House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has referred former Special Counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution, alleging that Smith knowingly made false statements during congressional testimony about his investigation into President Donald Trump.
Trump reacted to the development Wednesday with a brief post on Truth Social: “Justice at last???”
The referral follows documents released last week by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who said they showed members of Smith’s investigative team obtained text messages belonging to dozens of members of Congress and White House officials during the federal investigation.
According to Fox News, investigators accessed the communications of 44 lawmakers from both political parties, along with members of the White House staff. The reported list includes Jordan, Grassley, the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, former Vice President Mike Pence, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Sen. Cory Booker, and FBI Director Kash Patel.
Smith led the Justice Department’s prosecutions involving Trump, including cases related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the handling of classified documents after leaving office.
Jordan’s criminal referral centers on Smith’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in December 2025. During that hearing, Smith was asked whether his investigation had obtained the contents of lawmakers’ text messages.
#BREAKING: Chairman @Jim_Jordan referred former Special Counsel Jack Smith to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
The evidence appears to show that Jack Smith knowingly made false statements while testifying under oath before the Committee.
Read the letter ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/yxz5rF6d48
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) July 23, 2026
According to Jordan, Smith answered that it had not.
Instead, Smith testified that investigators sought “toll records” containing historical routing information, including incoming and outgoing phone numbers, call times, and call durations.
“Toll records do not include the content of calls,” Smith told the committee.
Jordan argues that newly released records contradict that testimony.
In his referral letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Jordan wrote that “all individuals have an obligation to comply with a duly authorized congressional inquiry” and alleged that Smith intentionally provided false statements to obstruct congressional oversight.
“His conduct can only be understood as an effort to thwart the Committee’s inquiry by intentionally making false statements and representations before Congress,” Jordan wrote, adding that the committee believes sufficient evidence exists to consider criminal charges under federal law.
Speaking with Fox News on Thursday, Jordan expanded on those allegations.
“He said he didn’t get contents, when in fact he did for 44 members of the United States Congress,” Jordan said.
Jordan also argued that lawmakers’ communications are entitled to constitutional protections under the Speech or Debate Clause and said any legislative communications should have been screened out during the investigation.
“We are a separate and equal branch of government, and there’s a speech and debate clause in our Constitution,” Jordan said. “They should have screened out any communications relative to our work as legislators. They did not do it.”
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 23, 2026
Jordan further claimed that prosecutors instructed the phone carrier not to notify lawmakers whose communications had been obtained.
“It’s always worse than we thought when we start these things,” he said. “The amount of information, the number of people he went after.”
Democrats on the committee strongly dispute Jordan’s interpretation.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said Smith accurately answered the questions he was asked during the December hearing.
“When asked if his subpoena for Members’ toll records sought the content of either Member’s phone calls or messages, he truthfully replied that they did not,” Raskin said in a statement. “That statement was true when he said it, and it is true today.”
Raskin argued that Jordan’s referral rests on a disagreement over how the questions were framed rather than evidence that Smith knowingly lied under oath.
“Wishing that you had asked different questions while you had the opportunity to examine a witness is not a proper basis for a referral of a witness for criminal prosecution,” Raskin said.
