the referral is driven by politics rather than evidence and maintained that Smith testified honestly throughout the congressional interview.
Jordan Alleges Smith Misled Congress
Jordan’s referral focuses on Smith’s testimony regarding congressional communications gathered during the special counsel investigation.
In the letter to Blanche, Jordan argued Smith gave lawmakers the impression that neither he nor his investigative team had reviewed the contents of text messages belonging to members of Congress.
Jordan contends newly released records show otherwise.
The referral follows growing Republican scrutiny over Smith’s investigative methods and allegations that the Justice Department improperly targeted political opponents during the Biden administration.
Grassley Documents Raise New Questions
The controversy intensified after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released documents indicating that Smith’s team reviewed text messages involving 44 members of Congress from both political parties, along with communications involving White House staff.
Lawmakers reportedly affected included Jim Jordan, Chuck Grassley, the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
During his deposition, Smith told House investigators that his office had not examined lawmakers’ text message content and instead obtained telephone toll records.
Republicans argue the newly released evidence directly contradicts that testimony.
Smith’s Attorneys Fire Back
Smith’s legal team says Republicans are taking his testimony out of context.
According to the attorneys, the questions during that portion of the deposition specifically concerned telephone toll record subpoenas—not the contents of text messages. They argue Smith answered every question truthfully and was not required to volunteer information unrelated to what lawmakers actually asked.
The attorneys also noted that Jordan’s referral does not identify a knowingly false statement under oath. Instead, they argue the referral criticizes Smith for failing to disclose information that was never requested during the exchange.
Smith’s lawyers further defended the investigation itself, saying the review of communications complied with constitutional protections.
They argued that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause protects lawmakers from having legislative acts used against them but does not prevent investigators from reviewing communications voluntarily exchanged between members of Congress and Executive Branch officials during a criminal investigation involving Executive Branch personnel.
Trump Allies Continue Criticism
President Trump has sharply criticized Smith since the special counsel investigations began, repeatedly accusing him of conducting politically motivated prosecutions designed to damage his presidential campaign.
Trump has described Smith as a partisan prosecutor, while many of the president’s allies have argued the investigations represented an example of the Justice Department being used against political opponents.
Those concerns have fueled continued congressional oversight into Smith’s handling of the investigations and the broader actions of the Biden-era Justice Department.
DOJ Confirms It Received Criminal Referral
The Department of Justice confirmed it has received Jordan’s criminal referral and said officials will review all available evidence.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee said no individual is above the law, including Jack Smith.
The committee maintains that evidence gathered during its investigation contradicts Smith’s congressional testimony and hindered lawmakers’ efforts to investigate what Republicans describe as the weaponization of the Justice Department under the Biden-Harris administration.
What Happens Next?
The referral does not automatically result in criminal charges.
Instead, the Justice Department will review the evidence submitted by House Republicans and determine whether any further investigation is warranted.
The decision could have significant legal and political implications, as Republicans continue examining the actions of prosecutors involved in the investigations of President Trump while Democrats defend Smith’s conduct as lawful and appropriate.
With the DOJ now reviewing the referral, the dispute over Jack Smith’s testimony—and the broader debate over the federal investigations into President Trump—is likely to remain a major political story in the months ahead.
