Judge Permanently Blocks Release of Jack Smith’s Classified Documents Report as Trump and Jordan Claim Victory

WASHINGTON — In a ruling that has sent shockwaves through Washington, a federal judge has permanently barred the public release of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report detailing President Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents — a decision that effectively seals one of the most politically explosive investigations of the past decade from public view .

The ruling, issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee, represents the latest and most definitive chapter in a years-long legal battle over transparency and presidential accountability. It blocks the release of Volume II of Smith’s report, which describes the evidence gathered against Trump on charges of illegally retaining highly sensitive national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them .

‘A Brazen Stratagem’

Judge Cannon’s 15-page order lambasted Smith for what she called a “brazen stratagem” — compiling the detailed report even after she had dismissed the criminal case in July 2024, ruling that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional . Smith had continued working on the report for months after her dismissal order, using discovery materials generated in the case, which Cannon characterized as a violation of the “spirit” of her ruling.

“To say this chronology represents, at a minimum, a concerning breach of the spirit of the Dismissal Order is an understatement, if not an outright violation of it,” Cannon wrote .

The judge further ruled that releasing the report would “cause irreparable damage” to Trump and his two co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, and would “contravene basic notions of fairness and justice in the process” because the case never reached a jury and the defendants maintain their innocence .

“The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt, at least not in a situation like this one, where the defendants contested the charges from the outset and still proclaim their innocence,” Cannon wrote .

Smith Defends His Work

Smith, who now works in private practice, has consistently defended his investigations. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in January, he stood by his decision to secure criminal indictments against Trump and asserted that his team had gathered enough evidence to convict .

“No one should be above the law in our country, and the law required that he be held to account,” Smith told lawmakers, adding that he was “not a politician” and had “no partisan loyalties” .

In the first volume of his report, released in January 2025, Smith argued that the evidence against Trump in the election interference case was “sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial” . That volume, which addressed Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, was made public in the final days of the Biden administration .

But the classified documents volume has remained under seal. Prosecutors have previously said that some of the materials found in the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago contained information about top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials were kept in the dark about them .

‘Panic’ in Trump’s Orbit

The ruling has been met with fierce reactions across the political spectrum. Trump’s legal team celebrated the decision, with defense attorney Kendra Wharton calling Smith’s report “illegal” and praising Cannon’s “courage and judicial resolve” .

“Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed, and his unlawful investigation was improperly funded with tens of millions of U.S. taxpayers’ hard earned dollars,” Wharton said in a statement. “Any and all fruit of Smith’s poisonous tree should be treated accordingly and should never see the light of day” .

Trump himself, who has previously called Smith a “deranged animal” on Truth Social, has suggested that the Justice Department should investigate the former special counsel . Smith testified in January that he fully expected the Trump Justice Department to find a way to punish him but declared: “I will not be intimidated” .

For critics of the president, the ruling represents a profound loss for transparency. Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight — one of the groups that sued for the report’s release — said Cannon’s decision “ensured that the public is denied information of extraordinary national importance” .

“Judge Cannon’s ruling continues a troubling pattern of decisions that shield the president from public scrutiny and place secrecy above the public’s right to know,” Chukwu said .

Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which also sued for the report’s release, called the decision “impossible to square with the First Amendment and the common law,” adding: “There is no legitimate basis for its continued suppression” .

Jordan: ‘Vindication’ for Trump Allies

The ruling has also emboldened Trump’s allies in Congress. Representative Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has been one of Smith’s most vocal critics. During Smith’s January testimony, Jordan attacked the special counsel’s move to collect phone records of lawmakers in contact with Trump allies around the time of the Capitol riot, casting the investigations as politically motivated .

“It was always about politics and to get President Trump. They were willing to do almost anything,” Jordan said at the time .

In a social media post following Cannon’s ruling, Jordan described the decision as a “vindication” and called for further scrutiny of Smith’s conduct. Trump himself praised the ruling in a Truth Social post, though he appeared to confuse the judge’s name — a gaffe that quickly became fodder for critics .

What Comes Next

While Cannon’s ruling is permanent for now, it may not be the final word on the matter. Two watchdog groups, American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute, have been trying for months to force the release of Smith’s report, filing a series of requests to the federal appeals court that oversees Cannon .

The groups’ appeal of Cannon’s decision to deny them permission to intervene remains pending at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, with arguments tentatively scheduled for June . Numerous news organizations have also sought Smith’s report under the Freedom of Information Act .

But unless a higher court overturns Cannon, her order effectively blocks any such requests. And with the Justice Department now taking the position that the report should never be released — a reversal from its stance before Trump took office — the prospects for public disclosure appear dim .

The ruling underscores a fundamental shift in the legal landscape since Trump’s return to the White House. The Justice Department has already moved to bring criminal charges against two of the president’s perceived foes, and Trump has signaled his intent to pursue investigations of those he views as political enemies .

For Smith, the decision closes a chapter in a career defined by high-stakes prosecutions. For Trump, it represents a significant victory in his long-running campaign to discredit the investigations that shadowed his first post-presidency. And for the public, it means that one of the most closely guarded secrets of the past decade — the full extent of the evidence amassed against a sitting president — will remain hidden.

“American taxpayers funded this investigation, and they have a right to know what their government uncovered, particularly on matters of national security,” Chukwu said . “We will continue using every tool available to force this information into the open and to defend the public’s right to the truth.”

For now, that truth remains under seal.