# Jack Smith accuses Trump administration of an "attack on the rule of law" > For the first time since resigning as special counsel, ten days before Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, Jack Smith has - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Commentary - Published: 2026-07-06 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/jack-smith-accuse-l-administration-trump-d-une-attaque-contre-l-etat-de-droit ## Key takeaways - Smith spoke to Nicolle Wallace on "Deadline: White House," reported by CNBC on July 2, 2026, his first public comments since resigning ten days before Trump's January 20, 2025 inauguration. - He said he is angered by officials being "demonized for doing their job," is "very concerned" about the next election, and considers it possible he could be indicted. - He cited "retaliatory prosecutions" of James Comey and Letitia James and said judges no longer trust federal prosecutors, so the DOJ "can no longer do its job." - Four career prosecutors who worked with Smith's team were fired about a week after the inauguration. - Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case in July 2024 by ruling Smith's appointment unlawful, and the DOJ later dropped the election case after Trump's victory. ## 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. *I'll say it plainly: when a man who spent his life in federal courtrooms, cautious by nature and by trade, breaks his silence to talk about an "attack on the rule of law," you listen. This is not a politician chasing a microphone. This is an alarm sounded from inside the system.* ## 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. *Naming Comey and James is no rhetorical accident on Smith's part. It's a calculated choice to illustrate a system where political loyalty seems to weigh more than facts. You can hate Trump or admire him, but ignoring this signal would be irresponsible.* ## 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. *This appeal to young lawyers struck me more than his attacks on the administration. There is something deeply American about the idea that institutions defend themselves from within, one generation at a time.* ## 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. *You can debate endlessly whether the original charges against Trump were justified. But the absence of a trial should not be mistaken for proven innocence: it's a question that remains, technically, without a judicial answer.* ## 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. *This is exactly the kind of precedent that should alarm even Trump's supporters. An **institutional weapon** forged today against one's opponents can, tomorrow, be turned against them by the next occupant of the **Oval Office**.* ## 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. *A pattern repeated three or four times stops being a coincidence. Whether you lean left, right, or elsewhere, this kind of regularity deserves to be called what it is: the instrumental use of justice.* ## 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. *I remain cautious: each case taken alone can have a legitimate explanation. But the accumulation tells a coherent story, and that story is not reassuring for American judicial independence.* ## 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. *I refuse the shortcut that says criticizing Trump's internal excesses amounts to minimizing Russian, Chinese, or Iranian threats. You can, and must, hold both threads at once.* ## 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. *Whatever judgment you make of Smith's professional record, his testimony deserves to be heard for what it is: that of a man who saw the system from the inside, at a pivotal moment.* ## 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. *This, to me, is the real danger: normalizing the idea that winning an election grants the right to prosecute your predecessors. Once that cycle starts, it is extremely hard to stop.* ## 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. *I would rather name these limits than stay quiet about them. Honest commentary must acknowledge uncertainty, even when instinct pushes toward a faster verdict than the facts allow.* ## 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. *We forget it too often: the West's geopolitical strength rests as much on its armies as on the credibility of its courts. The two pillars rarely collapse separately.* ## 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**. *No one can predict with certainty how this standoff will end. But history will remember who spoke up while there was still time to do so, and Jack Smith just added his name to that column.* ## 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. *This collective vigilance from the legal community reassures me a little, without reassuring me completely. Observing a problem and solving it are two very different things, and history is full of examples where one never led to the other.* ## 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. *I'll close on this simple conviction: you can support **Washington's** firmness against its foreign rivals while demanding, with the same intensity, accountability for the state of its own domestic justice.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## 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 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/jack-smith-accuse-l-administration-trump-d-une-attaque-contre-l-etat-de-droit