Jack Smith Denounces an Attack on the Rule of Law Under Trump

Introduction: the former prosecutor who refuses to stay silent

A rare public appearance from a former special counsel

On July 2, 2026, former special counsel Jack Smith broke through much of his usual reserve by giving an interview to CNBC in which he stated that the United States faces "an attack on the rule of law" under the Donald Trump administration. This is no small statement from a man who spent his career avoiding the spotlight.

Smith, who had led the federal criminal prosecutions against Trump before his return to power, raised the concrete possibility of being indicted himself by the Department of Justice, now led by allies of the president, as direct retaliation for his past work.

A climate of political retaliation that raises alarm

This statement fits into a broader context in which several former officials and prosecutors linked to the investigations of Trump report a growing sense of personal legal insecurity since the start of this second presidential term.

Let's call this what it is: when a former federal prosecutor has to publicly raise the risk of being prosecuted himself for doing his job, that's no longer normal politics — that's institutional intimidation, plain and simple.

The blocked report at the heart of the tension

Judge Cannon maintains her block

At the center of this controversy sits the final report that Jack Smith had written on the classified documents case found at the Mar-a-Lago residence, a document that federal Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump himself during his first term, continues to block.

Cannon recently reaffirmed her blocking order, arguing that Smith's appointment as special counsel was, in her view, unconstitutional from the outset — a fringe legal position that is nonetheless enough to keep the report sealed.

A legal argument disputed by many experts

Several constitutional scholars have publicly criticized Judge Cannon's reasoning, pointing out that the appointment of special counsels follows a practice established for decades within the U.S. Department of Justice, regardless of which party holds power.

It's hard to ignore the troubling coincidence of timing: a judge appointed by Trump who, year after year, blocks the release of a report that would embarrass Trump, on the basis of a legal argument most experts consider weak.

The New York Times' call for transparency

Mounting media pressure

The New York Times published an editorial in late June demanding the immediate release of the Smith report, arguing that the American public has a fundamental right to know the findings of a federal investigation conducted with taxpayer money, even after the criminal charges themselves were dropped.

The dropping of the charges, which followed Trump's return to the White House due to presidential protections against criminal prosecution while in office, should not, according to the paper, prevent the release of a document of major public interest.

A dangerous precedent for democratic transparency

The prolonged blocking of this report creates a precedent that many observers consider dangerous: one in which a federal investigative document can be kept secret indefinitely simply because its findings are inconvenient for those currently in power.

I'll say it plainly: regardless of political side, a taxpayer-funded federal investigative report should never remain sealed simply because it embarrasses the person who now controls the apparatus that could release it.

Fears of retaliation inside the DOJ

An administration accused of targeting former adversaries

Since the start of this second term, several news reports have documented a pattern within the Trump administration of closely scrutinizing the records of former federal prosecutors and investigators who took part in investigations of the president, fueling fears of targeted retaliation.

Jack Smith is not alone in voicing these concerns: other former Department of Justice officials have also reported feeling watched or targeted since leaving their official positions.

A troubling reversal of institutional roles

This dynamic represents a significant reversal of the American tradition of independence for the federal judicial system in the face of executive pressure, an institutional norm that now appears to be seriously tested.

This is precisely the kind of dynamic that separates a robust constitutional democracy from a system where justice becomes a tool for political score-settling — and America, for now, is walking dangerously close to that line.

What this reveals about the state of American democracy

A test of institutional resilience

The Jack Smith case represents a real-world test of the resilience of American democratic institutions in the face of an executive branch willing to use the levers of power to protect itself and potentially take revenge on those who prosecuted it.

Whether this test is passed or failed will depend largely on the ability of the courts, Congress, and the independent press to keep up constant pressure for transparency and accountability, despite resistance from the executive branch.

A signal sent to the entire federal judicial system

Beyond Smith's personal case, this affair sends a potentially chilling signal to other federal prosecutors who might one day need to investigate powerful political figures, now keenly aware of the personal risk this could pose to their future careers.

This may be the most corrosive part of the whole affair: beyond Jack Smith's personal fate, it's the future willingness of federal prosecutors to investigate the powerful that risks being permanently chilled by this precedent.

The administration's defense against the criticism

A narrative that downplays the concerns

The Trump administration categorically rejects any accusation of political retaliation, describing Jack Smith's comments as a desperate attempt to play victim after having led what the White House calls a "political witch hunt" against the president.

Administration spokespeople insist that any judicial decision involving former prosecutors would follow, in their words, a normal and impartial legal process, unconnected to the president's personal political considerations.

Widespread skepticism toward these assurances

These assurances, however, struggle to convince a large share of public opinion and independent legal observers, given the president's history of publicly hostile statements toward Smith and other figures involved in the prosecutions against him.

It's hard to take these claims of impartiality seriously when the president himself has never hidden his personal hostility toward the prosecutors who pursued him — words matter, especially coming from the top of the executive branch.

The comparison with other Western democracies

A striking contrast with European norms

In most Western democracies, the independence of prosecutors and federal investigators from executive power is a nearly sacred institutional pillar, protected by decades of case law and political convention. Canada, the United Kingdom, and most members of the European Union have robust mechanisms preventing a head of government from directly or indirectly threatening a former prosecutor who investigated them.

This contrast makes the American situation all the more troubling for the United States' Western allies, who are watching with concern a potential weakening of democratic norms in the country that has traditionally presented itself as the world's champion of the rule of law and separation of powers.

The symbolic weight for American leadership abroad

America's allies, notably within NATO, have relied for decades on the image of a country where the rule of law protects even the most powerful from arbitrary abuse of power. A visible erosion of that reputation weakens Washington's ability to credibly criticize authoritarian overreach elsewhere in the world, particularly that of Russia or China.

This international dimension of the Jack Smith case reaches far beyond American domestic politics: it directly touches the credibility of the Western democratic model that the United States has long claimed to embody against rival authoritarian regimes.

There is something deeply ironic, and troubling, about watching America preach democracy and the rule of law abroad while a former special counsel is left to publicly fear for his own freedom at home.

What Congress could do, but isn't doing

A largely unused oversight power

The U.S. Congress in theory holds considerable oversight powers over the workings of the Department of Justice, including the ability to hold public hearings, demand documents, and question senior officials under oath about the prolonged blocking of the Smith report.

Yet the current congressional majority has shown itself largely reluctant to exercise this oversight forcefully, leaving the Jack Smith case to play out almost exclusively in the judicial and media arena rather than through traditional parliamentary scrutiny.

An opposition struggling to mobilize public attention

Opposition lawmakers regularly denounce this inaction but struggle to turn their criticism into concrete political pressure capable of forcing a change of course, in a climate where media attention scatters quickly across multiple simultaneous controversies.

A Congress that refuses to exercise its oversight powers in the face of a controversy this serious sends a troubling message of its own: that of a political class ready to normalize what, barely a decade ago, would have triggered blockbuster televised hearings.

Conclusion: a precedent bigger than one man

What to take away from this case

The Jack Smith affair extends far beyond the fate of a single man: it raises a fundamental question about the capacity of American institutions to protect judicial independence against an executive branch determined to use every available lever to protect itself and, potentially, seek revenge.

The persistent blocking of the report by Judge Cannon, combined with the fears of retaliation voiced by Smith himself, paints the picture of a federal judicial system under strain, where democratic transparency runs headlong into the political interests of those currently in power.

A case worth watching very closely

It remains to be seen whether media and public pressure will be enough to force the release of this report, or whether this case will become a lasting symbol of the gradual erosion of government transparency norms under this administration.

Whatever happens, this case will remain a revealing test of the real health of American institutions: either they resist the temptation of political revenge, or they give in — and history will record which of those two paths the America of 2026 chose.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I am a columnist and analyst, not a lawyer or an investigative journalist on the ground in Washington. I rely exclusively on verifiable public news sources to analyze this case. I acknowledge a critical bias toward the domestic overreach of the Trump administration, particularly on questions touching judicial independence and the rule of law.

I nonetheless remain careful not to turn this criticism into an unproven accusation: I report documented facts and publicly expressed concerns, not certainties about future intentions.

What I don't know, and my method

I do not have access to the full contents of the still-blocked Smith report, nor to concrete evidence of a future indictment against him, which remains, to date, a raised possibility rather than a confirmed fact. My method is to cross-reference multiple independent news sources and clearly distinguish established facts from expressed fears.

Sources

Primary sources

United States Department of Justice — Official site

CNBC — Jack Smith interview on tensions with the DOJ under Trump — July 2, 2026

United States Federal Courts — Official site

Secondary sources

The New York Times — Editorial calling for the release of the Jack Smith report — June 29, 2026

The New York Times — The Department of Justice under Trump and criminal investigations — May 28, 2026

The Marshall Project — Federal justice during the first year of Trump's second term — January 24, 2026