Jack Smith Report: Volume 2 Release Fight and Dropped Cases

The Jack Smith report is the two-volume final report that Special Counsel Jack Smith submitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland on January 7, 2025, at the close of his federal criminal investigations into Donald Trump. Volume 1, on efforts to overturn the 2020 election, was released to the public on January 14, 2025. Volume 2, on the retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, has never been released and is currently blocked by a permanent injunction from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that is on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.¹²

What Volume 1 Concluded About the 2020 Election Case

Volume 1 runs 137 pages and is titled “Report on Efforts to Interfere with the Lawful Transfer of Power Following the 2020 Presidential Election or the Certification of the Electoral College Vote Held on January 6, 2021.”¹ It describes what Smith called an “unprecedented criminal effort” by Trump to retain power after losing the election, with “knowingly false claims” of election fraud used as the instrument.³

The report groups the alleged conduct into categories: pressuring state officials to disregard the vote counts, organizing and submitting fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states Trump lost, attempting to force Justice Department officials to open sham election-fraud investigations, leveraging Vice President Mike Pence’s ceremonial role to obstruct the January 6 certification, and directing supporters to the Capitol where the ensuing violence delayed the count.³ It identifies six co-conspirators — private attorneys, a Justice Department official, and a political consultant — none of whom were charged, though Smith wrote his office had made a “preliminary determination” that sufficient evidence existed to seek charges against some.⁴

The report also documents where evidence stopped short. Smith’s team declined to pursue an insurrection charge, concluding it could not be proven. Prosecutors considered but did not bring criminal incitement charges over Trump’s January 6 remarks, finding they lacked “direct evidence” that he intended the full scope of the violence.⁴ The report draws a line between protected political speech and a criminal scheme, stating that “the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime.”⁵

Smith’s overall assessment sits in the report and in his accompanying letter to Garland: “but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.” Smith called the claim that his decisions were “influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors” “laughable” and said the charging decisions were his alone.¹

Why the Criminal Cases Were Dropped

A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., charged Trump on August 1, 2023, with four felonies including conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction, and conspiracy against rights. After the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, a second grand jury returned a superseding indictment based on conduct the special counsel’s office deemed non-immunized.³

After Trump won the November 2024 election, Smith moved on November 25, 2024 to dismiss both the election case and the government’s appeal of the earlier dismissal of the classified documents case. Smith cited the Justice Department’s longstanding position that “the Constitution forbids the federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President” and stressed that the prohibition is “categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution.” Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the election case without prejudice the same day, but the statute of limitations is expected to expire before Trump leaves office, making a later revival extremely unlikely.⁶

The classified documents case had already been dismissed in July 2024 by Judge Aileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida, who ruled that Garland lacked statutory authority to appoint Smith as special counsel.⁷ The Justice Department appealed but dropped that appeal after the election, leaving Cannon’s ruling standing.⁸ The cases against Trump’s co-defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, charged with obstruction for allegedly helping move classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after the FBI demanded their return, were dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit in February 2025.⁹

Why Volume 2 Has Never Been Released

Volume 2 covers the classified documents investigation. By Smith’s own description in the released report, this volume contains material that remains under seal or is restricted from public disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which governs grand jury secrecy.³ Smith provided a redacted version to the Attorney General to consider for public release, but that release never happened.

In January 2025, Judge Cannon issued a gag order barring disclosure of “any information or conclusions” from Volume 2.¹⁰ On February 23, 2026, she issued a 15-page decision permanently enjoining the Justice Department from ever releasing the report. Cannon ruled that release would present a “manifest injustice” to Trump and his former co-defendants, who “still enjoy the presumption of innocence” because the underlying criminal case had been dismissed.² She also found that release would disclose secret grand jury material and that compiling the report violated her earlier order dismissing the case.¹¹ Cannon declined the defendants’ request to order the report physically destroyed.¹²

The Fight to Release Volume 2

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and American Oversight are leading the legal push to force the report out. After Judge Cannon denied their motions to intervene in December 2025, the organizations appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. The Knight Institute’s opening brief, filed February 9, 2026, argues that the public has a First Amendment and common-law right of access to the report because it was submitted in connection with a criminal proceeding, and that the Freedom of Information Act independently requires its release. Cannon had waited 218 days without ruling on the organizations’ original motion, prompting the Eleventh Circuit to order her to rule within 60 days; she denied the motion 11 days before that deadline expired.¹³

After the permanent injunction issued, the Knight Institute filed a notice of appeal on March 2, 2026.¹⁴ The Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic filed an amicus brief arguing Cannon violated settled Eleventh Circuit precedent by ruling the report was not a “judicial record” subject to public access.¹⁵ On the other side, America First Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief on March 11, 2026, urging the court to affirm Cannon and go further by ordering the report destroyed, arguing it was the product of an “unconstitutional investigation.”¹⁶ Oral arguments were tentatively scheduled for the week of June 22, 2026.¹⁷

Congress has taken a parallel run at disclosure. On April 9, 2026, Representative Steve Cohen introduced the Volume II Transparency Act (H.R. 8215), which would mandate release. Cohen’s office noted the underlying investigation had produced 40 felony counts related to mishandling of classified documents and obstruction.¹⁸ The bill had no listed co-sponsors at introduction.¹⁹

What Is Known About the Classified Documents Evidence

Some detail about the sealed investigation has emerged through congressional disclosures and Smith’s testimony. The investigation alleged that Trump hoarded sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office and repeatedly enlisted aides and lawyers to help hide records demanded by investigators.²⁰

In March 2026, Representative Jamie Raskin publicized a January 2023 Justice Department memorandum provided to the House Judiciary Committee. According to Raskin, the memo indicated Trump took classified documents aboard a private plane to his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club in 2022, including a classified map that may have been shown to passengers. The memo identified Susie Wiles, then CEO of Trump’s political action committee, as having been aboard the flight. The FBI assessed that certain retained documents were “pertinent to his business interests” and that Trump possessed “highly sensitive documents” whose disclosure would cause “aggravated potential harm to national security.” At least one document was reportedly so sensitive that only six people in the entire U.S. government had authorized access to it.²¹

The Justice Department denied that the disclosure violated Cannon’s gag order or grand jury secrecy rules, stating that materials marked as containing grand jury information had been redacted before production. A DOJ spokesperson called Raskin’s claims “baseless” and characterized the released files as containing “salacious and untrue claims” generated by Smith’s team.²²

Smith’s Testimony to Congress

Smith resigned from the Justice Department on January 10, 2025.²³ He was later called before the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan. His closed-door deposition on December 17, 2025 ran nearly eight hours; a partially redacted 255-page transcript and video were released December 31, 2025.²⁴ He then testified publicly on January 22, 2026. His testimony was constrained by Cannon’s January 2025 order barring discussion of nonpublic information from Volume 2, and by Rule 6(e) protections for grand jury proceedings.²⁵

Smith testified his team had developed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election and had uncovered “powerful evidence” of willful retention of classified documents.²⁴ He said the cases relied heavily on testimony from Trump’s own political allies and Republican officials in states including Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, some of whom regarded the efforts as an attempt to “overthrow the government.”²⁵ He defended subpoenas for congressional phone metadata as a “common prosecutorial tactic,” stressing they captured routing information and not call content.²⁶

Republican committee members accused Smith of political bias aimed at undermining Trump’s 2024 campaign. Representative Darrell Issa described Smith as the “arm” of President Biden.²⁷ Smith said he acted “without regard to politics” and told the committee he believed the Trump administration and current Justice Department “want to seek retribution against anybody who worked on cases against President Trump.”²⁴

Political Aftermath

On his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, Trump issued a clemency proclamation granting a “full, complete and unconditional pardon” to nearly all individuals convicted of federal offenses related to January 6. Fourteen people convicted of the most serious charges, including Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and multiple Proud Boys members, received commutations to time served rather than full pardons. The Attorney General was directed to seek dismissal with prejudice of all remaining January 6 indictments.²⁸

Beginning in February 2025, Trump issued executive actions targeting law firms connected to investigations of him or his allies. The first, on February 25, 2025, targeted Covington & Burling, which had provided approximately $140,000 in pro bono legal services to Smith’s office; the order suspended security clearances for firm employees who assisted Smith and directed agencies to terminate government engagements.²⁹ Similar orders followed against Perkins Coie (March 6), Paul Weiss (March 14), Jenner & Block (March 25), and WilmerHale (March 27). Perkins Coie won a permanent injunction on May 2, 2025, with the court ruling the order violated the First Amendment and constituted unlawful retaliation. Jenner & Block and WilmerHale later won permanent injunctions. Paul Weiss avoided litigation by agreeing to perform substantial pro bono work for the government.³⁰

On February 5, 2025, newly confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi established a “Weaponization Working Group” within the Justice Department, tasked with reviewing what the memo described as “politicized” actions by officials who investigated Trump. Its review covers Smith’s two prosecutions, the Manhattan District Attorney’s case, the New York Attorney General’s civil fraud case, and the department’s handling of January 6 defendants, with quarterly reports required to the White House.³¹ At its creation the group was not given prosecutorial powers or subpoena authority.³²

Smith himself remains subject to Cannon’s order restricting him from speaking publicly about Volume 2’s contents.³³

1
Lawfare. Justice Dept. Releases First Volume of Special Counsel Smith’s Final Report
2
PBS NewsHour. Judge Permanently Blocks Release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Report on Trump Classified Documents Case
3
U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Smith, Volume 1
4
NPR. Trump Jack Smith Election Report
5
First Amendment Encyclopedia. Jack Smith’s Final Report on Trump Investigations
6
ABC News. Special Counsel Jack Smith Moves to Dismiss Election Interference Case
7
Just Security. Trump Brief on Jack Smith Authority
8
Washington Post. Trump Classified Documents Jack Smith Appeal Cannon Dropped
9
NPR. Trump Document Case Nauta De Oliveira
10
Courthouse News Service. DOJ May Have Disclosed Secret Grand Jury Material to Congress
11
The Guardian. Judge Blocks Release of Jack Smith Trump Classified Documents Report
12
American Oversight. American Oversight Condemns Judge Cannon’s Order Permanently Blocking Release of Volume II
13
Knight First Amendment Institute. Knight Institute Asks Federal Appeals Court to Order the Release of Special Counsel’s Report
14
Knight First Amendment Institute. United States v. Trump Et Al.
15
Yale Law School. Clinic Urges 11th Circuit to Unseal Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Report
16
America First Legal. America First Legal Urges U.S. Appeals Court to Order Destruction of Jack Smith’s Unconstitutional Report
17
American Oversight. American Oversight Is Still Fighting to Force Release of Jack Smith’s Report
18
Office of Congressman Steve Cohen. Congressman Cohen Introduces Volume II Transparency Act
19
U.S. Congress. H.R. 8215, Volume II Transparency Act
20
Courthouse News Service. Judge Blocks Release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Report on Trump Classified Documents Case
21
House Judiciary Committee Democrats. Damning New Documents Obtained by Judiciary Democrats
22
CNN. DOJ Disclosure to Congress on Trump Classified Documents
23
ABC News. Jack Smith Resigned as Special Counsel
24
BBC. Jack Smith Testimony Before Congress
25
House Judiciary Committee. Jack Smith Deposition Transcript
26
PBS NewsHour. Key Moments From Jack Smith’s House Testimony
27
CNN. Jack Smith Trump House Testimony
28
The White House. Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021
29
The White House. Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts
30
First Amendment Encyclopedia. Trump’s Executive Orders Against Law Firms
31
ABC News. Bondi, New AG, Launches Weaponization Working Group Review
32
ABC News 4. Attorney General Pam Bondi Orders Review of Trump Cases
33
New York Times. Jack Smith Report Trump