Jack Smith’s own team secretly read the private text messages of 44 members of Congress — then Smith told Congress under oath that he never collected any text messages from lawmakers.
Story Snapshot
- Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley revealed that Smith’s team accessed and read the actual text message content from 44 members of Congress — not just call logs.
- Smith testified under oath that his team collected only phone records, not text messages, directly contradicting what Department of Justice documents now show.
- Smith’s team bypassed a required internal Filter Team review process before reading the messages, according to a Department of Justice summary letter.
- The messages came from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, making this a bipartisan concern about government overreach.
What Grassley’s Records Actually Show
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley dropped a bombshell on Tuesday. Department of Justice records show that Jack Smith’s investigative team obtained and read the actual text messages sent by 44 members of Congress to senior White House officials. This happened during Smith’s criminal investigation into President Trump covering the final weeks of his first term. The messages came from both Republican and Democratic senators and House members.
This is a bigger deal than it first sounds. Earlier reporting suggested Smith’s team only collected “toll records” — basic data showing which phone numbers called which other numbers, and when. Smith himself said as much. But the new Department of Justice documents show his team went further. They accessed the actual words inside those text messages. That is a significant difference, and it puts Smith’s sworn testimony directly at odds with the documentary record.
What Smith Said Under Oath
In December 2023, Smith gave a private deposition to the House Judiciary Committee. When asked whether his team collected text messages from members of Congress, Smith said no. He described what his team gathered as phone records only — numbers, timing, duration. No content. No eavesdropping. That testimony was released publicly on December 31, 2025. Smith also admitted that judges were not told his team was seizing congressional phone records when those judges signed off on non-disclosure orders tied to the subpoenas.
Now, a Department of Justice summary letter says Smith’s team “apparently bypassed the Filter Team and directly accessed these text messages.” The Filter Team is an internal safeguard. Its job is to screen sensitive materials before investigators read them — especially materials that might be legally protected. Skipping that step is a serious procedural violation. The word “apparently” in the letter leaves some wiggle room on intent, but the core finding — that investigators read content Smith said they never collected — is hard to explain away.
The Perjury Question and What Comes Next
Republicans are calling this an open-and-shut case of lying under oath. Democrats and some legal analysts argue the gap between Smith’s testimony and the documents could reflect a misunderstanding — that Smith may have been talking about one type of record while the documents describe another. No forensic audit of the Filter Team’s access logs has been released. No deputies who handled the data have testified publicly. Those gaps matter when it comes to proving intentional deception, which is what perjury requires.
🚨 BOMBSHELL: Jack Smith’s Team Spied on TEXT MESSAGES of 44 Members of Congress — Including Republicans AND Democrats
New records show Smith’s probe scooped up communications from over 40 lawmakers (mostly Republicans, but also Cory Booker and Karen Bass) during the Trump… pic.twitter.com/X604bs6B9d
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) July 15, 2026
Smith was already referred to the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility for misconduct before this latest revelation, and two state bar panels had recommended disbarment proceedings. Perjury allegations against prosecutors in high-profile political cases rarely result in charges — Robert Mueller’s team investigated then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for similar misstatements and ultimately concluded it could not prove willful falsehood. But the facts here are unusually concrete. Documents exist. Testimony exists. They conflict. Whether the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi pursues this — or lets it fade — will tell Americans a great deal about whether the rules apply equally to everyone, including the people who were supposed to enforce them.
Sources:
youtube.com, politico.com, nypost.com, judiciary.senate.gov, thegatewaypundit.com, robertgouveia.substack.com, transcripts.cnn.com, cnn.com, justice.gov, washingtonexaminer.com, brennancenter.org, npr.org, justsecurity.org, en.wikipedia.org, lawfaremedia.org, eenews.net, govinfo.gov
