House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department on July 23, 2026, urging prosecutors to open a criminal investigation into former special counsel Jack Smith for allegedly making false statements under oath. The referral, first reported by the Associated Press and confirmed by NPR, centers on Smith's Jan. 22, 2026 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about his two now-closed criminal probes of President Donald Trump. (AP; NPR)

Jordan wrote to the DOJ late Wednesday arguing Smith "seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements" under oath during that deposition. The dispute turns on subpoenas Smith's prosecution team issued for the phone records of lawmakers in contact with top White House officials and allies roughly six years ago, as well as text messages Smith obtained from the National Archives from White House phones that included exchanges between White House aides and members of Congress. NPR

Smith's investigative team secretly obtained text messages from 44 members of Congress as part of the Trump probe, according to a July 14, 2026 release from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), whose own messages were among those collected. Sen. Ron Johnson's (R-Wis.) text messages were also obtained. Grassley's disclosure came more than six months after Smith gave private testimony to the Republican-controlled committee on Dec. 17, 2025, following months of disclosures from Trump appointees, as reported by Reuters. Smith's full deposition was later publicly released, detailing Trump's alleged criminal wrongdoing. (Grassley; Reuters; House Judiciary Democrats)

Smith's legal team pushed back forcefully. Lawyers Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski, representing Smith, released a letter to Jordan and the DOJ asserting that Smith provided "truthful, responsive answers" to Congress. They said Republican members never asked Smith directly about the National Archives text messages and now want to punish him for not proactively disclosing them. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, went further, saying the referral would be "laughed out of court" if it reaches a federal judge. Raskin said Smith could not have lied because Republican members never asked the question their theory is based on. NPR

Trump posted "Justice at last???" on Truth Social early Thursday morning amid news of the criminal referral. NPR

Smith oversaw two criminal probes of Trump: alleged interference in the 2020 election and allegedly refusing to turn over classified materials at Mar-a-Lago. Both ended before trial, partly because Trump won the 2024 election. The Justice Department has already attempted to initiate criminal cases against former FBI Director Jim Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. NPR

The Washington Post syndicated the AP wire story by Eric Tucker on the referral on July 23, 2026. Washington Post

The broader context here is a Justice Department under Trump's second administration that has already moved against former officials who clashed with the president politically. The Comey and James matters establish that the department is willing to act on referrals targeting figures involved in prior investigations of Trump or his allies. Whether the Smith referral clears the threshold for a formal investigation is now before DOJ leadership, and the factual dispute over what questions were and were not asked during Smith's Jan. 22 deposition will likely shape any determination.

For practitioners tracking congressional oversight of the special counsel's office, the Grassley disclosure from July 14 added a new dimension to what had been a closed-door process. The revelation that 44 members of Congress had their text messages obtained by Smith's team gave Republican lawmakers a personal stake in the oversight effort that the earlier private testimony did not. The timing of the referral, coming six months after Smith's private testimony and five months after his public deposition release, tracks with the incremental release of information about the scope of Smith's data collection.

The core legal question is narrow: whether Smith's answers to the committee on Jan. 22 were materially false given what he was actually asked. Smith's lawyers and Ranking Member Raskin frame the answer as a matter of the record: no question, no false statement. Jordan's referral asserts the opposite. The DOJ will have to weigh the transcript against the referral's allegations to decide whether to open a case.