In a rare public appearance, former Special Counsel Jack Smith captivated an audience at University College London last week with a stark warning about the dangers facing nonpartisan public servants amid intensifying political pressure.
According to Breitbart, Smith's remarks, delivered alongside former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, coincided with demands from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) for Smith to testify by Oct. 28, 2025, over allegations of politically driven investigations into President Donald Trump and newly revealed surveillance of Republican lawmakers.
Smith, who resigned from the Department of Justice in January 2025, spoke at the university’s Faculty of Laws. His resignation came just before Trump’s return to the White House. During his tenure, Smith led two high-profile federal prosecutions against Trump.
The first case focused on Trump’s handling of classified documents. The second centered on efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. Both cases were dropped earlier in 2025 after Trump’s inauguration, adhering to DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting president.
Adding to the controversy, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful. This decision further fueled debates over the legitimacy of his investigations. Smith, reflecting on his career, emphasized the need for judicial autonomy.
He stated, “They need the room and space to make decisions that some people might not like.” He also noted that legal professionals “should not be thinking of their jobs as popularity contests.” Smith drew from his early days at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, calling political influence in case decisions “inappropriate.”
He expressed alarm over recent DOJ actions under the Trump administration. Specifically, Smith highlighted the dismissal of corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, saying, “Nothing like it has ever happened that I’ve ever heard of.” He argued such moves undermine the integrity of the justice system.
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans have escalated their scrutiny of Smith’s past work. Chairman Jim Jordan has accused Smith of conducting “politically motivated investigations” into Trump. Jordan has insisted that Smith appear before Congress by late October to explain his actions.
Further intensifying the conflict, FBI Director Kash Patel uncovered what Jordan called an “alarming document.” This document revealed that Smith’s “Arctic Frost” team subpoenaed phone records of eight Republican senators and one congressman in 2023. Patel noted the files were hidden in a secure FBI vault within a “lockbox.”
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), one of the lawmakers allegedly targeted, described the surveillance as “so dark that it shocks the conscience.” The revelation has sparked outrage among GOP members. It has also raised questions about the scope of Smith’s investigative tactics.
Separately, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel launched an inquiry in August 2025. The investigation examines whether Smith violated the Hatch Act during his time as special counsel. Smith’s legal team at Covington & Burling dismissed the allegations as “imaginary and unfounded.”
Defending his record, Smith pointed to his service under multiple administrations. He noted that while heading the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, he remained unaware of colleagues’ political leanings. This, he argued, underscored his commitment to impartiality.
The White House, addressing the controversy, affirmed its stance. It stated the administration “will continue to deliver the truth to the American people while restoring integrity and accountability to our justice system.” This response reflects the administration’s broader goals amid the dispute.
Smith’s career has spanned significant roles in public service. His tenure as special counsel, however, remains a focal point of contention. The coming weeks may clarify whether he will comply with Congress’s demands. As debates over judicial independence persist, Smith’s remarks in London resonate. They highlight ongoing tensions between political forces and legal principles. His words serve as a reminder of the challenges facing the justice system today.