House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has filed a formal criminal referral against former Special Counsel Jack Smith, alleging Smith lied under oath during congressional testimony about whether his team accessed the private text messages of more than 40 members of Congress during the Trump investigations.
The referral, sent Wednesday to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, asks the Justice Department to investigate Smith for potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the federal false-statements statute that criminalizes knowingly making materially false statements to Congress or federal investigators. The Department confirmed it received the referral and pledged action.
At the center of the dispute is a closed-door deposition Smith gave on December 17, 2025, in which he told the House Judiciary Committee that his office sought only telephone "toll records" from telecom providers and did not recall seeking warrants for lawmakers' text messages. Jordan now says newly obtained DOJ records prove those answers were false, and that Smith's team read the actual content of text messages from 44 members of Congress, obtained not from phone companies but from the National Archives.
The documents that triggered the referral surfaced through an unusual route. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released records showing Smith's investigators had directly accessed text messages from 44 lawmakers, spanning both parties, sent between October 2020 and January 20, 2021. The records identified by Fox News include communications from Jordan himself, Grassley, former Vice President Mike Pence, and Ivanka Trump.
Jordan's committee obtained additional DOJ records on July 14 that confirmed Smith's team reviewed those messages. Newsmax reported that 40 of the 44 lawmakers whose texts were accessed were Republicans, with four Democrats also swept up in the collection.
The records also revealed that Smith's team bypassed a "Filter Team," a procedural safeguard the DOJ had established specifically to prevent investigators from viewing privileged congressional communications. That team was supposed to screen any potentially protected material before prosecutors could see it. Instead, Smith's investigators allegedly accessed the messages directly, without that layer of review.
During his December 2025 deposition, Smith told the committee that the records his team requested from telecom providers were "just toll records," a term that typically refers to call logs showing numbers dialed, call duration, and timestamps, but not the content of any communications. He also said he did not recall seeking warrants for lawmakers' text messages.
Jordan's referral argues those answers were carefully constructed to mislead. The chairman contends Smith knew his team had obtained message content through a separate subpoena to the National Archives, and that his narrow answers about telecom toll records concealed the broader collection effort. As CLN previously reported, multiple lawmakers had already raised alarms about Smith's testimony before the formal referral materialized.
In his letter to Blanche, Jordan wrote:
"The responses provided by Mr. Smith gave the impression that neither Mr. Smith nor his team had access to the content of Members' privileged text messages. We now know this to be false."
Jordan pressed the legal theory further in the referral, arguing that a half-truth can constitute a criminal false statement. As the New York Post reported, Jordan wrote that "a statement containing some truthful information becomes affirmatively false when it represents that the partial information is complete."
Smith's lawyers, Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer, pushed back forcefully. They called his testimony "unimpeachably truthful" and argued he accurately answered the specific questions posed to him about toll records. Their statement cast the referral in sharply different terms:
"During his testimony, Mr. Smith provided truthful, responsive answers and candidly discussed his work as Special Counsel. This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system."
The defense rests on a distinction between the questions asked and the information volunteered. Smith's lawyers argue he was asked about toll records from telecom providers, and he answered that question truthfully. They contend he was not asked about text message content obtained from the National Archives, and therefore had no obligation to disclose it in that context.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed that position. "Jack Smith was clear and consistent in his testimony, and he told the truth," Raskin said, as Just The News reported.
A criminal referral is not a charge. It is a formal request from Congress asking the Justice Department to investigate whether criminal conduct occurred. The DOJ retains full discretion over whether to open a formal investigation, convene a grand jury, or decline the matter entirely.
But the Department's public response suggested it takes the referral seriously. A DOJ spokesperson confirmed receipt and stated plainly: "The Department can confirm receipt of the criminal referral from the House Judiciary Committee and will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct."
The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, carries a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison for anyone who "knowingly and willfully" makes a materially false statement in connection with a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Prosecutions under the statute require proof that the false statement was deliberate, not merely mistaken or incomplete by accident.
Jordan framed the evidence as meeting that bar. Breitbart reported that Jordan wrote to Blanche: "Based on this new information, there is cause for investigation to determine whether Mr. Smith knowingly made false statements to obstruct the Committee's oversight."
The referral lands in a DOJ already grappling with fallout from Smith's tenure as special counsel. Earlier this year, the Department disclosed it had discovered a hidden trove of Jack Smith documents in a previously overlooked room, raising questions about record-keeping and transparency within the special counsel's office.
The problems have extended to Smith's former staff as well. A former Smith prosecutor was indicted for allegedly stealing a sealed Trump report and disguising the files as cake recipes, a case that drew national attention and deepened conservative skepticism about the operation's integrity.
Jordan's referral adds a new dimension to that scrutiny. If the DOJ concludes that Smith deliberately misled Congress about the scope of his team's access to lawmakers' communications, it would represent a striking reversal: the man who investigated the president now facing investigation himself for conduct during that very probe.
Several questions remain unresolved. Investigators will need to determine whether Smith's answers, even if technically responsive to the narrow questions asked, were crafted to conceal material facts from the committee. The distinction between a misleading half-truth and a legally false statement is the fulcrum on which any prosecution would turn.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether the Filter Team bypass was authorized at any level within DOJ leadership, or whether Smith personally directed his investigators to access the congressional texts without that safeguard. The timeline of who knew what, and when, about the National Archives collection has not been fully established in public records.
The political dynamics surrounding the referral also bear watching. Acting AG Blanche already faces pressure from multiple directions on Capitol Hill, as recent clashes between senators and DOJ leadership have demonstrated. How Blanche handles a referral from a powerful committee chairman targeting a figure already reviled by much of the Republican base will test whether the Department can project independence while responding to legitimate congressional oversight.
The core legal question is deceptively simple. When a witness answers a question truthfully but omits information that would change the meaning of that answer, does the omission cross the line into a criminal false statement?
Smith's lawyers say no. Jordan says the DOJ's own records prove yes. The Justice Department says it will investigate.
If the government that once employed Jack Smith now prosecutes him, it will send a message that no prosecutor sits above the oversight power of Congress. If it declines, the referral will still stand as a public record of what Jordan calls "strong evidence" that Smith misled the people's representatives while under oath.
Accountability does not stop at the prosecutor's desk. That principle either means something, or it does not.
