Former Special Counsel Jack Smith is under investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Special Counsel for potential violations of the Hatch Act during his time overseeing federal criminal investigations into former President Donald Trump. The inquiry, prompted by complaints that Smith may have acted with political bias or engaged in activity deemed impermissibly partisan, marks a rare and politically charged review of a former high-ranking prosecutor.
The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using their official authority to interfere with or influence the outcome of an election. At the center of the investigation are concerns that the timing and execution of charges brought by Smith against Trump could have had an undue impact on the 2024 presidential campaign. Smith led two major cases against the former president, one involving alleged mishandling of classified documents and another tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Both cases generated national headlines and intense political backlash, with critics accusing Smith of overreach and partisanship.
Smith was appointed in 2022 by Attorney General Merrick Garland and brought charges in both cases in 2023. The cases were subsequently delayed or dismissed following a series of legal developments, including a Supreme Court ruling that broadened presidential immunity. Smith stepped down from his role in early 2025, months after the trials failed to proceed.
While the Office of Special Counsel has no authority to bring criminal charges, it can issue findings and make recommendations to the president or relevant agencies. In Smith’s case, since he no longer holds a federal position, any consequences are likely to be symbolic. The investigation, however, has amplified existing divisions over the role of the Justice Department in politically sensitive prosecutions and is likely to become another flashpoint in the ongoing debate about accountability and election integrity.
Smith has not publicly commented on the investigation. Supporters argue that his work was guided by the rule of law and that the charges he brought were grounded in facts and legal precedent. Critics continue to contend that the prosecutions were timed and constructed in a manner that risked compromising the appearance of neutrality in the justice system. The outcome of the investigation may carry limited formal weight but could have significant implications for public perception and future prosecutorial conduct in politically charged cases.
