Overview
In November 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed veteran prosecutor Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee two high‑risk investigations into Donald Trump: his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents at Mar‑a‑Lago. Both probes produced federal indictments in 2023, placing a former president on track to face criminal trials over alleged election subversion and mishandling of national‑security secrets.
Over the next two years, a Supreme Court ruling expanding presidential immunity, a Trump‑appointed judge’s decision invalidating Smith’s appointment in the documents case, and Trump’s 2024 election victory combined to unravel the prosecutions. Smith submitted a final report and resigned in January 2025, while the new Trump administration purged officials who had worked on his team. House Republicans, building on years of rhetoric about the ‘weaponization’ of federal law enforcement, then turned their sights on Smith himself—culminating in a December 3, 2025 subpoena forcing the former special counsel into a closed‑door deposition about his Trump prosecutions and his team’s decision to obtain phone metadata from ten GOP lawmakers during the 2020 election probe.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the federal executive agency responsible for enforcing U.S. law, overseeing the FBI and federal prosecutors, and managing special counsel appointments.
The House Judiciary Committee oversees the federal courts and Department of Justice and conducts high‑profile investigations into alleged abuses of executive power.
A temporary prosecutorial office within DOJ, created to conduct independent criminal investigations into Donald Trump’s post‑presidency conduct.
Timeline
-
House Republicans subpoena Jack Smith for closed‑door deposition
Congressional ActionThe GOP‑led House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jim Jordan, issues a subpoena ordering former special counsel Jack Smith to appear for a private deposition on December 17 and to provide documents related to his prosecutions of President Trump and the Arctic Frost investigation. Smith’s counsel notes he previously offered to testify publicly but says he will comply with the subpoena.
-
Trump seeks to keep Smith’s classified‑documents report sealed
Legal ActionTrump’s private lawyers ask Judge Cannon to maintain an order blocking release of Smith’s final report on the classified‑documents case, arguing public disclosure would prolong 'unlawful' scrutiny and prejudice any future proceedings. Media organizations and civil‑liberties groups argue for unsealing the report.
-
Trump DOJ fires officials tied to Smith investigations
Executive ActionActing Attorney General James McHenry fires more than a dozen officials who worked on Smith’s team, citing lack of trust in their ability to implement President Trump’s agenda and explicitly invoking Trump’s claims about prior 'weaponization' against him.
-
Smith submits final report; resigns from DOJ days later
InvestigationDOJ informs Judge Cannon that Smith completed his work and submitted a confidential report on January 7, then 'separated' from DOJ on January 10. Garland later releases the election‑interference volume while withholding the classified‑documents volume from the public.
-
House Weaponization Subcommittee issues final report
Congressional ActionJordan’s select subcommittee releases a 17,019‑page report alleging widespread abuses by federal agencies, including DOJ and FBI, and recommending structural changes. Though predating Trump’s return to office, its narrative of 'weaponization' sets the stage for later GOP scrutiny of Smith’s work.
-
Smith moves to drop both federal Trump cases after election win
Legal ActionShortly after Trump wins the November 2024 election, Smith files motions to dismiss the election‑interference and classified‑documents indictments, citing DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting president. Courts subsequently grant the dismissals, formally ending the federal cases against Trump.
-
Judge Cannon dismisses classified‑documents case, finds Smith unlawfully appointed
Court RulingU.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon throws out the Mar‑a‑Lago classified‑documents case, ruling that Jack Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution and that DOJ improperly funded his office, dealing a major blow to the special counsel and inviting appeals.
-
Supreme Court expands presidential immunity in Trump v. United States
Court RulingThe Supreme Court rules 6–3 that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for core official acts and presumptive immunity for other official acts, while denying immunity for unofficial conduct. The decision forces lower courts to re‑evaluate portions of Smith’s election‑interference indictment and effectively rules out a trial before the 2024 election.
-
Election‑interference indictment filed in Washington, D.C.
Legal ActionA grand jury in Washington, D.C., returns a four‑count indictment alleging Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election through schemes to pressure officials and obstruct certification of results; Smith announces the charges in a brief public statement.
-
Classified‑documents indictment unsealed against Trump
Legal ActionSmith’s office unseals a 37‑count indictment in the Southern District of Florida accusing Trump of unlawfully retaining national‑defense information at Mar‑a‑Lago and obstructing government efforts to retrieve it, along with charges against aides Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
-
Special counsel team subpoenas phone metadata for 10 GOP lawmakers
InvestigationAs part of the FBI’s ‘Arctic Frost’ 2020 election probe, Smith’s office obtains Verizon records containing call and text logs and related metadata for at least ten Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Lindsey Graham and Josh Hawley. The move remains secret under a nondisclosure order until documents emerge in 2025, fueling Republican outrage.
-
House creates ‘Weaponization of Government’ subcommittee
Congressional ActionThe House approves H.Res. 12, establishing the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government under the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jim Jordan, with broad authority to subpoena DOJ, FBI, and other agencies.
-
Garland appoints Jack Smith as special counsel over Trump probes
InvestigationAttorney General Merrick Garland names Jack Smith special counsel to oversee DOJ investigations into Trump’s retention of classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 election, aiming to provide additional independence as both Trump and Biden eye 2024 campaigns.
Scenarios
Closed‑door testimony strengthens GOP ‘weaponization’ narrative and leads to referrals
Discussed by: Conservative commentators, some House Republicans, outlets such as the Washington Examiner and New York Post
In this scenario, Republicans use Smith’s deposition and produced documents to argue that his office overreached, especially in the Arctic Frost phone‑metadata subpoenas targeting GOP lawmakers. Selectively released excerpts and staff questioning highlight internal deliberations and investigative tactics, which Jordan’s committee portrays as evidence of systemic bias and abuse. The committee could issue a report recommending criminal referrals, bar complaints, or other sanctions against Smith and former DOJ officials, reinforcing Trump’s broader narrative that he was persecuted by a politicized Justice Department.
Smith’s account backfires on Republicans, underscoring strength of evidence against Trump
Discussed by: Legal analysts and some mainstream outlets noting GOP risk in giving Smith a platform
Here, Smith uses the deposition to methodically explain the evidentiary basis for his charging decisions and the legal constraints that forced him to drop the cases after Trump’s election. Detailed answers—some of which may leak or be summarized publicly—underscore that career prosecutors believed they had a strong trial record on both election interference and classified documents. That could undercut claims of baseless prosecutions and fuel demands to release Smith’s full report, even as Republicans continue to allege bias.
Courts order broader release of Smith’s report, triggering renewed political and legal fallout
Discussed by: First Amendment advocates, legal commentators following Cannon’s docket and appeals
Media organizations and civil‑liberties groups are pressing for unsealing Smith’s full report, while Trump and DOJ currently oppose or seek delays. If higher courts narrow or overturn Judge Cannon’s sealing orders, more of Smith’s factual findings—especially on classified documents—could become public. That would likely reignite debate about Trump’s conduct, potentially embarrass current DOJ leadership over their handling of the report, and give both parties new material for political messaging. It could also sharpen questions about whether future administrations might revive charges against non‑presidential actors implicated in the report.
Congress moves toward structural reforms of special‑counsel rules and presidential immunity
Discussed by: Some constitutional scholars, good‑governance groups, and a minority of lawmakers in both parties
Drawing on the Smith saga and the Supreme Court’s Trump v. United States ruling, a reform‑oriented coalition could push for legislation clarifying special‑counsel appointment authority, funding mechanisms, and reporting obligations, alongside statutory limits on presidential immunity. Analogous to post‑Watergate and post‑Starr reforms, these efforts might seek to prevent both perceived weaponization and impunity. Given polarized politics and Republican control of key institutions, sweeping reforms are unlikely in the short term but remain a plausible medium‑ to long‑term outcome if future scandals expose similar tensions.
Historical Context
Watergate Special Prosecutor and the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’
1973–1974What Happened
During the Watergate scandal, Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as special prosecutor to investigate the Nixon White House. When Cox subpoenaed Oval Office tapes, President Nixon ordered Richardson to fire him; Richardson and his deputy refused and resigned, leaving Solicitor General Robert Bork to dismiss Cox in what became known as the 'Saturday Night Massacre.' The public backlash and subsequent investigations helped force Nixon to release tapes and eventually resign.
Outcome
Short term: Nixon’s attempt to shut down the investigation triggered a political firestorm, congressional calls for impeachment, and the appointment of a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski.
Long term: Watergate led to reforms in campaign finance, congressional oversight, and norms around DOJ independence, shaping later debates about special prosecutors and presidential accountability.
Why It's Relevant
Like the Smith–Trump saga, Watergate involved a president clashing with an ostensibly independent prosecutor over access to evidence, and raised questions about using DOJ as a shield or weapon. The political backlash to Nixon’s firing of Cox is a cautionary precedent for efforts to punish or delegitimize prosecutors investigating a president.
Ken Starr’s Independent Counsel Investigation and Clinton’s Impeachment
1994–1999What Happened
Independent Counsel Ken Starr was appointed in 1994 to investigate the Clintons’ Whitewater land deal, but his mandate later expanded to include alleged abuses and ultimately President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. In 1998 Starr sent a lengthy report to Congress outlining potential impeachment grounds; Clinton was impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate. Public opinion turned against the perceived overreach and partisan tone of Starr’s probe, and the independent counsel statute was allowed to lapse.
Outcome
Short term: Clinton survived in office but suffered political damage; Starr became a polarizing figure, attacked by Democrats for excess and defended by many Republicans as upholding the rule of law.
Long term: The controversy over Starr’s perceived politicization helped end the formal independent‑counsel regime, leading to today’s more constrained special‑counsel regulations within DOJ—rules under which Jack Smith operated.
Why It's Relevant
Starr’s investigation offers a precedent for how a high‑profile prosecutor’s work can become the focus of partisan warfare and subsequent congressional scrutiny, much as Smith now faces subpoenas and reputational battles after investigating a sitting and future president.
The Church Committee’s Investigation of Intelligence Abuses
1975–1976What Happened
In the mid‑1970s, the Senate’s Church Committee investigated abuses by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and IRS, uncovering domestic spying programs, COINTELPRO, and other illegal activities directed at U.S. citizens and political groups. Its final multi‑volume report documented extensive misconduct and led to creation of permanent intelligence‑oversight committees and new legal constraints, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Outcome
Short term: The committee’s revelations shocked the public, damaged trust in intelligence agencies, and spurred immediate legislative and structural reforms to rein in secret surveillance.
Long term: The Church Committee became a model for large‑scale congressional investigations into government abuses, showing that robust oversight can produce enduring institutional change but also deep political controversy.
Why It's Relevant
Today’s House investigations into alleged DOJ and FBI 'weaponization' explicitly invoke the Church Committee as a precedent. The Jack Smith subpoena sits within this lineage of Congress probing law‑enforcement activities, though in this case critics argue the goal is to shield a president and punish investigators rather than expose abuses against ordinary citizens.