STORY: Jack Smith Breaks His Silence and Accuses Trump of Undermining the Rule of Law

A High-Stakes Hearing

This wasn’t Smith’s first public appearance. On January 22, 2026, he had testified for the first time before the House Judiciary Committee. According to CBS News, he had bluntly defended the legitimacy of his investigations, asserting that Trump had been indicted “because the evidence established that he had deliberately violated the law—the very laws he had sworn to uphold.”

Republican lawmakers had attempted—unsuccessfully, according to several observers, including Politico—to trip him up on procedural points rather than challenge the substance of his factual findings.

“The rule of law is not automatic”

In his testimony before lawmakers, Smith made a statement that left a lasting impression: “I have seen how the rule of law can erode. My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in this country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted. But the rule of law does not enforce itself.” This quote, reported by Democracy Docket, captures the essence of his concern.

Every American citizen, regardless of political affiliation, should read this quote, as it reminds us of a simple truth: no democracy is magically protected against the collapse of its own institutions.

“A deranged animal”

Trump’s reaction to the January testimony was scathing. On his Truth Social platform, the president called Smith a “deranged animal who should not be allowed to practice law,” according to remarks reported by Politico. He also publicly suggested that Attorney General Pam Bondi should “look into what he did.”

This type of personal attack, coming directly from the head of the executive branch against a former federal prosecutor, constitutes in itself a democratic anomaly. Regardless of one’s opinion of the prosecutions led by Smith, the fact that a sitting president specifically names a former public official for potential legal retaliation raises a matter of principle.

The ever-present threat of indictment

Smith told CNBC that an indictment against him by Trump’s Department of Justice “could happen,” given the president’s animosity toward him. He nevertheless stated bluntly: “I’m not going to be intimidated.”

A former federal prosecutor who must publicly declare himself ready to face indictment out of political vengeance—this is exactly the kind of situation that no mature democracy should normalize.

“He wasn’t looking for honest answers”

During his testimony in January, Smith summarized his findings regarding Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election in no uncertain terms: “Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump was not looking for honest answers about possible election fraud. He was looking for ways to stay in power.” This quote, reported by Salon, goes to the heart of the special counsel’s central allegation.

Smith clarified that when Trump’s aides presented him with information contradicting his fraud allegations, he “rejected” it, according to the findings of the federal investigation.

The classified documents case, in the background

The other aspect of the charges brought by Smith concerned the illegal retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House in 2021, as well as attempts to obstruct justice to conceal their continued possession. This case remains legally more sensitive, as Smith declined to comment in detail on matters still subject to ongoing legal proceedings.

I note, with a certain professional admiration, Smith’s discipline in never overstepping the limits of what the legal proceedings allow him to reveal publicly, even under media pressure.

An FBI Director Under Fire

The picture painted by Smith finds a troubling echo in the FBI’s management under Kash Patel. According to The Guardian, Patel was criticized in late June 2026 for posting details of FBI investigations on social media, a practice viewed by several observers as motivated more by self-promotion than by the public interest.

Even more seriously, according to a lawsuit filed by three former FBI agents and reported by the BBC, Patel allegedly stated internally that his own job security depended on the dismissal of agents who had worked on cases related to Trump, particularly those involving the January 6 investigation.

Allegations of Financial Favoritism

According to Audacy, Patel is also accused of using a $1 million “reserve fund” to pay bonuses to agents deemed loyal to him. These allegations, if confirmed, paint a picture of a federal agency transformed into an instrument of personal loyalty rather than a neutral law enforcement body.

An FBI that distributes bonuses based on loyalty rather than professional merit is the very definition of an institution that has lost its way.

The DOJ Resists Promised Transparency

On a different note, but revealing the same dynamic, the Department of Justice is currently opposing a court order requiring it to justify the redactions applied to the Epstein files. According to The Independent, Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered the DOJ to publish a list of these redactions, following a lawsuit filed by journalist Katie Phang.

The administration—which had promised transparency through the Epstein Files Transparency Act signed by Trump himself—is now requesting a two-month extension or the outright dismissal of this order, a position that The Independent describes as a direct contradiction to the president’s initial commitment.

A Common Thread That Raises Concerns

What links these cases—whether it’s the purges at the DOJ, the controversial management of the FBI, or the resistance to transparency regarding Epstein—is a consistent trend: the administration appears to systematically prioritize political control and personal loyalty over institutional mechanisms of accountability.

One can advocate for a firm stance on national defense and, in the same breath, denounce an administration that treats judicial checks and balances as enemies to be neutralized.

“The judges no longer trust us”

One of Smith’s most troubling observations directly concerns the functioning of the courts. “One of the problems today, aside from retaliatory prosecutions, is that the Department of Justice can no longer do its job,” he told CNBC. “If you go to court and the judges don’t trust you, you can’t perform the basic tasks necessary to represent the American people.”

This loss of judicial trust, if it becomes widespread, represents structural damage that goes far beyond Trump’s single term: it affects the credibility of the entire federal judicial system for years to come.

A Dangerous Precedent for Future Administrations

The risk, implicitly highlighted by Smith, is that this politicization of the judiciary is not an isolated incident, but a precedent that future administrations, across the political spectrum, might be tempted to replicate once the dam has burst.

Once a president normalizes the use of the Department of Justice as a weapon against his political enemies, it becomes very difficult for his successors—regardless of their political affiliation—to close this Pandora’s box.

A Necessary Distinction Between Stances

It would be dishonest to paint a uniformly negative picture of the Trump administration without any nuance. In terms of Western military posture and support for NATO, the administration has maintained—and in some cases even intensified—useful pressure on European allies to increase their defense spending in the face of Russia.

This column, which unreservedly condemns the domestic abuses documented here, also acknowledges that the firm stance taken on Western defense matters addresses a real need in the face of threats posed by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

Two Faces of the Same Presidency

It is precisely this duality that makes analyzing this presidency so complex: a firm stance on foreign policy that is sometimes beneficial to the West, but a domestic approach to the justice system that raises concerns even among former federal prosecutors with impeccable track records.

I reject facile caricatures: one can acknowledge a firm military stance that serves the West’s interests while denouncing, with equal vigor, authoritarian excesses on the domestic front.

A Man Who Embraces Calculated Isolation

What stands out in Smith’s testimony is the total absence of any apparent political calculation. He isn’t seeking office; he isn’t testing the waters for a future candidacy. He is factually documenting his experiences from within the federal judicial system, with the caution of a man who knows he himself could become the next target.

According to MS NOW, he stated that he was “not focused” on the president’s comments about him or on the possibility of legal action against himself, preferring instead to concentrate on defending his former colleagues who have been unfairly targeted.

The Discreet but Genuine Support of Judicial Institutions

This apparent solitude does not mean total isolation: several former Justice Department officials, including Andrew Weissmann, have publicly praised the rigor and restraint of Smith’s testimony, seeing it as a necessary reminder of the fundamental principles of the American rule of law.

Smith’s quiet courage—free of grandstanding or a quest for media martyrdom—deserves to be highlighted in an American political landscape often dominated by spectacle.

A concern that goes beyond the Trump case alone

Smith told CNBC that he is “very concerned about what will happen in the next election.” This concern is significant coming from a man who has spent his career documenting, precisely, attempts to subvert the U.S. electoral process.

If independent judicial oversight mechanisms continue to weaken, the fear expressed by several commentators—including those cited by Democracy Docket—is that future elections will become more vulnerable to maneuvers similar to those documented during the 2020 election.

Congress’s Role in Preserving Safeguards

In the face of these risks, the role of the U.S. Congress—in its ability to conduct independent investigations and resist executive pressure—becomes all the more critical to preserving the balance of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

If Congress abandons its role as a check on executive power out of pure partisan calculation, the entire system of checks and balances will pay the price, well beyond Trump’s single term in office.

A Broader Movement of Institutional Resistance

Jack Smith is not a lone voice. Former FBI agents have filed lawsuits against Patel, lawyers for victims continue to demand transparency regarding the Epstein case in court, and journalists like Katie Phang persist in documenting, proceeding by proceeding, the administration’s resistance to accountability.

This convergence of institutional and individual resistance is, in my view, an encouraging sign that America’s democratic checks and balances, though weakened, have not been completely neutralized.

The Price Paid by Those Who Speak Out

However, we must not downplay the personal and professional costs borne by these dissenting voices. Threats of legal action, dismissals, smear campaigns: the price paid to maintain a semblance of institutional counterweight is far from negligible in the current political climate.

Every public servant who chooses to speak out despite potential reprisals deserves to be recognized as a bulwark—however fragile it may be—against the drift toward authoritarianism.

Two Indictments That Follow the Same Pattern

The indictments of James Comey and Letitia James are not isolated incidents. According to Smith, they are part of a pattern of targeted retaliation against figures who, at one time or another, contributed to investigations deemed unfavorable to Trump. This repetition of the same pattern—against different individuals, all of whom are linked to cases sensitive to the president—suggests a pattern of behavior rather than a mere coincidence.

Smith stated on camera: “There’s no crime here. I mean, seashells?”—an ironic remark intended to highlight what he sees as the contrived nature of the charges brought against some of these officials.

The Normalization of a Tool for Political Pressure

What worries institutional observers the most is the repetition of this pattern, which, over time, risks becoming a normalized practice within the U.S. federal government, regardless of which party is in power. Once the door is open, there is no guarantee that a future president—whether on the left or the right—will not use it in turn.

The real danger lies not only in the indictments themselves, but in the normalization of a practice that any future occupant of the Oval Office could in turn use against their own opponents.

An Institutional Legacy Put to the Test

Historically, the U.S. Attorney General has always operated with a degree of independence from the White House, even when the position was held by a close political ally of the sitting president. Smith’s testimony suggests that this tradition—never enshrined in law but respected by convention for decades—has eroded significantly under the current administration.

This erosion is not the result of a single isolated decision, but rather an accumulation of actions: targeted firings, retaliatory prosecutions, resistance to document transparency, and direct public pressure on former federal officials.

A Model to Compare with Other Democracies

It is worth noting that in several allied Western democracies, the independence of the judiciary from the executive branch is considered a non-negotiable pillar. The American model, based more on convention than on a strict constitutional separation, proves particularly vulnerable to this type of direct political pressure.

What strikes me is just how much American judicial independence relied on unwritten conventions rather than concrete legal safeguards—a vulnerability that is now being felt the hard way.

A Mixed Picture

Jack Smith’s testimony paints a grim picture of the state of the rule of law in the United States under the Trump presidency. The purges at the Department of Justice, the apparent politicization of the FBI under Kash Patel, and the ongoing resistance to transparency in the Epstein case form a coherent whole that should alarm—beyond partisan divides—anyone who cares about the strength of America’s democratic institutions.

At the same time, it would be incomplete not to acknowledge that this same administration has maintained a firm stance on Western defense—an area where firmness remains necessary in the face of the ambitions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

What to Watch For

The question that remains open is whether Jack Smith will in fact be prosecuted by the Department of Justice—which he himself once led—and whether other institutional voices will continue to speak out despite the risks. The outcome of these developments will say a great deal about the true resilience of America’s checks and balances in the months ahead.

This story leaves me with a sense of unease that I won’t try to hide: one can applaud an administration’s military resolve while sincerely fearing what it is in the process of normalizing at home, within its own courts.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist