The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee has escalated his confrontation with the Justice Department by formally requesting that federal prosecutors consider bringing criminal charges against former special counsel Jack Smith. Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio sent a criminal referral to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday, alleging that Smith committed perjury during his testimony before the committee earlier this year.
The referral, which was first reported by multiple news outlets, marks a significant escalation in the ongoing Republican scrutiny of Smith's work as the special counsel who oversaw two federal investigations into President-elect Donald Trump. Jordan's action transforms a political dispute into a formal legal request that the Justice Department weigh whether to prosecute a former senior prosecutor in its own ranks.
At the heart of Jordan's complaint is Smith's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in January 2026. According to the referral letter, Jordan alleges that Smith made false statements under oath regarding his handling of evidence and his interactions with the Biden administration. The chairman has not released the full transcript of the testimony, but his office provided a summary of the alleged discrepancies.
Smith, who served as special counsel from November 2022 until he resigned in early 2025, has denied any wrongdoing. His attorneys issued a statement Wednesday evening calling the referral a «baseless political stunt» and insisting that his testimony was accurate and complete. «Jack Smith testified truthfully and thoroughly before the committee,» the statement said. «This referral is an abuse of the criminal justice system for partisan purposes.»
The Justice Department has not publicly commented on the referral. Under standard procedure, the department's Office of Legal Counsel or the Criminal Division would review the referral to determine whether to open an investigation. Legal experts note that criminal referrals from Congress carry no binding authority and are often viewed as political statements rather than actionable legal documents.
The referral is the latest chapter in a bitter relationship between Jordan and Smith that dates back to the early stages of the Trump investigations. Jordan, a close ally of Trump, has long criticized Smith's prosecutions as politically motivated. He has issued multiple subpoenas for documents and testimony related to Smith's investigations and has held hearings examining the conduct of the Justice Department under the Biden administration.
Smith was appointed special counsel in November 2022 by Attorney General Garland to oversee investigations into Trump's handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The investigations resulted in two indictments, but both cases were dismissed after Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election, following a longstanding Justice Department policy that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee quickly condemned Jordan's referral. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat, called it «an outrageous attempt to intimidate prosecutors and undermine the rule of law.» He accused Jordan of using the committee's powers to retaliate against Smith for pursuing charges against Trump.
The referral also drew criticism from legal ethics experts. Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Law, said that perjury referrals require a high threshold of evidence that is rarely met in cases involving congressional testimony. «Prosecutors are extremely cautious about bringing perjury charges based on conflicting recollections or interpretations of events,» Gillers said. «The bar is very high, and this referral appears to fall well short of it.»
The timing of the referral is notable, coming just months before the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans are seeking to maintain their narrow majority in the House, and the issue of Justice Department accountability has become a central campaign theme. Jordan's move is likely to energize the Republican base while further polarizing an already divided Congress.
Smith's testimony in January was part of a broader oversight effort by the Judiciary Committee to examine the conduct of the Justice Department during the Biden administration. Jordan has also sought testimony from other former prosecutors and FBI officials involved in the Trump investigations. The committee has issued several subpoenas and held multiple hearings on the matter.
The referral does not require the Justice Department to take any action. Attorney General Garland, who appointed Smith, has defended the special counsel's work as independent and professional. It remains unclear whether the department will even acknowledge the referral publicly, as it typically does not comment on pending matters.
Smith, who previously served as a federal prosecutor and as chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague, has largely remained out of the public eye since resigning. He has not indicated whether he plans to return to private practice or pursue other opportunities. His testimony in January was his first public appearance since leaving the Justice Department.
The controversy over Smith's investigations is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Trump has repeatedly called for investigations into those who prosecuted him, and his allies in Congress have signaled that they will continue to press the issue. Jordan has already announced plans for additional hearings on the Justice Department's conduct later this year.
Legal analysts say that even if the Justice Department declines to act on the referral, the political damage may already be done. The referral provides a platform for Republicans to continue questioning the legitimacy of Smith's investigations and to cast doubt on the integrity of the Justice Department. For Democrats, it reinforces their argument that Republicans are using the levers of government to settle political scores.
The referral also raises questions about the future of congressional oversight of the Justice Department. Some legal scholars worry that the increasing use of criminal referrals for partisan purposes could undermine the credibility of the process and make it harder for Congress to conduct legitimate oversight. Others argue that the referrals are a legitimate tool for holding the executive branch accountable.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the battle over Smith's legacy is likely to intensify. Both parties see the issue as a powerful tool for mobilizing their supporters. For now, the ball is in the Justice Department's court, and the department's response — or lack thereof — will shape the next phase of this ongoing political drama.
