House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has now reportedly issued a criminal referral to the Department of Justice targeting former Special Counsel Jack Smith, alleging that Smith made false statements during sworn congressional testimony. The referral centers on Smith’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last December and his answers regarding records obtained during an investigation.
During the deposition, Smith was asked whether he sought search warrants for the content of text messages from members of Congress.
“Did you seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages from Members?” Smith was asked.
“No, I don’t recall that,” Smith responded after seeking clarification.
Lawmakers then questioned him about the records his office had obtained, asking whether the requested toll records included the content of phone calls or text messages. Smith answered “No” to both questions, indicating the records did not contain message content.
The issue resurfaced last week after Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he had received Department of Justice records showing that Smith’s investigative team reviewed the contents of text messages sent by 44 members of Congress. Grassley and several other Republicans argued the documents suggested Smith had abused his authority and misled Congress during his testimony.
However, several legal reporters challenged that interpretation, arguing that the documents cited by Grassley addressed a different category of records than those discussed during Smith’s testimony.
Lawfare senior editor Anna Bower wrote that the records Smith had been questioned about were toll records, which contain information such as the timing of calls and text messages rather than the contents of those communications. According to Bower, the documents referenced by Grassley did not contradict Smith’s testimony.
“There’s zero ambiguity here,” Bower wrote, adding that nothing contained in the documents raised “any real question of perjury.”
Despite those arguments, Jordan sent a letter Wednesday to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche asserting there was “strong evidence” that Smith may have violated federal law by making false statements during his December 17, 2025, deposition.
In the referral, Jordan wrote that Smith “seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact” that conflict with documents the Judiciary Committee obtained from the Department of Justice. Jordan asked the DOJ to investigate a potential violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the federal statute prohibiting false statements made to Congress, federal courts, and other government agencies.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee quickly pushed back against the referral, arguing that Republicans were criticizing Smith for failing to answer questions that were never asked.
In a statement, committee Democrats said Republicans were effectively faulting Smith “for not reading the minds of congressional investigators and for not volunteering information they didn’t ask for.”
“This is absurd,” Democrats said. “Jack Smith may be telegenic but he is not telepathic.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the committee’s ranking member and a former constitutional law professor, also criticized the referral, describing it as a “baseless and vindictive criminal referral.” Raskin argued Republicans had distorted both the facts and the questions Smith was actually asked during his testimony.
Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney also weighed in, writing that congressional criminal referrals generally carry little significance outside of referrals tied to formal contempt of Congress votes.
Cheney noted that the Department of Justice has already possessed the relevant deposition transcript, video, and text-related records for months, writing that the department does not require a referral from Congress to determine whether a crime occurred.
According to The New York Times, Smith’s attorneys, Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer, responded to Jordan’s referral in a letter calling it a “spurious claim.” The lawyers argued Republicans had taken Smith’s testimony out of context and said he was answering narrowly about toll records rather than discussing broader investigative matters he could not publicly address without approval from Trump administration officials.
Smith’s legal team maintained that he provided truthful and responsive answers during his testimony, arguing the referral was based on the claim that he failed to volunteer information that was never requested. They also accused Republicans of attempting to weaponize the justice system against a career public servant who they said carried out his duties by following the facts and the law.
[READ MORE: Bill O’Reilly Urges Trump to Take a Break, Says President Needs Time to Recharge]
