The White House and Department of Justice tore into Rep. Jamie Raskin on Wednesday after the Maryland Democrat accused the DOJ of improperly handing over sensitive materials from the long-dismissed Trump classified documents case, a case a federal judge threw out nearly a year ago as unconstitutionally brought.
Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter on March 24 to Attorney General Pam Bondi alleging that the DOJ may have "inadvertently" provided his panel with previously undisclosed materials tied to former Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation. He claimed those materials showed Donald Trump retained highly sensitive classified documents connected to his business interests and may have exposed them to others after leaving office.
The response from the Trump administration was blunt. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called Raskin's effort "pathetic" and dismissed the entire premise, as Fox News Digital reported.
"Democrats with zero credibility like Jamie Raskin are still clinging to deranged Jack Smith and his lies in 2026. President Trump did nothing wrong, which is why he easily defeated the Biden DOJ's unprecedented lawfare campaign against him and then won nearly 80 million votes in a landslide election victory."
A DOJ spokesperson went further, calling Raskin "blinded by hatred" and labeling his accusations "baseless." The spokesperson said the department under Bondi is "most transparent in history" and flatly denied any court order was violated.
In his March 24 letter to Bondi, Raskin made several allegations. He claimed some classified documents Trump possessed were so sensitive that only six government officials had access to them. He cited a memorandum indicating Trump "may have shown" a classified map to individuals while on a private plane. And he accused the DOJ of cherry-picking which information about the case to release to Congress while continuing to withhold other material, including the second volume of Smith's final special counsel report.
Raskin also accused the DOJ of violating a court order requiring parts of the classified documents case to remain under seal. He demanded that the department turn over additional documents and answer questions about who may have seen the classified materials.
The DOJ rejected every claim. Its spokesperson said Judge Aileen Cannon's protective order "was not violated, and none of the documents produced by DOJ violated 6e [grand jury rules] as none of them disclosed matters occurring before a grand jury." Documents marked "6e" contained redactions of any grand jury material, the spokesperson added.
Then the DOJ spokesperson twisted the knife:
"As an attorney and law professor, one must assume Raskin understands this, and thus, reveals this letter is nothing more than a cheap political stunt almost as if taking cues from members of the corrupt Jack Smith prosecution team."
That line cuts to the heart of the matter. Raskin is a constitutional law professor. He knows the difference between redacted grand jury material and an actual violation of court-ordered secrecy. The DOJ's implication is clear: he's not confused. He's performing.
The classified documents case Raskin wants to revive has been over for months. Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee who presided over the matter in Florida, tossed it out in July 2024. She found that Smith's appointment by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland was unconstitutional. Smith appealed the ruling but withdrew his appeal after Trump won the 2024 election, citing a longstanding DOJ policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.
Cannon also ordered a portion of Smith's final report to remain permanently sealed. That order itself is being appealed, but Raskin's complaint about the DOJ withholding the second volume of the report ignores the fact that a federal judge ordered it sealed.
The underlying facts of the investigation are well-trodden ground. In 2022, FBI agents searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. The August 2022 search resulted in the seizure of 33 boxes. Trump called the investigation and prosecution a "scam" and said agents even scoured Melania Trump's wardrobe during the raid. In 2023, Smith brought an indictment accusing Trump of willfully retaining national defense information and obstructing efforts to recover it. Prosecutors at the time said Trump had withheld some boxes when they sought voluntary compliance, leading them to resort to a search warrant.
All of that ended with Cannon's ruling. The case is dead. The special counsel is gone. The appeal is withdrawn.
House Judiciary Committee Republicans dismissed Raskin's letter as another round of "manufactured outrage from the left." A committee spokesperson told Fox News Digital that Democrats remain fixated on targeting Trump rather than working with Republicans on policy.
"Once again, Democrats are more focused on targeting President Trump than working with Republicans to put America first."
That framing fits a pattern. Raskin has long positioned himself as one of the most aggressive Democratic voices against Trump. His role atop the Judiciary Committee's Democratic ranks gives him a platform to keep the classified documents narrative alive even after the courts shut it down. This latest letter follows a familiar playbook, one that other prominent Democrats have also deployed when facing political headwinds.
Democrats on the committee fired back at the Republican response, accusing the majority of "legal gymnastics" and claiming Trump sought to "advance his corrupt business interests." But those countercharges come without new evidence, just recycled allegations from a prosecution that a federal judge ruled was brought illegally.
What Raskin's letter actually accomplishes has nothing to do with classified documents or court orders. It keeps Jack Smith's name in the news. It forces the White House and DOJ to respond, generating the kind of conflict cycle that feeds cable news segments and fundraising emails. And it lets Democrats pretend the classified documents case is still a live controversy rather than a dismissed prosecution whose lead prosecutor walked away.
The DOJ's response was unusually pointed for a reason. Calling a sitting congressman's formal letter a "cheap political stunt" is not standard bureaucratic language. It signals that the Bondi-led DOJ has no interest in playing along with what it views as bad-faith oversight requests from a minority party member. Raskin's combative approach toward Trump administration officials has produced heated clashes before, and this exchange suggests the dynamic is only hardening.
Raskin demanded documents. The DOJ said the protective order wasn't violated and the redactions were proper. Raskin claimed DOJ was cherry-picking what to release. The DOJ said Raskin knows better and is grandstanding. Neither side is likely to budge.
But the burden of proof sits with Raskin, and he hasn't met it. His own letter used the phrase "may have shown", hedging language that suggests even he isn't certain about the claims he's making. When your strongest allegation starts with "may have," you're not building a case. You're building a press release.
The broader context matters. Smith's appointment was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. His appeal was abandoned. His report was partially sealed by court order. The man who brought the charges is gone from government. The defendant won the presidency with nearly 80 million votes.
Against that backdrop, Raskin's decision to relitigate the classified documents case through committee letters looks less like oversight and more like an inability to accept outcomes. The courts ruled. The voters decided. The case is closed.
Democrats can keep writing letters. The DOJ can keep calling them stunts. But voters already rendered their verdict on the lawfare campaign against Trump, and it wasn't the one Raskin wanted.
