Jack Smith Faces Criminal Referral for Allegedly Lying to Congress About Spying on Lawmakers

Former special counsel Jack Smith now stands accused of lying under oath to Congress—a stunning fall for the prosecutor who relentlessly pursued President Trump with unprecedented legal warfare.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan dropped the hammer Wednesday, filing a criminal referral with the Justice Department that presents what he calls “strong evidence” Smith deliberately deceived lawmakers about his team’s unconstitutional surveillance of members of Congress.

The accusation is straightforward and damning: Smith told Congress under oath he didn’t obtain or review lawmakers’ text messages. Newly released documents prove that was false.

The Lie Under Oath

During his December 17, 2025 deposition, Smith was asked point-blank whether he sought search warrants for the content of congressional text messages while investigating Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election.

“No, I don’t recall that,” Smith responded, claiming his team only obtained toll records—basic call logs that show when communications occurred, not their actual content.

That carefully crafted answer gave lawmakers the clear impression that Smith’s prosecutors never accessed the substance of privileged congressional communications.

We now know that was a lie.

The Evidence Doesn’t Lie

Documents released to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley last week tell a drastically different story. Smith’s team directly accessed text messages from more than 40 members of Congress—actual message content, not just metadata.

These weren’t accidental glimpses either. Smith’s prosecutors deliberately “bypassed” a filter team that was supposedly established to protect privileged documents and prevent constitutional violations.

The messages, sent between October 2020 and January 20, 2021, included communications between lawmakers and White House officials—precisely the kind of privileged legislative correspondence protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

A Pattern of Prosecutorial Abuse

Jordan’s referral argues that Smith violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the federal statute criminalizing false statements to Congress. The evidence appears overwhelming.

“While testifying under oath, Mr. Smith seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact that contradict new documents obtained by the Committee from the Department of Justice,” Jordan wrote to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The Ohio Republican didn’t mince words about Smith’s motivation: “Mr. Smith’s conduct can only be understood as an effort to thwart the Committee’s inquiry by intentionally making false statements and representations before Congress.”

This wasn’t a memory lapse or confusion about technical details. Smith gave specific, declarative answers designed to mislead congressional investigators about his team’s surveillance of the legislative branch.

Constitutional Crisis Ignored

The implications extend far beyond one prosecutor’s credibility. Smith’s team surveilled dozens of lawmakers without proper safeguards, potentially violating separation of powers principles that have protected congressional independence for over two centuries.

The filter team that was supposed to prevent exactly this kind of constitutional overreach was “bypassed”—a sanitized bureaucratic term for what amounts to deliberate circumvention of protective protocols.

This raises obvious questions: Who authorized bypassing these safeguards? What did Smith know about it? And when did he know it?

His testimony to Congress suggests he knew plenty—and chose to hide it.

The Double Standard on Full Display

Imagine if a Trump administration prosecutor had secretly accessed Democratic lawmakers’ text messages, bypassed constitutional protections, then lied about it to Congress under oath.

The media would demand immediate prosecution. Democratic lawmakers would declare democracy itself under assault. The Sunday shows would discuss nothing else for months.

Instead, we get silence from the same outlets that breathlessly covered every Smith filing against Trump as if it were handed down from Mount Sinai.

Justice Delayed But Not Denied

Jordan’s referral gives the Justice Department a clear roadmap for investigation and potential prosecution. The evidence is documented, the statute is clear, and the misconduct is obvious.

“We therefore believe that sufficient evidence exists for DOJ to examine whether Mr. Smith’s actions warrant a charge,” Jordan concluded—understated language for what amounts to an open-and-shut case of perjury.

Smith built his reputation as an aggressive prosecutor unafraid to pursue powerful targets. He characterized his pursuit of Trump as a defense of the rule of law itself.

Now he faces the test of whether that rule of law applies equally—or whether prosecutors who target Republicans operate under different standards than everyone else.

Accountability Must Follow

The American people deserve answers. Members of Congress—regardless of party—deserve to know whether their privileged communications were improperly surveilled by an overzealous prosecutor with a political ax to grind.

And the Justice Department must decide whether lying to Congress under oath is a crime only when Republicans do it, or whether equal justice means holding everyone to the same standard.

Smith’s attorney and the DOJ have remained conspicuously silent since Jordan’s referral became public. That silence speaks volumes.

The evidence is clear. The law is unambiguous. Either Smith faces the same legal scrutiny he eagerly applied to others, or we admit openly that Washington operates under a two-tiered justice system where political allies get protection and opponents get prosecution.

This isn’t about partisan payback. It’s about holding prosecutors accountable when they abuse their extraordinary power and then lie about it under oath.

Jack Smith wanted to make an example of Donald Trump. Instead, he may become an example himself—of what happens when prosecutorial zeal crosses into lawlessness, and when arrogance leads prosecutors to believe they’re above the very laws they’re sworn to enforce.

The criminal referral is filed. The evidence is documented. Now we wait to see if justice applies equally, or if some prosecutors remain untouchable.