The prosecutors who pursued a 40-count indictment against President Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents apparently had trouble securing classified materials themselves. Newly released internal Justice Department messages show that a sensitive compartmented information facility accessible to former special counsel Jack Smith's office was left unsecured, that an individual gained access to classified material without a confirmed "need to know," and that staff expressed uncertainty about the movement of classified materials housed in the facility.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released the internal DOJ records on Wednesday and fired off an oversight letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche demanding answers by July 22. The Iowa Republican did not mince words about what the messages suggest.
"Talk about the pot calling the kettle black," Grassley said in a statement. "According to these messages, Biden DOJ personnel may have committed the very offense for which Jack Smith was prosecuting President Trump."
The records, produced by the Trump-era DOJ in response to Grassley's oversight requests, include a message chain dated April 18, 19, 2024. In it, one DOJ official described what happened after the SCIF was found unsecured: "no one opened it yesterday because no one closed it the day before."
A second official responded bluntly: "That's a violation and incident so I need to know the details."
The Washington Examiner reported that the messages also urged personnel to check the SCIF before leaving because limited staffing was available to oversee the secure facility. Stephanie Van Buskirk, who appears to have served as an assistant to Smith, was identified in the messages as the person who opened the SCIF "the day before" the reported security incident. Grassley's letter does not accuse Van Buskirk or any other employee of criminal wrongdoing.
Six members of Smith's Special Counsel Office were identified in the communications: senior assistant special counsel Molly Gaston, Thomas Windom, Carli Rodriguez-Feo, Julie Edelstein, William O'Neil, and Van Buskirk. Gaston served as one of Smith's senior deputies during the Biden administration and was a lead prosecutor in both the classified documents case and the federal election interference case against Trump.
In June 2023, Smith secured a 40-count indictment accusing Trump of willfully retaining highly classified national defense information after leaving office and failing to properly secure government records at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The charges included obstruction of government efforts to recover the documents.
The entire legal theory rested on the premise that classified materials demand rigorous protection, and that failing to provide it is a federal offense. That is the same standard Smith's own office now appears to have fallen short of, based on the internal messages Grassley released.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, dismissed the classified documents case in July 2024, ruling that Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution's Appointments Clause. The case never reached trial.
The chairman's letter to Blanche poses pointed questions. Grassley wants to know whether the SCIF housed evidence used in Smith's prosecution of Trump. He asked Blanche to identify everyone granted access to classified materials held by the Special Counsel Office and to explain whether any internal investigation occurred. He also asked for the names of those responsible for the reported security failures.
Beyond the internal accountability questions, Grassley pressed on a disclosure issue: Were Trump's attorneys or the presiding federal court ever notified of the security lapses? If classified evidence in an active prosecution was potentially compromised, or even inadequately safeguarded, the defense and the court would ordinarily need to know.
Grassley's letter stopped short of concluding that classified information was actually compromised. But the gap between what Smith's team demanded of Trump and what its own personnel practiced is the core of the senator's concern.
"These records expose yet another double standard of justice. While Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden escaped accountability for mishandling highly classified information, Jack Smith and the Biden DOJ set out to paint President Trump as a felon and ruin him politically."
That was Grassley's framing. Agree or disagree with the political characterization, the underlying factual question is narrow and answerable: Did the prosecutors who charged Trump with mishandling classified documents mishandle classified documents themselves?
A DOJ spokesperson said the department takes the protection of classified information "very seriously" and is reviewing the concerns Grassley raised. The spokesperson added that alleged security lapses are reviewed through established internal procedures to determine whether protocols were followed, whether classified information was compromised, and whether corrective action is warranted.
The spokesperson also offered a sharper statement: "Every official entrusted with sensitive materials must follow strict security protocols without exception, a standard Jack Smith's team apparently failed to meet as they pursued a politically weaponized prosecution of President Trump."
That language from the current DOJ is notable. The department under Trump's appointees is not defending Smith's office. It is publicly characterizing the prosecution as "politically weaponized", a phrase that would have been unthinkable from the same building eighteen months ago.
Several questions hang over the disclosure. The messages confirm that DOJ personnel recognized a "violation and incident" in real time. What happened next is unclear. Was a formal security review conducted? Were findings documented? Were corrective steps taken? None of that appears in the released records.
It is also unknown whether the SCIF incident was limited to the April 18, 19, 2024 timeframe or whether additional lapses occurred on other dates. The identity of the individual who received classified access without a confirmed "need to know" has not been publicly disclosed. And the classified materials whose movement was uncertain, were they ever accounted for?
Grassley gave Blanche until July 22 to respond. Whether the acting attorney general delivers a full accounting or a carefully hedged reply will say a great deal about how seriously the current DOJ intends to treat the matter.
Set aside the politics for a moment and consider the operational reality. A team of federal prosecutors built a historic criminal case on the argument that a former president endangered national security by keeping classified documents in insufficiently secure conditions. While that case was active, the prosecutors' own facility, a SCIF, the gold standard of classified security, was left unsecured overnight. An individual accessed classified material without proper clearance confirmation. Staff weren't sure where certain classified materials had gone.
These are not minor procedural hiccups. In the world of classified information, a SCIF left open overnight is a reportable security incident. An unauthorized access is a reportable security incident. Unaccounted-for classified materials are a reportable security incident. Every cleared federal employee knows this. Smith's prosecutors certainly knew it, they built a 40-count indictment on that exact knowledge.
The question is not whether anyone in Smith's office committed a crime. Grassley himself has not alleged that. The question is whether the people who wielded the most aggressive prosecutorial tools in modern political history held themselves to the same standard they imposed on their target.
The messages released Wednesday suggest they did not.
When the enforcers cannot follow their own rules, the rules start to look less like law and more like leverage.
