The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has launched a formal investigation into Jack Smith, marking the first official legal inquiry into his conduct, according to The Post.
Smith, a Justice Department attorney, led two criminal investigations into former President Donald Trump during the Biden administration—one concerning Trump’s handling of classified documents, and the other focused on his actions on January 6, 2021. Both cases have since been dismissed.
An internal email reviewed by The Post reveals that the Hatch Act Unit, which enforces federal restrictions on political activity by government employees, has initiated a review of Smith’s actions. The email was authored by Senior Counsel Charles Baldis of the OSC.
Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, stepped down from his position as Special Counsel in January after Trump returned to office.
“I appreciate the Office of Special Counsel taking this seriously and launching an investigation into Jack Smith’s conduct. No one is above the law. Jack Smith’s actions were clearly driven to hurt President Trump’s election, and Smith should be held fully accountable,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a statement to The Post.
The investigation was opened following a letter from Cotton earlier in the week, accusing Smith of engaging in political activity designed to sabotage Trump’s 2024 campaign.
“Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns. This isn’t just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office,” Cotton wrote.
Under Smith’s direction, the FBI conducted a controversial raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in search of documents—one of several actions that drew criticism from Republicans who believed the legal moves were intended to derail Trump’s re-election efforts.
In his letter to the OSC, Cotton outlined how Smith’s actions allegedly disrupted Trump’s campaign.
“Many of Smith’s legal actions seem to have no rationale except for an attempt to affect the 2024 election results – actions that would violate federal law.”
Cotton further alleged that Smith deliberately timed his investigation to interfere with key political events like the Iowa caucuses.
“These actions were not standard, necessary, or justified,” Cotton said. “They were the actions of a political actor masquerading as a public official.”
Smith has not publicly addressed Cotton’s claims. Throughout his tenure, he maintained that his investigations adhered to legal procedures and were not politically motivated. He did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.
