Jack Smith, the former special counsel who led the prosecutions of Donald Trump, is at the center of a contentious Hatch Act investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), as his legal team has strongly contested the probe, calling it ‘imaginary and unfounded.’
Smith’s attorneys at Covington & Burling, in a letter obtained by Fox News, accused theOSC of launching an investigation without merit, arguing that Smith strictly followed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) protocols during his work. TheOSC, an independent watchdog agency, has opened the investigation following a complaint by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who accused Smith of using his position to influence the 2024 election. Cotton claimed that many of Smith’s legal actions seemed motivated by an effort to affect the outcome of the political contest rather than by legal grounds.
The Hatch Act, which prohibits certain political activities by federal employees during their official duties, is central to the investigation. TheOSC can impose penalties, including administrative sanctions, for any violations. The investigation is particularly sensitive due to the high-profile nature of Smith’s work, which involved two notable indictments against Trump over alleged election interference and mishandling of national defense information.
Smith, who spent approximately two years investigating Trump during the Biden administration, eventually dismissed both cases after Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, aligning with longstanding DOJ policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. His legal team, however, emphasized that the actions Cotton cited—such as requesting expedited court proceedings or longer briefs—were standard practices for prosecutors and had been approved by the courts.
TheOSC’s probe is currently under the oversight of acting U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who is serving in the interim since Trump’s nominee for the role faced hurdles in the Senate confirmation process. Smith’s attorneys have requested a direct dialogue with Greer before any investigative moves are made, arguing that the case should be fully informed by the evidence and the legal record.
Smith’s response highlights the tensions between political accountability and the independence of the legal process, raising questions about the role of investigations into former officials’ conduct and the potential for partisan influence on such probes. The situation underscores the ongoing scrutiny of high-profile legal actions involving former presidents and the complex interplay between law, politics, and public perception.