Text Snooping Claims Ignite DOJ Showdown

House Republicans say former Trump prosecutor Jack Smith misled Congress about snooping on lawmakers’ private texts, and they now want the Justice Department to consider criminal charges.

Story Snapshot

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan sent a formal criminal referral urging DOJ to prosecute Jack Smith for alleged false statements to Congress about reviewing lawmakers’ communications.
Jordan cites records showing Smith’s team accessed text message content involving 44 members of Congress during Trump-era investigations, despite Smith saying he did not review such messages.
Smith’s lawyers respond that his testimony was “unimpeachably truthful” and claim Jordan’s referral is based on a “spurious” reading of what he was asked.
The referral lands at a Justice Department still distrusted by many conservatives after years of politicized investigations, raising big questions about accountability for past Trump prosecutions.

Jordan’s referral puts Smith’s testimony under a spotlight

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, has formally asked the Department of Justice to consider prosecuting former Special Counsel Jack Smith. Jordan’s criminal referral says Smith “seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements” during a sworn deposition before the committee on December 17, 2025. That deposition covered Smith’s Trump-era investigations, including his handling of lawmakers’ communications tied to the fight over the 2020 election. For many conservatives, this marks a rare move to hold a powerful prosecutor to the same standard he used against others.

Jordan’s referral focuses on one core issue: whether Smith misled Congress about reviewing the content of members’ text messages. In the deposition, Smith was asked if his office obtained congressional text messages through subpoenas of phone toll records, and he answered no. Smith said his team only sought telephone toll records, which capture call routing details like numbers, time, and duration, but not call content or texts. According to Jordan, newly released records now show a different story, suggesting Smith had access to lawmakers’ text content through other means.

Records show text content from 44 members of Congress was reviewed

Jordan bases his claim on documents first released by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Those records describe a “filter team” inside Smith’s office that reviewed the content of text messages involving 44 members of Congress from both parties, plus White House staff, in the period from October 2020 through Inauguration Day 2021. The messages came from White House records obtained through the National Archives, not direct subpoenas on lawmakers’ phones. Jordan argues that Smith’s testimony still created a false impression that neither he nor his team had access to privileged congressional text content.

The House Judiciary Committee’s own write-up says Smith’s answers “gave the impression” that his office did not have the content of members’ text messages. Jordan’s referral letter presses the point, saying, “We now know this to be false.” He further accuses Smith of taking steps to “spy on Members of Congress” and of using “half-truths” to obstruct the committee’s oversight work. To many on the right, these details match their long-running fear that Washington prosecutors feel free to read private communications of elected lawmakers while hiding the scope of their surveillance from Congress.

Smith’s lawyers call the accusation ‘spurious’ and defend his answers

Jack Smith is not staying silent. His lawyers, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski, sent a response letter to Jordan and to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche calling the referral “spurious.” They argue that Smith’s answers about members’ communications were “unimpeachably truthful” and say Jordan’s own letter “concedes he did not” make a literal false statement. According to them, the complaint is really that Smith did not proactively volunteer information that was not responsive to the narrow question he was asked. Smith’s team insists he gave “truthful, responsive answers” and has urged Congress to release the full video and transcript so the public can judge for themselves.

Supporters of Smith in left-leaning media echo this defense, framing Jordan’s move as political retaliation rather than a clear perjury case. Some commentators say the referral “doesn’t pass the laugh test,” claiming Republicans are stretching the meaning of the question to claim a lie where there was none. But so far, neither side has published every underlying record in one place. There is no court ruling, inspector general report, or neutral legal opinion yet settling whether Smith’s testimony was materially false or simply incomplete.

Why this fight matters for separation of powers and future investigations

This battle is about much more than Jack Smith; it goes straight to separation of powers and trust in federal law enforcement. If a special counsel can quietly review the private texts of dozens of elected lawmakers during a political investigation, many conservatives see an attack on representative government and attorney-client privilege. If that same prosecutor then shades or narrows his answers when Congress asks about those records, it looks like deliberate stonewalling. Jordan’s referral is one way the legislative branch is trying to push back and restore some balance.

At the same time, a criminal referral from Congress is only a request. Legal experts note it carries no binding force and does not itself charge Smith with a crime. The Department of Justice can ignore it, slow-walk it, or open a review. Conservatives remember years when the department raced to pursue Trump allies but shrugged at clear evidence of false statements from officials tied to Democratic causes. How Blanche and his team handle this referral will show whether the post–Trump Justice Department is serious about equal treatment, or still protects its own when the target is a former prosecutor who went after President Trump.