Congress

Jack Smith wants to tell Congress about his Trump investigations. That comes with risks.

Published

10 months ago

December 17, 2025

Jack Smith wants to make his case against Donald Trump to Congress — but he’s walking into a political and legal minefield.

The Biden-era special counsel who brought the first and only federal criminal charges ever leveled against a former president is set to testify behind closed doors Wednesday to the House Judiciary Committee.

To do so, he must navigate Byzantine secrecy laws and rules that limit what he can disclose to lawmakers. All the while, Republicans are looking to trip him up and incriminate him, to portray him as a tool of a weaponized Justice Department — an allegation they’ve brandished amid recent revelations that Smith obtained phone records of at least eight GOP senators as part of his probe into Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.

“What they did all along, everything was wrong … a lot of things that were just not normal course of investigation or prosecution,” House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan said in an interview. “If he comes in and doesn’t answer questions, that’s going to be a problem.”

At the same time, Democrats are eager for further details about the investigations Smith had to abandon after Trump won reelection in 2024, bowing to the reality that sitting presidents cannot face federal charges while in office. Smith was investigating Trump for election subversion attempts and mishandling classified documents.

“We want to hear exactly what he found, and what he did,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. “He just needs to come and tell the truth.”

It’s all forcing Smith into a delicate, high-stakes dance with members of both parties. Democrats want to exploit any opportunity to discredit Trump, but Republicans are hoping to back Smith into a corner and portray him as a politically motivated activist.

“Jack Smith should be in jail — if not prison,” said Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee, when asked about his ideal outcome for Smith’s deposition. “He’s a crook. Jack Smith is a crook, and he needs to be held accountable for all his games that he played.”

Peter Koski, the former deputy chief of the DOJ Public Integrity Section and a member of Smith’s legal team at Covington & Burling, said in a statement Tuesday his client is “looking forward to answering the committee’s questions, sharing the legal basis for his investigative steps, and discussing the evidence of President Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his unlawful possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.”

Ultimately, though, there are restrictions for what Smith can and cannot tell members. He remains bound by grand jury rules that bar prosecutors from disclosing evidence that was never made public, at least without the permission of a court.

And in his capacity as a former Justice Department employee, he’s also limited in what he can share about his prosecutorial work. DOJ has provided an authorization letter to facilitate Smith’s testimony, according to a person granted anonymity to share details of private correspondence; however, the scope of the waiver is not clear.

A federal judge in Florida has also maintained an 11-month prohibition on the release of any details of Smith’s final report in the classified documents probe — a restriction Trump has urged her to maintain indefinitely — further narrowing what Smith is legally permitted to share about that investigation.

Complicating matters further is that Trump has called repeatedly for Smith’s prosecution, fueling the GOP appetite for incriminating Smith. That’s forcing Smith to weigh potential risks of criminal accusations against his desire to share information about his work with lawmakers.

Jordan has already sent out a criminal referral for Thomas Windom, a top Smith deputy, after the former senior assistant special counsel repeatedly declined to answer questions during his September deposition before investigators with the Judiciary Committee.

“They are trying to get him on the fast road to one of their ridiculous prosecutions,” Raskin said, of Smith.

House Judiciary Democrats are simultaneously pressing for the public release of Smith’s report detailing the results of his investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents.

Earlier this month, committee Democrats filed an amicus brief to a federal court in Florida urging Judge Aileen Cannon to allow its release, citing the ongoing panel’s investigations and the need to balance out what is currently a “one-sided public record.”

“Neither the Committee nor the public can meaningfully evaluate Mr. Smith’s conduct, or assess the Committee’s accusations, without access to the report that memorializes what the Special Counsel actually did and why,” stated the amicus brief, submitted by the Democrats’ lawyers.

Cannon, a Trump appointee who once ruled Smith was put into the special counsel role unconstitutionally, has so far maintained that the report will not be released. This decision could further complicate Smith’s testimony before Congressional investigators, adding limitations to what he can share.

“Every other special counsel committee report has been released, and I believe every other special counsel or independent counsel has appeared before Congress publicly,” Raskin said, “so our Republican colleagues seem to fear the strength of Jack Smith’s advocacy and presentation.”

Jordan said he intends to ask Smith about the classified documents case, including the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in 2022. He also wants Smith to answer for DOJ’s efforts to obtain phone data from former Speaker Kevin McCarthy as part of his probe.

Smith preferred that all this take place in a public setting, with his legal team pressing Congressional Republicans hard to let the testimony proceed in an open hearing. Jordan declined that request. The GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee, in contrast, has expressed an openness to facilitating such a hearing as it pursues its own Smith investigation, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he believed the House deposition will lay the groundwork for the Senate’s questioning.

“Before you interview somebody, before you hold a hearing — you need information, otherwise they run circles around you. You get nothing fruitful out of them,” said Johnson, who is co-leading the Senate’s probe into Smith’s investigations in his role as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Johnson said he expected Jordan would eventually produce a transcript of Smith’s House deposition. “Those would be the documents we’ll use when we interview him,” he said.

Congress

FBI raids Beverly Hills mansion tied to former Eric Swalwell donor

Published

4 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The FBI on Tuesday raided a Los Angeles area mansion connected to Stephen Cloobeck, a billionaire and former Democratic donor who was a close associate of former Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“The FBI is executing a federal search warrant” at the Beverly Hills mansion, which is listed on Cloobeck’s California business filings, a spokesperson for the FBI’s Los Angeles field office said in a statement.

No arrests are planned, and the affidavit for the search warrant remains sealed, the spokesperson said. The FBI search was related to “an ongoing criminal investigation,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement, declining to provide further details.

Cloobeck, a one-time California gubernatorial candidate, dropped his bid and donated more than $1 million to back Swalwell after he declared his candidacy. But he later said he had cut ties with the former lawmaker after sexual assault allegations against Swalwell emerged.

Swalwell resigned from Congress and dropped his gubernatorial bid but has denied the allegations. The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Swalwell that included an FBI search of his Washington home in August, the AP reported at the time.

Cloobeck was arrested in May after Los Angeles County prosecutors charged him with allegedly attempting to impede victim or witness testimony. He was later released on bail and pleaded not guilty to all counts in August.

Cloobeck and his attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said it has not taken part in the FBI’s Tuesday raid.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Democrats face reckoning on trans issues

Published

9 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A potential Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would face a serious split over whether to use its newfound power to protect transgender Americans.

Progressive lawmakers are pushing Democratic leaders to undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on trans people’s health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination.

But affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter the party, especially with many Democratic candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

One senior House Democrat serving on House Appropriations, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates, however, argued for a two-pronged approach to protecting trans people: passing legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals and using committee gavels to probe the Trump administration’s actions.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in an interview, while the Human Rights Campaign’s Ramiro Sarmiento said Congress “needs to use every tool it has to push back” on Trump.

Jeffries did not respond to a request for comment, but other top Democrats are responding to the conflict between affordability and civil rights by asking: Why not both?

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” House Minority Whip Katherine Clark said in an interview. “You can’t silo these issues out.”

What else we’re watching:

— THE GOP’S SMALL DONOR PROBLEM: The GOP’s cash advantage over Democrats this cycle has been thanks to a small group of megadonors like Elon Musk. But when it comes to the grassroots donor base, there’s a stark contrast between the parties. Small donations through major online platforms have dipped for Republicans since 2022 while they’re up for Democrats by about a third. That’s left vulnerable Republican candidates more reliant on Trump’s campaign war chest and super PACs.

— GOP CLIMATE BLOC FACES WIPEOUT: A midterm blue wave could decimate the cohort of Republicans who advocate for addressing climate change and pursuing clean-energy policies. The Conservative Climate Caucus, a House GOP group that pushes for those policies, could lose up to a third of its members in the midterms, with 11 of 66 membersin tight races and another 15 more retiring. That would shrink the pool of negotiating partners for Democrats as they plan on a renewed push for climate legislation.

Congress

Democrats’ affordability message collides with calls to defend transgender rights

Published

12 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Some Democrats are fired up to use their potential majorities in Congress next year and undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on transgender Americans. Others just want to focus on the cost of gas.

Ahead of the midterms, progressive lawmakers and congressional candidates are clashing with moderates in office and on the campaign trail over whether to pursue a legislative agenda that includes protecting trans people — whose health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination have been targeted by the administration.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey in an interview.

He is among nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates who said they want Democrats to pursue a two-pronged approach: pass legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals, and use committee gavels to compel public testimony from Trump officials on their efforts to undermine protections for trans and nonbinary people.

But the need to tackle affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of the Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many Democrats believe that their promise to lower the cost of living will be the reason they win back majorities in the House or the Senate.

Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter a new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, especially with some candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

Rep. Marc Veasey, a moderate Texas Democrat who is retiring this year, said “cultural issues” including transgender rights are “something we should dive into once [Trump] is gone.”

“The American public is going to want to see our caucus focus on costs as long as he continues to affect the markets negatively with his tariffs and wars,” he said.

Progressive advocacy groups and their Hill allies say they can’t wait. Democrats, they argue, should hold hearings on the DOJ’s decision last summer to subpoena more than 20 doctors and clinics who’ve provided gender-affirming care to obtain potentially patient-identifying information, advocates say, leading some hospitals to stop providing youth gender affirming care.

They also want Democrats to challenge the Education Department’s move last month to officially rescind anti-discrimination protections for transgender students instituted under former President Joe Biden. They’re pushing, too, for an investigation of the Justice Department’s restrictions on gender-affirming care for incarcerated people and policy against placing prisoners in populations consistent with their gender identity — a move which has faced legal challenges.

In terms of legislation, Democrats are sure to encounter limitations so long as long as Trump is in office. The president is opposed to the cornerstone piece of LGBTQ+ advocates’ agenda, the Equality Act, which would amend civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination. It might not even have the votes to overcome a Senate filibuster and get to Trump’s desk.

Democrats likewise are sure to run into resistance in trying to attach pro-transgender policies to must-pass legislative vehicles, such as government spending bills or the annual defense policy package. The same goes for any attempts to overrule or modify the administration’s suggested changes to the 2030 Census, which include a proposal to remove questions about sexual orientation.

That reality should not be a deterrent, argued Ramiro Sarmiento, national press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-LGBTQ+ civil rights advocacy group.

“Congress needs to use every tool it has to push back against the dismantling of protections at the federal level,” said Sarmiento.

He, along with Ian Thompson, senior legislative advocate at the ACLU, and Tyler Hack, founder and executive director of the Christopher Street Project — a hybrid PAC and nonprofit focused on building support for transgender rights in Congress — said their organizations have already begun preliminary conversations with several Democrats about the moves they could make to reverse or combat anti-trans-rights initiatives by Trump administration.

Those Democrats include longstanding LGBTQ+ rights champions like Markey and Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, plus progressive candidates like Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan and New York’s Claire Valdez and Brad Lander.

Hack conceded that trans protection issues are not what “most Americans are thinking about” but added, “Unfortunately, they are the issues that the White House is thinking about, and it’s the responsibility of Congress to be a check on their powers.”

The advocates say Trump’s executive orders and the GOP agenda have had drastic impacts on transgender Americans and their families, including by limiting their access to health care and identification documents that reflect their gender identity. It’s led some families with trans children to make plans to leave the country.

“I believe our role in Congress is to stand up for the little guys who are being picked on by bullies like Donald Trump and the Republicans,” Markey said about Democrats’ obligations.

They’re going up against Democrats who want nothing to do with any transgender-related fight as Republicans pummel their party for being out of touch and “woke.” GOP ads in nearly every battleground race have targeted their Democratic opponents over their party’s support for trans rights.

That has prompted numerous Democrats to run rebuttal ads, such as veteran Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s recent spot stating “boys should not play in girls’ sports.”

Alaska Democratic Senate nominee Mary Peltola told voters at a recent campaign event her “hope is that we don’t have to spend one second on a conversation about trans anything” in the next Congress, according to a Washington Sun report.

One senior House Democrat, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other culture war flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did not respond to requests for comment on their plans for tackling trans-related issues in the coming Congress.

Advocates argue that issues of gender identity and equality are, in fact, pocketbook issues and cannot be simply shunted aside.

“When you are putting in place, for example, policies that say that you can’t get a driver’s license that accurately reflects who you are, or that you can’t use a public restroom, what you are telling people is they can’t work, they can’t hold a job or participate in the public life of our country,” the ACLU’s Thompson said. “Those have very significant economic consequences.”

Several senior House Democrats — Minority Whip Katherine Clark, the No. 2 leader, Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the No. 4 leader, and Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat — said much the same in interviews.

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” Clark said. “You can’t silo these issues out.”

Riley Rogerson and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.