Today's News: Office of Special Counsel Investigates Former Special Counsel Jack Smith

This probe follows a request from Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who claims Smith’s prosecutorial actions against Donald Trump were politically motivated to influence the 2024 election.

Terrence Dorsey

Aug 03, 2025

Photo: Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post

Thanks for reading The Newsie Project! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Date: August 2, 2025
Topic: Federal Watchdog Agency Investigates Former Special Counsel Jack Smith for Alleged Hatch Act Violations
Summary: The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal ethics watchdog, has launched an investigation into former special counsel Jack Smith for alleged violations of the Hatch Act. This probe follows a request from Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who claims Smith’s prosecutorial actions, particularly his pursuit of quick trial dates in cases against Donald Trump, were politically motivated to influence the 2024 election. The investigation is considered unusual because Smith is no longer a federal employee, and the most severe penalty for a Hatch Act violation is dismissal from federal service. Critics and legal experts have questioned the OSC’s independence under the current administration, noting the recent firing of its previous head and the controversial nomination for its permanent leader.

Sources

Key Points

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency, confirmed it has opened an investigation into former special counsel Jack Smith.
The investigation concerns alleged violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from using their government positions for political activity or to influence elections.
The probe was initiated at the request of Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who accused Smith of using his role to influence the 2024 election by seeking “rushed trial dates” for Donald Trump.
The investigation is widely described as unusual because Smith resigned from federal service earlier this year, and the most severe penalty for a Hatch Act violation is dismissal from federal employment.
The OSC typically handles violations of federal rules about the civil service and whistleblower retaliation, not prosecutorial decisions.
The news of the investigation was first reported by The New York Post.
The independence of the OSC under the current administration is a recurring theme, with mentions of the previous Biden-appointed head being fired and a Trump nominee awaiting Senate confirmation.

Unique Highlights

The New York Times notes that the investigation comes as lawyers representing fired or demoted federal employees have complained that the OSC is not fulfilling its traditional role under Mr. Trump, and mentions that the dismissed head, Hampton Dellinger, had been arguing for the reinstatement of thousands of probationary workers fired by the new administration.
CNN provides specific examples of past Hatch Act violations, including Kellyanne Conway (who was recommended for removal) and Karine Jean-Pierre (who received a warning letter). It quotes Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush, stating he has “never seen a prosecutor found to violate the Hatch Act for pleading with a court” and casting doubt on the agency’s independence under Trump. CNN also reports that insiders and watchdogs are raising alarms that the historically nonpartisan agency has been “captured” by loyalists.
NBC News highlights that Senator Tom Cotton has not publicly presented specific evidence of how Smith’s actions were illegal in nature. It also mentions that Trump’s nominee to head the OSC, Paul Ingrassia, is meeting with senators in one-on-one meetings ahead of a confirmation vote.
The Washington Post identifies the acting special counsel as Jamieson Greer, who is also serving as Trump’s U.S. Trade Representative and acting director of the Office of Government Ethics. It quotes Kathleen Clark, a law professor, who finds it “really striking” that the watchdog would open and announce such an investigation into prosecutorial decisions. The article details how Smith’s two cases against Trump did not go to trial due to a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and a district judge’s ruling that Smith had been unlawfully appointed.
The Washington Post provides extensive background on Paul Ingrassia, describing him as a former right-wing podcast host who has advocated for white supremacist and antisemite Nick Fuentes and was part of a legal team for Andrew Tate. It also notes that dozens of groups advocating for federal workers are urging senators to reject Ingrassia’s appointment.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Smith submitted a report to Attorney General Garland in January, expressing confidence that Trump would have been convicted. It also explicitly states that Trump officials at the Justice Department fired more than a dozen lawyers who worked on Smith’s team in one of their first acts.
The Hill includes a direct quote from Jack Smith defending his actions, stating, “The ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully,” and calling claims of political influence “laughable.” Smith’s final report is quoted, where he stated that “The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit-knowingly false claims of election fraud.” The article also mentions that Attorney General Pam Bondi fired 20 additional employees tied to Smith weeks before the OSC announced its investigation.

Contrasting Details

Senator Tom Cotton and other Republicans, as cited across all articles, allege that Jack Smith’s actions, such as pushing for a “rushed trial,” were politically motivated and intended to influence the 2024 election. Cotton specifically claimed Smith’s actions were “nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns” and “very likely illegal campaign activity” (The Hill, NBC News).
In contrast, Jack Smith himself, as quoted by The Hill, explicitly defended his actions, stating that the decision to bring charges was his alone and that claims of political influence from the Biden administration were “laughable.”
Legal experts cited by CNN and The Washington Post express skepticism about the nature of the investigation. Richard Painter (CNN) said he has “never seen a prosecutor found to violate the Hatch Act for pleading with a court.” Kathleen Clark (The Washington Post) noted that the OSC investigating prosecutorial decisions and announcing it is “really striking,” suggesting it deviates from the typical scope of Hatch Act probes. These expert opinions directly contrast with the premise of Cotton’s complaint and the OSC’s decision to open an investigation.
While Cotton alleges Smith “rushed” trials (The Hill), The Washington Post details that Smith’s cases did not go to trial, with the election interference indictment delayed by a Supreme Court ruling on immunity and the classified documents indictment tossed by a U.S. District Judge, implying that any “rushing” was ultimately unsuccessful or superseded by other legal developments.

The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.

This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).

The Newsie Project