Former special counsel Jack Smith, a central figure in the legal battles that dogged Donald Trump after his first White House term, is now at the heart of a new political storm. The House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, has summoned Smith to testify, alleging a string of prosecutorial abuses and constitutional overreaches during his tenure. This latest move intensifies the scrutiny on Smith, whose high-profile prosecutions of Trump were ultimately dismissed after the president's 2024 electoral victory.
Jordan's October 14, 2025 letter pulls no punches. He accuses Smith of being "ultimately responsible for the prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional abuses" committed by his office. Among the tactics Jordan highlights: attempts to silence Trump by restricting his public statements about the case, conducting what he calls an "unnecessary and abusive raid" of Trump’s residence, pressuring defense counsel with the promise of political patronage, and even manipulating key evidence in the investigation. "These actions undermined the integrity of the criminal justice system and violated the core responsibility of federal prosecutors to do justice," Jordan wrote, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Smith has been urged to schedule a transcribed interview with the committee by October 28, 2025. The committee is also demanding access to communications and documents related to Smith’s appointment and his time as special counsel, signaling a deep dive into the inner workings of one of the most contentious federal investigations in recent memory. As of press time, Smith's attorney had not responded to requests for comment.
The committee’s probe is not limited to Smith alone. Two of his top prosecutors, Jay Bratt and Thomas Windom, have already refused to answer questions from the committee, invoking privileges and the Fifth Amendment, the Daily Caller News Foundation reported. This silence has only fueled suspicions among Smith's critics and added to the political drama swirling around the case.
Documents released by the FBI on October 7, 2025, have provided fresh ammunition for Smith’s detractors. These records reveal that Smith’s team obtained phone records of eight Republican senators and Tennessee Republican Rep. Bill Hagerty as part of the so-called "Arctic Frost" investigation. Earlier disclosures from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley showed that subpoenas were issued to dozens of conservative organizations, including Turning Point USA and the Republican Attorneys General Association, as part of the same probe.
The scope of the investigation has prompted pointed questions from lawmakers. During an interview with the committee, Windom declined to specify "how many other members of Congress were investigated as part of the Arctic Frost investigation and Jack Smith investigation," according to Jordan's letter. For critics, these revelations paint a picture of a probe that stretched well beyond its original mandate, raising concerns about overreach and the targeting of political opponents.
Smith now faces scrutiny on multiple fronts. In August, Republican Senator Tom Cotton confirmed that Smith was under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the internal federal watchdog. The focus: whether Smith violated the Hatch Act, a law that restricts federal employees from engaging in certain political activities. If the OSC finds evidence of misconduct, it could refer the matter to the appropriate bar associations, though it lacks authority to impose direct disciplinary action.
On October 17, 2025, Republican lawmakers escalated their campaign by formally asking the Justice Department to investigate Smith for potentially improper conduct regarding the acquisition of congressional Republicans' call logs. Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, requesting an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility into Smith’s actions. As reported by Reuters, the letter stated that during Smith’s investigation, the Justice Department "issued subpoenas to several telecommunications companies in 2023 regarding our cell phone records, gaining access to the time, recipient, duration, and location of calls placed on our devices from January 4, 2021, to January 7, 2021."
The Office of Professional Responsibility, while unable to issue disciplinary decisions itself, can refer any findings of professional misconduct to relevant bar associations. This move comes amid persistent claims by Trump and his allies that Smith’s investigations were politically motivated—allegations that have dogged Smith since the outset, though Trump has never provided evidence to substantiate them, as Reuters notes.
The political reverberations from Smith’s work have not been limited to Trump. Michael Dreeben, a lead member of Smith’s legal team, has recently joined the defense team for former FBI Director James Comey, who is facing charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. According to Politico, Comey became the first ex-FBI director in history to face arraignment earlier this month after being indicted in September 2025. Comey has argued that his indictment is politically motivated retribution for his role in investigating Trump as FBI director.
Dreeben’s involvement in the Comey case is noteworthy. He previously led Smith’s team in arguments before the Supreme Court, contending that Trump did not have absolute immunity for official acts—a central issue in the Biden Justice Department’s election-interference prosecution against Trump. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled largely in Trump’s favor on the immunity question last year, dealing a blow to Smith and Dreeben’s case. This ruling added fuel to Trump’s claims that the investigations against him were part of a broader political vendetta.
Comey’s legal woes echo the broader political battles that have defined the Trump era. The FBI, under Comey’s leadership, launched a 2016 investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to influence the presidential election. Trump has long derided the probe as a "hoax," a sentiment that gained traction among his supporters after the investigation ended without charges. Dreeben himself was also part of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which investigated suspicions of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Mueller’s investigation concluded in 2019, finding no evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
The Republican-led inquiries into Smith’s conduct and the broader legal battles involving figures like Comey underscore the deep partisan divisions that continue to shape American politics. For some, the investigations into Trump and his associates represent necessary efforts to uphold the rule of law and ensure accountability at the highest levels of government. For others, they are emblematic of a justice system weaponized for political ends—a charge now being leveled at Smith himself by his congressional critics.
As Smith prepares to face the House Judiciary Committee, the stakes are high—not just for him, but for the broader debate over prosecutorial independence, political accountability, and the future of American democracy. The outcome of these investigations, and the public’s response to them, will likely reverberate for years to come, shaping the contours of political and legal battles well beyond 2025.
