Jack Smith Under Investigation for Alleged Political Prosecution of Trump: Report
The Office of Special Counsel has initiated a formal inquiry into Jack Smith, representing the inaugural official legal examination of the former special counsel’s actions.
Smith, appointed by President Biden’s Attorney General, Merrick Garland, supervised two unsuccessful prosecutions against President Donald Trump – one concerning classified documents and the other linked to Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021. According to The New York Post, both cases were dismissed.
As per an email examined by The Post, the Hatch Act Unit within the Office of Special Counsel has initiated a review of Smith’s conduct. This unit is responsible for enforcing the federal statute that prohibits government employees from participating in political activities while fulfilling their official duties. The email, dispatched by Senior Counsel Charles Baldis, verifies that the investigation is currently in progress.
“I commend the Office of Special Counsel for treating this matter with the seriousness it deserves and for initiating an investigation into Jack Smith’s actions. No individual is exempt from the law,” stated Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) in a statement to The Post.
Jack Smith’s actions were evidently motivated by a desire to undermine President Trump’s election, and Smith must be held entirely responsible.
The OSC initiated the investigation following Cotton’s letter sent earlier this week, which accused Smith of taking explicitly political actions to disrupt Trump’s 2024 campaign.
Smith stepped down from his position as special counsel in January, following Trump’s return to office. Republicans have consistently condemned Smith’s efforts as politically driven, alleging that he has manipulated the justice system to undermine Trump’s prospects in the election.
In his correspondence with the OSC, Cotton outlined what he referred to as a systematic pattern of abuse intended to weaken Trump’s candidacy.
“The legal actions taken by Jack Smith were merely a means for the campaigns of Biden and Harris,” Cotton stated. “This behavior is not only unethical, but it also appears to constitute illegal campaign activity originating from a public office.”
Numerous legal actions taken by Smith appear to lack any justification other than an effort to influence the outcomes of the 2024 election — actions that would contravene federal law.
Cotton further alleged that Smith was altering the timeline of his investigations to disrupt significant events in the political calendar, such as the Iowa caucuses.
“These actions were neither standard nor necessary, nor were they justified,” Cotton stated. “They represented the conduct of a political figure pretending to be a public official.”
Smith has not made a public statement regarding the allegations. Throughout his time in office, he maintained that his investigations adhered to legal standards and were devoid of political interference. He did not reply to The Post’s inquiry for comments.
No one is above the law- including this nasty person
— GrrrGraphics-Ben Garrison 🤠 Cartoons 🇺🇸 (@GrrrGraphics) August 2, 2025
former special counsel Jack Smith….. pic.twitter.com/4xiZOPHsHI
The most recent occasion that Smith appeared in the news was in January, when the Justice Department dismissed over a dozen officials and career attorneys who had collaborated with Smith to file charges and seek to prosecute Trump for over a year, culminating in his electoral triumph against Vice President Kamala Harris.
Fox News Digital initially disclosed that James McHenry, who served as the acting attorney general at that time, sent letters to the prosecutors indicating that he was dismissing them due to their inability to “faithfully execute the president’s agenda.”
A representative from the DOJ informed Fox that McHenry sent a letter through email to every individual.
Concerning the matter of trust, a legal analyst from the network stated during a segment of the show that every prosecutor collaborating with a special counsel does so voluntarily—no individual is mandated to undertake this responsibility.
Consequently, prosecutors collaborating with a special counsel typically possess a vested interest in ensuring the conviction of the individual(s) in question.
The implication is that the prosecutors dismissed by McHenry were not supporters of Trump; consequently, he believed they could not be trusted to faithfully perform their responsibilities under his executive leadership.