Indictment of Former Special Counsel Jack Smith

On Wednesday, former special counsel Jack Smith faced indictment for allegedly misleading Congress concerning the investigation into President Trump during the Biden administration.

Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman from Ohio, raised concerns in a complaint submitted to the Justice Department. He stated that newly available records seem to contradict Smith’s previous testimony, where he claimed he hadn’t accessed or reviewed Congress members’ text messages during the inquiry into Trump’s supposed interference in the 2020 election.

In a letter addressed to Acting Attorney General Todd Branch, which was acquired by the media, Jordan argued, “The Judiciary Committee believes there is strong evidence indicating that former Special Counsel Jack Smith knowingly made false statements in his deposition on December 17, 2025.”

Jordan insisted that Smith’s sworn testimony included intentional falsehoods regarding essential facts that clashed with recently obtained documents from the Department of Justice (DOJ). He pointed out that this information is being referred to the DOJ to explore possible violations of 18 USC § 1001.

During his deposition, Smith was queried about seeking a search warrant for text message content. He replied, “No, I don’t remember that,” claiming he only accessed records about the recipients and times of calls, not their content.

Jordan noted that Smith’s answers implied his team had no access to privileged text messages. “We now know this is false,” he contended.

Jordan referenced DOJ records that were shared with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, indicating that over 40 Congress members’ text messages had, in fact, been reviewed by Smith’s team. The department informed Grassley that Smith’s team had “direct access” to text communications between Congress members and White House staff sent from October 2020 to January 20, 2021, which occurred after a “filter team” intended to protect privileged documents was apparently bypassed.

Jordan emphasized that this new information warranted an inquiry into whether Smith knowingly provided false statements to obstruct the committee’s oversight efforts. He argued that Smith’s actions could only be interpreted as an attempt to hinder the committee’s investigation by deliberately providing misleading statements to Congress.

Consequently, Jordan concluded there is adequate evidence for the Justice Department to delve into whether Smith’s behavior warrants criminal charges.

Neither the Justice Department nor Smith’s legal representatives immediately responded to requests for comments.