Jack Smith accuses Trump administration of an "attack on the rule of law"

Introduction: a former special counsel breaks his silence

An interview that hits hard

For the first time since resigning as special counsel, ten days before Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, Jack Smith has agreed to speak publicly. The interview, given to Nicolle Wallace on "Deadline: White House" and reported by CNBC on July 2, 2026, marks a clean break from the discretion he had kept since leaving the Department of Justice.

What Smith said is not trivial. He stated that the United States faces "an attack on the rule of law that is different, in nature and in scope, from anything I have seen in my lifetime." A heavy statement, coming from a man who spent his career inside the federal justice system, not outside it criticizing it for partisan posture.

Why this moment matters

The backdrop is a DOJ transformed since Trump's return to power. A week after the inauguration, four career prosecutors who had worked with Smith's team were dismissed, along with other staff. That was only the start of a broader purge that Smith now calls an unprecedented politicization of institutions that are supposed to remain neutral.

The timeline is not a minor detail. In November 2022, Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel for two separate investigations: the alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election against Joe Biden, and the retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after January 2021. In July 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump himself, ruled that Smith's appointment was unlawful and dismissed the documents case. The DOJ then dropped the appeal, and later the election case after Trump's victory, citing long-standing policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

The weight of Jack Smith's words

"It enrages me"

Smith did not mince words during the interview. He said he feels anger watching officials "demonized for doing their job." That line is aimed directly at the prosecutors, agents, and DOJ employees who took part, closely or loosely, in the investigations against Trump, and who now find themselves targeted by retaliatory measures or public smear campaigns.

He also admitted being "very concerned about what's going to happen in the next election," a statement that reaches well beyond his own personal case. Asked whether he himself could be indicted by the current administration, his answer was measured but chilling: "it could happen."

Naming the retaliatory prosecutions

Smith referred to what he calls "retaliatory prosecutions," citing the cases of James Comey, the former FBI director, and Letitia James, the attorney general of the state of New York. Both figures, known for their critical positions toward Trump, now face judicial scrutiny that several observers consider politically motivated rather than grounded in new evidence.

"One of the problems right now, beyond the retaliatory prosecutions, is that the Department of Justice can no longer do its job," he summarized. A simple sentence that captures the core of his concern: a DOJ paralyzed by mistrust can no longer fulfill its basic mission, no matter who holds power.

A judicial system losing the trust of the courts

Judges who no longer trust prosecutors

One of the most technical, and most alarming, parts of the interview concerns the day-to-day functioning of the courts. Smith explained: "if you go to court and the judges don't trust you, you can't even do the basic things anymore." He added that judges across the country have publicly stated they can no longer trust federal prosecutors.

This erosion of judicial trust is not an abstraction. It affects concrete mechanisms: warrants, plea agreements, procedural timelines, the credibility of prosecution witnesses. A justice system running on mutual distrust between judges and prosecutors stops functioning effectively, regardless of the political leanings of whoever runs it.

A message to future lawyers

Despite this bleak assessment, Smith made a point of sending an encouraging message to the law students who might have been listening: "don't give up." A note that contrasts with the gravity of the rest of his remarks, but reflects a deeper conviction: institutions survive crises if enough competent, principled people choose to stay.

It is also an indirect answer to those who, in the current climate, might be tempted to flee federal public service rather than risk their career in a politicized environment. The message is clear: institutional resistance comes from staying, not from leaving.

The classified documents case, a symbol of a system under pressure

Judge Cannon's ruling

Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of the classified documents case in July 2024 remains a pivotal moment. By ruling Smith's very appointment unlawful, without addressing the substance of the charges, the judge allowed the Trump administration to avoid a trial over the retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, Florida.

That ruling, praised by Trump's supporters and criticized by part of the legal community, shows just how much judicial appointments can shape the outcome of politically sensitive cases. A judge appointed by the very president under investigation ended up dismissing that same investigation on a procedural technicality.

Dropping the cases after the election

After Trump's election victory in November 2024, the DOJ dropped not only the appeal in the documents case, but also the case tied to the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The justification cited, the long-standing policy against prosecuting a sitting president, is legally defensible, but it leaves a bitter taste for those who hoped for a clear judicial resolution.

The net result: two major federal investigations, conducted over more than two years, ended without a trial, without a verdict, and without a definitive answer to the questions they raised. For Smith, this outcome illustrates precisely the fragility he is now publicly denouncing.

The DOJ purge, barely a week after the inauguration

Swift, targeted dismissals

A week after Trump's return to the White House, four career prosecutors who had worked directly with Smith's team were fired, along with other staff associated with the investigation. This swift, symbolic move sent an unambiguous message to the rest of the federal apparatus.

These were not political appointees serving at the president's discretion, but career civil servants, supposedly protected by the DOJ's traditions of independence. Their swift dismissal was seen by several legal scholars as a break from decades of bipartisan practice preserving career staff across changes in administration.

A precedent that worries beyond the Smith case

What worries observers like Ruben Gallego, who publicly questioned internal DOJ practices in late June 2026, goes beyond the fate of Smith's former colleagues alone. It is the normalization of a principle: working on a case the executive branch considers unwelcome can now cost you your job, regardless of professional merit.

Once established, this precedent is not confined to one administration. It redefines the rules of the game for any future government, of any political stripe, when it comes to managing federal judicial personnel.

Comey and James, two symbolic targets

James Comey, the former FBI director in the crosshairs

James Comey, fired by Trump during his first term in 2017, remains a despised figure among the president's inner circle. His reappearance in judicial crosshairs, years later, fuels Smith's accusations that some prosecutions respond more to a logic of revenge than a logic of law.

Defenders of the administration argue these cases rest on legitimate grounds. But the timing, the choice of targets, and the absence of clear new evidence feed the skepticism voiced by Smith and part of the legal community.

Letitia James, the prosecutor who sued Trump

Letitia James, who had led civil lawsuits against Trump's businesses in the state of New York, now finds herself targeted by criminal referrals raised by figures close to the administration, including Bill Pulte. This role reversal, the prosecutor becoming the prosecuted, illustrates the score-settling dynamic that Smith denounces.

Again, the point here is not to settle the legal validity of each individual case, but to note a recurring pattern: figures who have crossed Trump find themselves, one after another, under renewed judicial scrutiny.

The DOJ versus law firms and NGOs

Reviving cases against law firms

According to reports from late June 2026, the DOJ is reportedly seeking to revive prosecutions against certain law firms that represented causes or clients deemed hostile to the administration. This tactic, documented by several specialized legal outlets, fits a broader pattern of pressure on actors in the justice system deemed insufficiently loyal.

These moves particularly worry the American bar, which sees in this approach an attempt to intimidate the legal profession itself, beyond the public officials initially targeted.

A controversial litigation funding dispute

Another case, revealed in late June 2026 by CNBC, involves a dispute over litigation funding involving attorney Todd Blanche, now a senior official at the DOJ. Taken in isolation, these cases might seem minor. Put together with the rest of the picture painted by Smith, they sketch an administration actively using judicial levers to consolidate its power.

This body of evidence, while not definitive proof of systematic bad faith, legitimately feeds the concerns publicly voiced by a former senior federal prosecutor.

Trump, between geopolitical necessity and internal excess

A military ally for the West, a problem for the rule of law at home

Two distinct realities need to be separated here. On the international stage, the Trump administration has maintained, even strengthened, pressure on NATO allies to increase defense spending against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. That firmness objectively serves Western security interests.

But that same external firmness must not serve as a shield to ignore the internal excesses documented by Smith and other legal observers. A president can be strategically useful while still posing a real risk to his own country's democratic institutions.

The cost of a weakened DOJ

A Department of Justice undermined by judicial mistrust and politicization loses effectiveness, including in prosecuting genuine threats, whether criminal or national security related. It is a cruel paradox: by weakening the institution to protect itself, the administration risks also weakening its capacity to fight organized crime, corruption, or foreign espionage.

This cost, often invisible in the short term, could be paid over many years, long after the current term ends, by entire generations of lawyers and judges who will have to rebuild lost trust.

Political and judicial reactions since the interview

The White House's cautious silence

At the time CNBC published the interview, the Trump administration had not issued a detailed response to Smith's specific accusations. That silence, in a context where nearly every public statement is usually addressed quickly by the White House, was read by some analysts as a sign of strategic caution rather than indifference.

Others simply see it as confirmation that the administration prefers not to further amplify the media reach of Smith's remarks, whose institutional credibility remains significant despite months of attempts to discredit him publicly.

Legal scholars divided on the message's significance

Within the American legal community, reactions are mixed. Some praise Smith's courage to speak publicly despite the personal risks he mentioned, including the possibility of being prosecuted himself. Others believe his status as a former prosecutor who failed to secure a conviction against Trump limits his credibility to now denounce the politicization of justice.

This division reflects, once again, the deep polarization running through the American judicial apparatus itself, well beyond the usual partisan political circles.

What this means for upcoming elections

A concern that extends beyond Smith's personal case

Smith's statement that he is "very concerned about what's going to happen in the next election" carries particular weight given the current context. It suggests a concern not centered on his own legal fate, but on the very integrity of the American electoral process in the medium term.

If the institutions meant to oversee elections, courts, the Department of Justice, federal agencies, are perceived as politically weaponized, public trust in future election results could suffer lasting damage, regardless of which political side holds power.

A warning for every future administration

Smith's warning is not aimed only at the current administration. It raises a structural question: how does a country protect the independence of its justice system when every new administration is tempted to use judicial levers against its political predecessors?

If this question is left without a solid institutional answer, it risks turning every transfer of power in Washington into a cycle of judicial retaliation, a dangerous scenario for long-term democratic stability.

The limits of the exercise: what Smith doesn't say

The absence of newly disclosed evidence

It must be noted, in fairness, that Smith did not present, in this interview, new documentary evidence to support each of his specific accusations. His remarks largely reflect his personal experience and interpretation of events, which does not invalidate them, but calls for a careful reading rather than blind acceptance.

The judicial cases targeting Comey and James follow, at least formally, existing legal procedures. Whether these procedures are politically motivated remains, at this stage, a matter of judgment rather than a legally established fact.

A former prosecutor with his own stakes

Nor can it be ignored that Smith himself has a personal stake in this public debate, having himself failed to bring his own prosecutions against Trump to a conclusion. This reality does not invalidate his observations about the state of the DOJ, but it deserves mention for a balanced assessment of his remarks.

These are precisely the nuances that separate genuine criticism from pure partisan sensationalism, where each side would accuse the other without ever acknowledging the real complexity of the current American institutional situation.

The international context is no excuse

Russia, China, and the autocracies are watching

It would be naive to believe this internal American debate has no echo abroad. Authoritarian regimes in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang are watching closely for any perceived weakening of Western democratic institutions, which they then exploit in their respective propaganda to relativize their own repressive practices.

Every signal of institutional dysfunction in the United States becomes, in this context, one more argument for regimes seeking to show that Western democracy is neither superior to nor more stable than their own authoritarian systems.

Why domestic solidity remains strategic

It is precisely for this reason that the solidity of American judicial institutions is not merely a matter of domestic politics: it is also a matter of broader national security, in a world where the Western democratic model is directly challenged by organized and determined rival powers.

Defending the rule of law at home is therefore not a luxury disconnected from geopolitical stakes. On the contrary, it is a condition for the West's credibility against regimes that dream of its institutional collapse.

What comes next could reveal a great deal

Judicial developments to watch in the coming weeks

Several cases remain worth watching closely in the coming weeks: the progress of the prosecutions against Comey and James, the announced review of cases touching certain law firms, and any possible legal action against Smith himself, a possibility he has not publicly ruled out.

Each of these developments will provide concrete evidence to confirm, or disprove, the true scale of the concerns raised by the former special counsel in front of CNBC's cameras.

The role of Congress and public opinion

Beyond the courts, the U.S. Congress retains an institutional oversight role that it has, so far, only partially exercised on these issues. Pressure from public opinion, amplified by the media and civil liberties organizations, could also influence the trajectory of this case in the months ahead.

It remains to be seen whether that pressure will be enough to reverse an institutional dynamic that, according to Smith, has already taken deep root since Trump's return to the White House.

The voices backing Smith within the legal community

Former federal judges voice their concern

Several former federal judges and deputy attorneys general, without necessarily citing Smith directly, have expressed similar concerns in recent months about the independence of the DOJ. This convergence of testimony, coming from people with varied political backgrounds, reinforces the credibility of the alarm raised by the former special counsel.

These voices, often quieter than Smith's, tend to express themselves through academic op-eds, bar association statements, or testimony before congressional committees, rather than through highly publicized television interviews.

A legal profession divided but watchful

Despite disagreements over the exact interpretation of events, the American legal profession appears unanimously attentive to how the situation at the DOJ unfolds. This collective vigilance, if it holds, could serve as an informal safeguard against deeper institutional erosion in the months ahead.

Still, vigilance alone does not always suffice to reverse a power dynamic already well underway, as several historical precedents elsewhere in the world remind us, where strong judicial institutions eventually gave way under sustained political pressure.

Conclusion: an alarm we can no longer ignore

A signal from the inside, not the outside

What sets Jack Smith's intervention apart from so many other criticisms leveled at the Trump administration is its origin. This is not a longtime political opponent speaking, but a man whose entire career rests on respect for legal procedure and institutional neutrality. When such a witness chooses to break his silence, the signal deserves to be taken seriously, regardless of his own imperfect record.

Between external firmness and internal vigilance

The West needs a strong America against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. But that external strength must never become an excuse to look away from the internal erosion of the rule of law. Both battles, international security and domestic justice, must be fought at the same time, with neither serving as an alibi to ignore the other.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Methodology and sources

This article is based on the interview Jack Smith gave to CNBC on July 2, 2026, along with additional reporting published by Democracy Docket, CNN, and NBC News between June 25 and July 2, 2026. No information contained in this text was invented or extrapolated beyond what these verifiable journalistic sources report.

Acknowledged limits

The politicization accusations made by Smith reflect his personal interpretation of events and have not, to date, been independently confirmed in court for each of the cases cited. Readers are invited to consult the primary sources directly to form their own opinion.

Sources

Primary sources

CNBC — Jack Smith interview on the attack on the rule of law, July 2, 2026

NBC News — Criminal referrals targeting Letitia James, June 2026

Secondary sources

Democracy Docket — DOJ moves to revive cases against law firms, June 2026

CNN — Ruben Gallego questions DOJ practices, June 29, 2026

CNBC — Litigation funding dispute involving Todd Blanche, June 25, 2026

Washington Post — Congress considers bypassing the filibuster, June 30, 2026