# Jack Smith Denounces an Attack on the Rule of Law Under Trump > Introduction: the former prosecutor who refuses to stay silent - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Essay - Published: 2026-07-04 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/jack-smith-denonce-une-attaque-contre-letat-de-droit-sous-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 ### 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 - [United States Department of Justice — Official site](https://www.justice.gov/) - [CNBC — Jack Smith interview on tensions with the DOJ under Trump — July 2, 2026](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/02/jack-smith-trump-interview-doj.html) - [United States Federal Courts — Official site](https://www.uscourts.gov/) ### Secondary sources - [The New York Times — Editorial calling for the release of the Jack Smith report — June 29, 2026](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/opinion/jack-smith-report-trump.html) - [The New York Times — The Department of Justice under Trump and criminal investigations — May 28, 2026](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/28/us/trump-justice-dept-criminal-investigations.html) - [The Marshall Project — Federal justice during the first year of Trump's second term — January 24, 2026](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2026/01/24/ice-trump-first-year-justice) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/jack-smith-denonce-une-attaque-contre-letat-de-droit-sous-trump