Jack Smith Returns to Television, Warns of Election Interference and Says DOJ Indictment of Him Is Possible

What Smith Said

Jack Smith appeared Thursday on MSNBC's Deadline: White House with host Nicolle Wallace, his first broadcast interview since he resigned as special counsel roughly 10 days before Trump's second inauguration on January 20, 2025. According to CNBC and the Washington Examiner, Smith said, "I think we are facing an attack on the rule of law that is different in kind and scope to anything I've seen in my lifetime."

He said he is "very concerned about what's going to happen in the next election" and advised state attorneys general to "be ready to litigate everything" and to "initiate litigation where it's appropriate" if they believe federal action threatens voting rights. Breitbart reported the full exchange, noting that Smith's advice to AGs was explicitly framed around protecting elections from President Trump.

On the question of his own legal exposure, Smith said a DOJ indictment of him "could happen," citing Trump's stated hostility toward him. He added that he does not spend significant time worrying about it, according to the Washington Examiner.

The Cases, Briefly

Smith was appointed special counsel in November 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. He obtained two grand jury indictments of Trump: one related to alleged mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, and one related to alleged efforts to reverse the 2020 election result, including events surrounding January 6, 2021. Both cases were dismissed after Trump won the 2024 presidential election. Smith resigned before the inauguration.

After Trump was inaugurated, the DOJ fired more than 35 career prosecutors and other personnel who had worked on Smith's investigations, according to the Washington Examiner.

Smith's Specific Grievances

Smith pointed to the DOJ's indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James as what he called "retribution prosecutions." He argued that federal judges have lost trust in DOJ prosecutors, saying, "If you go to court and the judges don't trust you, you can't do the basic things that you need to do to represent the American people in court."

He also said young law students he meets are less interested in DOJ careers than they previously were, and urged them not to abandon public service.

The Strongest Case for the Other Side

Smith's critics have a fair argument. He is not a neutral observer. His two prosecutions of a sitting president-elect collapsed entirely: one dismissed on procedural grounds tied to presidential immunity, one dropped after the classified documents case fell apart under a different judge's rulings. He resigned rather than face the incoming administration. The steps he now characterizes as "retribution" — executive orders on mail-in ballots, DOJ review of voter rolls, Republican poll-watcher programs in 17 states — are lawful activities that prior administrations have also pursued in various forms. The Washington Examiner noted that Democrats characterize these efforts as election interference, but characterizing something as interference is not the same as proving it is.

On the Comey and James indictments specifically: those are allegations brought by grand juries, not convictions. Whether they represent legitimate prosecutions or political targeting is a live question. No court has ruled either way.

What's Proven, What's Alleged

Proven: Smith resigned, both his Trump cases were dismissed, the DOJ fired more than 35 people who worked with him, and Comey and James have been indicted. Those are facts.

Alleged but not proven: that those firings were retaliatory rather than a new administration exercising standard personnel authority, that the Comey and James indictments are politically motivated rather than substantively grounded, and that Trump plans to interfere in the 2026 midterms. No charges have been filed against Smith as of July 3, 2026, and no investigation of him has been publicly announced.

What's genuinely hard to verify: whether judicial skepticism of DOJ prosecutors reflects a systemic problem Smith is describing accurately, or reflects judge-by-judge friction that exists in any contentious political moment.

A Note on the Interview Itself

Smith chose MSNBC, specifically Nicolle Wallace's program, for his first public appearance in 18 months. Wallace is an openly anti-Trump host. Breitbart reported the exchange fairly completely, including Smith's more aggressive strategic advice to state AGs. CNBC's framing leaned most heavily on Smith's "rule of law" rhetoric without significantly stress-testing his record. None of the coverage engaged seriously with why both of his Trump prosecutions failed on the merits or procedurally.

What Comes Next

Smith's call for state attorneys general to "initiate litigation" preemptively against anticipated federal election conduct sets up a probable wave of state-versus-federal court battles heading into the November 2026 midterms. Whether any such litigation is filed, and on what legal theory, remains to be seen. The more concrete and verifiable question hanging over Smith personally: the DOJ has not announced any investigation or charges against him as of today, but Smith himself put the possibility on the record Thursday. That means it is now a named risk he has publicly acknowledged rather than one he has dismissed.