Jordan Asks DOJ to Prosecute Jack Smith, Allying a Single 'No' Against 44 Lawmakers' Texts

The number that matters is 44. That is how many members of Congress had the content of their text messages obtained by the team of Special Counsel Jack Smith, according to the House Judiciary Committee chairman now asking the Justice Department to prosecute the man who investigated Donald Trump twice. The figure sits at the center of a single word Smith spoke under oath in December — no — and that one syllable is what the referral is built on.²³⁴

On July 22, 2026, Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department asking it to investigate and prosecute Smith for allegedly making false statements during a closed-door deposition. Jordan's letter argues that Smith gave Congress a misleading answer about the reach of his investigative powers.²³⁴⁵

The exchange happened during Smith's December 17, 2025 deposition before the House Judiciary Committee. According to the reporting, Smith was asked whether the toll records his team had subpoenaed included the content of calls or texts from members of Congress. He answered no.³¹¹

Jordan argues that answer was misleading because Smith's office separately obtained the content of text messages involving 44 members of Congress, allegedly through a separate request to the National Archives. Fox News reported that the Senate found Smith's team collected and read texts from members of Congress.⁷ Jordan cited the federal false-statement statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and accused Smith of making "willfully and intentionally false statements."¹⁰¹¹

Some outlets, including ABC News, frame the referral as alleging perjury.⁵¹⁰ ABC's photo caption dates Smith's testimony to January 22, 2026 — a date that conflicts slightly with the December deposition reported elsewhere. The discrepancy is not resolved in the available reporting.

Smith's lawyers have rejected the referral outright. They said Smith gave truthful, responsive answers to the exact questions asked, and that the question he was asked was specifically about toll records, which by definition do not contain message content.³⁶

Former prosecutors told CBS News that the referral fails to show a crime was committed.⁶ The defense argues the dispute is not about whether Smith lied; it is about whether he should have volunteered information that was not responsive to the question put to him.

A criminal referral from a committee chairman does not compel prosecution; it is a recommendation that the department may accept, decline, or quietly shelve. The referral lands at a Justice Department whose leadership has been reshaped since the investigations Smith ran, and any decision to prosecute a former special counsel for testimony about his own case would carry its own political weight.⁶

The referral is the most concrete step yet in the institutional confrontation between congressional Republicans and the prosecutors who investigated Donald Trump. It follows months of pressure from the House Judiciary Committee on Smith and his team, and it converts a closed-door transcript into a possible criminal case.