House Judiciary Committee Refers Jack Smith’s Lead Attorney Thomas Windom to DOJ for Alleged Obstruction
The House Judiciary Committee has formally referred Thomas Windom, a former Senior Assistant Special Counsel under Jack Smith, to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for investigation into potential criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, alleging he obstructed a congressional inquiry by refusing to fully answer questions during his deposition. The move intensifies the ongoing political scrutiny of the Special Counsel’s former legal team.
The House Committee on the Judiciary, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, announced on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, that it has formally referred Thomas Windom, one of the lead prosecutors on former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team, to the Department of Justice for investigation. The referral alleges that Windom potentially violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (obstruction of a congressional investigation), based on his conduct during a deposition before the Committee. The Committee claims that during his testimony, Windom corruptly refused to provide information required by law, thereby impeding the Committee’s constitutional oversight function into the operations and programs of the Justice Department, particularly the Office of the Special Counsel.
The core of the allegation stems from Windom’s June and September 2025 appearances before the Committee. During these sessions, he repeatedly declined to answer multiple questions regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation into President Trump, citing a reliance on an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the Justice Department’s authorization to testify and an overly broad interpretation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which protects grand jury secrecy. Specific topics Windom allegedly refused to address included details about his interactions with the partisan January 6th Select Committee, his communications with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain billing records from the Willard Hotel, and specific details about the other prosecutors he worked with during the investigation. The Committee argued that these refusals were “unfounded” and constituted a clear obstruction of their inquiry into potential legislative reforms concerning Special Counsel regulations and concerns about selective prosecution. The referral provides the DOJ with significant evidence to investigate whether Windom’s actions meet the criminal threshold for obstructing the Committee’s investigation.
