House Republicans have formally asked the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate former Special Counsel Jack Smith. They allege that he provided inaccurate testimony to Congress regarding investigative efforts involving lawmakers’ phone records.
The request marks the latest development in a broader political and legal dispute surrounding investigations conducted during President Donald Trump’s previous criminal cases. Meanwhile, Smith’s attorneys strongly deny the allegations. They argue that his congressional testimony was accurate and fully responsive to the questions he was asked.
Lawmakers Question Previous Congressional Testimony
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan submitted a criminal referral to the Justice Department. He asserts that Smith may have made false statements while testifying before Congress in late 2025.
The referral centers on investigative actions taken during Smith’s tenure as Special Counsel. These actions include efforts to obtain communication records connected to lawmakers and individuals associated with the White House during earlier federal investigations.
Republican lawmakers contend that Smith failed to accurately describe those investigative activities under oath. Therefore, they have requested that the Justice Department determine whether any federal laws were violated.
The referral reflects continuing congressional scrutiny of the investigations that led to criminal indictments against Donald Trump. These indictments involve classified documents and alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Jack Smith’s Legal Team Rejects Allegations
Attorneys representing Smith dismissed the referral. They state that their client answered every question truthfully and that the allegations are based on issues that were never directly addressed during his congressional testimony.
According to Smith’s legal representatives, committee members did not specifically ask about every investigative technique used during the federal inquiries. Additionally, they argue that the referral incorrectly suggests Smith had an obligation to volunteer information beyond the scope of the questions presented.
The attorneys described the criminal referral as an attempt to target a career public servant. They say he carried out his responsibilities in accordance with federal law and prosecutorial standards.
Political Debate Continues Over Federal Investigations
The referral has generated sharply divided reactions on Capitol Hill.
Supporters of the investigation argue that government officials should be held accountable for their sworn testimony before Congress. In addition, they believe the Justice Department should independently review the allegations.
Democratic lawmakers, however, maintain that the referral misrepresents the congressional record and lacks sufficient factual basis. They argue that Smith’s testimony cannot reasonably be characterized as false if the disputed topics were never directly addressed during the hearing.
The dispute comes amid continued political debate over the investigations involving former President Trump and broader questions surrounding the independence of federal law enforcement agencies.
At this stage, the Justice Department has not publicly announced whether it will open a formal investigation into the allegations raised by House Republicans. Any decision to proceed would likely require an independent review of both the congressional testimony and the underlying investigative records.
