House Report Alleges Jack Smith's Team Tried to 'Sway' the 2024 Election

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan released a 57-page report on Wednesday alleging that former Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris Justice Department tried to "sway" the 2024 presidential election by turning the department against President Donald Trump and his allies.

The report concludes that Smith's team "ran roughshod over key constitutional protections" and that the previous Democratic White House used "the DOJ as a weapon against its political opponents." It amounts to the most detailed congressional accounting yet of the investigations that shadowed Trump through the 2024 campaign.

The findings land as the Justice Department under Attorney General Todd Blanche moves to dismantle the machinery of political prosecutions. For Republicans, the report is fresh documentation that the cases built against Trump rested on process abuses rather than facts.

Unlawful Gag Orders and a Late Evidence Dump

At the center of the report is the charge that Smith's prosecutors tried to silence Trump with "unlawful gag orders" while pressuring defense attorneys and mishandling key documents.

The committee also faults the special counsel's office for releasing a massive trove of alleged evidence just weeks before the November 2024 election, a move the report says was designed to sway public opinion at the decisive moment of the race.

Smith has rejected that framing. In testimony to congressional investigators, he stood by his team's work and maintained his innocence amid a barrage of Republican criticism, arguing that his office followed the evidence wherever it led.

Phone Records of 44 Lawmakers

The report says as many as 44 members of Congress, two of them Democrats, had the contents of their text messages gathered by Smith's team, a sweep Republicans say trampled the Speech or Debate Clause.

Jordan's own phone records were caught up in the investigation. Investigators on the probe known inside the department as "Arctic Frost" sought his records from August 2020 through January 2021 as part of the federal inquiry into Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa.

Internal documents described in the report show the department's Public Integrity Section (PIN) raised constitutional concerns about the seizures but approved them anyway. PIN officials reasoned that gag orders attached to the subpoenas meant there was little "litigation risk," because members of Congress would never learn the records had been taken.

"As a result, Members of Congress were unaware of the Biden-Harris DOJ's spying for more than two years," the report states.

PIN argued the Speech or Debate Clause did not apply because the subpoenas targeted personal cell phone accounts and were served on a third party, the lawmakers' carriers rather than the lawmakers themselves. Emails cited in the report show PIN Deputy Chief Jennifer Clarke and another section official, John Keller, each flagged litigation risk before proceeding.

Smith's team ultimately backed away from a May 2023 grand jury subpoena to AT&T covering two other lawmakers' records after the carrier questioned its legal basis. No records were produced, and Smith later told investigators he had no recollection of the matter.

A Watchdog Used as a Messenger

The report also alleges the department broke its own rules when it dramatically expanded its demand for Jordan's records. A subpoena issued on May 1 sought every call, incoming and outgoing, on his phone from January 1, 2020, to April 25, 2022, more than two years of data.

That subpoena was served on Jordan's carrier by a special agent from the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General, an office meant to operate independently of department leadership. Special Agent Brian Burnett testified the assignment was "unique" in three decades of law enforcement work, because he was following instructions from an assistant U.S. attorney rather than running his own investigation.

The report further claims Smith privately told then-Attorney General Merrick Garland that lawmakers likely enjoyed a valid Speech or Debate privilege shielding them from compelled testimony, and that Garland blessed the subpoenas regardless.

The pattern of aggressive political investigations has stretched beyond Washington. The New York attorney general's office, for instance, faced its own reckoning after a deleted email showed staff were told to hunt for crimes against Trump.

What Comes Next

Jordan's report does not stop at findings. It recommends the House take up the Congressional Records Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., which would bar any government entity from obtaining records likely to implicate the Speech or Debate Clause, whether by subpoena, court order, warrant, or any other means.

The bill has cleared the Judiciary Committee but has not reached a floor vote. Jordan argues the protection extends beyond lawmakers to the Americans they represent, shielding constituents from executive branch intimidation.

Separately, Jordan has issued a criminal referral asking the Justice Department to prosecute Smith over statements he made to Congress last December about how the toll records and message content of more than 40 lawmakers were collected.

Smith continues to defend his record, placing responsibility for the seized records on Trump, whom he accuses of directing associates to contact senators in a bid to delay proceedings. Whether the House acts on new legislative protections, or the Justice Department acts on Jordan's referral, the fight over how far prosecutors may go in pursuit of a president now moves to a new phase.