GOP Fights Back: Inside the Battle Over Smith’s Secret Trump Files

Paul Riverbank, 12/17/2025Capitol Hill is gripped by a fierce battle over the sealed second half of Jack Smith's Trump report, highlighting deep divides over transparency, legal prudence, and the public’s right to know. As the standoff intensifies, the nation awaits answers amid rising political tension.

To lay it out plainly: two volumes, one locked tight. The first, already public, peels back the layers on Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to upend the 2020 election results. But it’s the second volume—the sealed one—covering whether Trump hung on to classified documents after leaving office, that has sparked a fresh round of partisan wrangling.

Democrats aren’t mincing words. Rep. Jamie Raskin, Maryland’s top Democrat on the House oversight panel, has become the party’s standard-bearer here. He’s cajoling the Justice Department, urging them to make the concealed half of Smith’s report public. His tone is less measured, more confrontational: “They’re scared of what’s buried in there,” he’s told reporters, suggesting embarrassment is winning out over transparency. This call to open the vault lands just days before Smith is scheduled for what insiders predict will be a particularly tense closed-door deposition—one some describe as more of a powder keg than a polite hearing.

Republicans, for their part, have circled the wagons behind Judge Cannon’s sealing order. That order keeps Volume II locked down, at least until she rules in 2026. Committee spokesperson Russell Dye tapped out a statement that’s become familiar to anyone watching this back-and-forth: Attorney General Bondi is merely following the judge’s orders, and the storm of Democratic outrage is, to their mind, little more than political theater. The subtext, less often spoken aloud but always humming beneath the surface, is that any talk of immediate release is intended to damage Trump, nothing more.

Justice Department leadership echoes that unease. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, speaking from the main DOJ briefing room, described an early release as risky, even reckless: “Smith hasn’t completed his job. If we publish now, we invite half-baked conclusions and partisan spin—there’s no way to avoid it.” The implication is straightforward—wait until the process is finished or risk undermining the entire investigation’s credibility.

Outside of public view, the allegations have only gotten messier. Some Republicans are now claiming Smith’s investigators went after a trove of lawmakers’ phone records—including those belonging to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan—fueling deep-seated anxieties about privacy and overreach. It’s a reminder of why, in recent years, even veteran members tread carefully when talking on their official cell phones.

Raskin, meanwhile, is urging the hearings be open to cameras and the press, following the precedent set by the Mueller investigation and Ken Starr’s public testimony decades prior. “Closed doors breed selective leaks, deliberate misquotes, and a public left guessing,” he warned, trying to keep the focus on institutional norms rather than the personalities involved.

It’s hard not to notice the echoes of history at play here. When the Starr Report dropped in the late ‘90s, its details were quickly splashed across the news. The Mueller investigation saw page after page dissected on live TV. Democrats are hanging their argument on this tradition, asking: if Americans could judge past controversies for themselves, why is this moment any different?

For now, though, the second volume remains under wraps. Legal constraints are real—but in Washington, political calculus weighs just as heavily. As committee members brace for Smith’s testimony—either in cloak-and-dagger privacy or, as some hope, in the full glare of public scrutiny—one truth holds: trust in government is always just one contested document away from unraveling.

With the next round of questioning looming, the anticipation feels less like a procedural necessity and more like a showdown that will set the tone for how Congress, the courts, and the public grapple with transparency in an ever more polarized era. Until Judge Cannon makes her decision, America waits—not patiently, but with sharp eyes on Capitol Hill’s next move.

Capitol Hill is buzzing this week, and not in the usual hum of anticipation before a contentious vote. Instead, there’s a palpable nervous energy in the halls—staffers swapping rumors, aides hunched over phones, lawmakers ducking into private offices, all poised for whatever comes next in the standoff over Special Counsel Jack Smith’s elusive Trump report.To lay it out plainly: two volumes, one locked tight. The first, already public, peels back the layers on Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to upend the 2020 election results. But it’s the second volume—the sealed one—covering whether Trump hung on to classified documents after leaving office, that has sparked a fresh round of partisan wrangling.Democrats aren’t mincing words. Rep. Jamie Raskin, Maryland’s top Democrat on the House oversight panel, has become the party’s standard-bearer here. He’s cajoling the Justice Department, urging them to make the concealed half of Smith’s report public. His tone is less measured, more confrontational: “They’re scared of what’s buried in there,” he’s told reporters, suggesting embarrassment is winning out over transparency. This call to open the vault lands just days before Smith is scheduled for what insiders predict will be a particularly tense closed-door deposition—one some describe as more of a powder keg than a polite hearing.Republicans, for their part, have circled the wagons behind Judge Cannon’s sealing order. That order keeps Volume II locked down, at least until she rules in 2026. Committee spokesperson Russell Dye tapped out a statement that’s become familiar to anyone watching this back-and-forth: Attorney General Bondi is merely following the judge’s orders, and the storm of Democratic outrage is, to their mind, little more than political theater. The subtext, less often spoken aloud but always humming beneath the surface, is that any talk of immediate release is intended to damage Trump, nothing more.Justice Department leadership echoes that unease. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, speaking from the main DOJ briefing room, described an early release as risky, even reckless: “Smith hasn’t completed his job. If we publish now, we invite half-baked conclusions and partisan spin—there’s no way to avoid it.” The implication is straightforward—wait until the process is finished or risk undermining the entire investigation’s credibility.Outside of public view, the allegations have only gotten messier. Some Republicans are now claiming Smith’s investigators went after a trove of lawmakers’ phone records—including those belonging to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan—fueling deep-seated anxieties about privacy and overreach. It’s a reminder of why, in recent years, even veteran members tread carefully when talking on their official cell phones.Raskin, meanwhile, is urging the hearings be open to cameras and the press, following the precedent set by the Mueller investigation and Ken Starr’s public testimony decades prior. “Closed doors breed selective leaks, deliberate misquotes, and a public left guessing,” he warned, trying to keep the focus on institutional norms rather than the personalities involved.It’s hard not to notice the echoes of history at play here. When the Starr Report dropped in the late ‘90s, its details were quickly splashed across the news. The Mueller investigation saw page after page dissected on live TV. Democrats are hanging their argument on this tradition, asking: if Americans could judge past controversies for themselves, why is this moment any different?For now, though, the second volume remains under wraps. Legal constraints are real—but in Washington, political calculus weighs just as heavily. As committee members brace for Smith’s testimony—either in cloak-and-dagger privacy or, as some hope, in the full glare of public scrutiny—one truth holds: trust in government is always just one contested document away from unraveling.With the next round of questioning looming, the anticipation feels less like a procedural necessity and more like a showdown that will set the tone for how Congress, the courts, and the public grapple with transparency in an ever more polarized era. Until Judge Cannon makes her decision, America waits—not patiently, but with sharp eyes on Capitol Hill’s next move.