Special Counsel Referred For Criminal Prosecution
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution, accusing Smith of making false statements during congressional testimony in December 2025. Jordan, an Ohio Republican, announced the referral Wednesday. President Donald Trump responded on Truth Social with the brief message, “Justice at last???” […]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution, accusing Smith of making false statements during congressional testimony in December 2025.
Jordan, an Ohio Republican, announced the referral Wednesday. President Donald Trump responded on Truth Social with the brief message, “Justice at last???”
A criminal referral is a request for the Justice Department to investigate possible wrongdoing. It does not amount to a criminal charge, establish guilt, or require federal prosecutors to open a case. The department has acknowledged receiving the referral, but the decision about whether to investigate or prosecute Smith remains with Justice Department officials.
The disagreement centers on records collected during Smith’s investigation of Trump’s efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election. Smith also led a separate prosecution concerning Trump’s handling of classified government documents.
During his December 17, 2025, deposition, Smith was questioned about records obtained from members of Congress. He said investigators had sought “toll records,” which provide information such as the telephone numbers involved in a call, the date and time of the call, and its duration. Smith explained that those records did not contain the substance of calls or messages.
Jordan argues that later disclosures show Smith’s team also reviewed the contents of text messages involving lawmakers and White House personnel. Documents released through congressional investigations reportedly indicate that prosecutors obtained communications involving more than 40 members of Congress from both political parties. Those messages were obtained through presidential records held by the National Archives, rather than through the telephone toll records discussed in Smith’s answer.
That distinction is at the center of the controversy.
Jordan contends that Smith’s denial was misleading because his investigative team had, through a separate source, received the contents of some communications involving lawmakers. In his referral letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Jordan accused Smith of intentionally giving false testimony to interfere with the Judiciary Committee’s oversight.



