House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has issued a criminal referral against former special counsel Jack Smith, urging the Justice Department to investigate whether Smith committed perjury during his testimony before Congress earlier this year. The move, announced on Wednesday, marks a significant escalation in the ongoing political confrontation between House Republicans and the former prosecutor who led two federal investigations into President Donald Trump.
Jordan, an Ohio Republican and close ally of Trump, sent a formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi requesting that the DOJ open a perjury probe into Smith. The referral stems from Smith’s January appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, during which Jordan and other Republicans allege that Smith made false statements under oath about his handling of evidence and interactions with the White House. The committee chairman has not released a transcript of the testimony, but his office released a statement accusing Smith of «misleading» lawmakers and «obstructing» the committee’s oversight work.
Smith served as special counsel from November 2022 until January 2025, overseeing investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Both cases resulted in indictments, but the Justice Department dropped the charges after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, citing a long-standing policy against prosecuting a sitting president. Smith resigned shortly after the election and has since become a frequent target of Republican criticism.
The criminal referral is largely symbolic. It does not compel the Justice Department to act, and legal experts note that perjury cases are notoriously difficult to prove, especially when they hinge on disputed interpretations of testimony. However, the referral carries political weight, reinforcing the narrative among Trump allies that Smith’s investigations were politically motivated and that he should face consequences for his actions.
In his letter to Bondi, Jordan argued that Smith’s testimony contained «multiple, material falsehoods» and that the former special counsel «deliberately misled» the committee about the timing and scope of his communications with the White House counsel’s office. Jordan also accused Smith of withholding documents that had been subpoenaed by the committee. The Justice Department has not publicly commented on the referral, and it remains unclear whether Bondi will order an investigation.
Smith’s defenders have dismissed the referral as a partisan attack. «This is a baseless attempt to intimidate a prosecutor who did his job,» said one former Justice Department official who worked with Smith. Legal analysts point out that Smith’s testimony was given under oath, but that the threshold for a perjury charge requires proof that the witness knowingly made a false statement about a material fact—a high bar that is rarely met in political disputes.
The referral is the latest chapter in a broader Republican campaign against Smith. House Republicans have previously sought to hold Smith in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with subpoenas, and several conservative groups have filed ethics complaints against him. Trump himself has repeatedly called for Smith to be prosecuted, describing him as a «deranged» prosecutor who engaged in «lawfare» against the president.
Democrats have condemned the referral as an abuse of congressional power. «This is not oversight; it is retaliation,» said Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. «Jim Jordan is using the tools of Congress to settle political scores.» Raskin noted that the committee has not taken similar action against witnesses who may have misled Congress in other contexts, suggesting that the referral is selective and politically motivated.
The timing of the referral is also notable. It comes as the Justice Department is already facing intense scrutiny from Republicans over its handling of the Trump investigations. Bondi, a Trump loyalist appointed after the 2024 election, has signaled that she is open to reviewing the conduct of former prosecutors. Earlier this year, she ordered an internal review of the Smith investigations, though no public findings have been released.
Legal experts say that even if the Justice Department declines to prosecute, the referral could have lasting consequences. It may be used by Trump allies to argue that Smith engaged in misconduct, potentially influencing public opinion and future legal battles. It could also complicate Smith’s ability to practice law or testify in other proceedings.
Smith has not publicly responded to the referral. His attorney declined to comment, citing the ongoing nature of the matter. The former special counsel has largely remained out of the public eye since leaving office, though he has reportedly been consulting with legal scholars on a book about his time as special counsel.
The referral adds to a growing list of legal and political battles surrounding the Trump investigations. Several former Justice Department officials who worked on the cases have been subpoenaed by House committees, and at least one has been held in contempt. The Justice Department’s internal review is expected to continue for months, and it remains unclear whether any charges will ultimately be filed.
For now, the criminal referral against Jack Smith is a political statement—one that underscores the deep divisions over the rule of law and accountability in the post-Trump era. Whether it leads to actual prosecution or remains a symbolic gesture, it is likely to fuel further debate about the limits of prosecutorial power and the role of Congress in overseeing the Justice Department.
