President Donald Trump is seeking a federal court order to stop his own Justice Department from releasing part of a high-profile report connected to investigations into his conduct.
At the center of the dispute is Volume II of former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report—and whether the public should ever see it. The clash sets up an unusual confrontation between a sitting president and the department that operates under his authority, the Department of Justice.
Trump’s attorneys filed a 19-page motion in federal court in Florida asking for an order that would bar “current, former and future” Justice Department officials from releasing the second volume of Smith’s report.
The request follows the dismissal last year of the underlying criminal case, which involved allegations that Trump obstructed justice, unlawfully retained classified documents, and concealed records at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The court ruled that Smith’s appointment and funding were unconstitutional, effectively ending the prosecution.
According to Trump’s legal team, publishing the report would amount to an end run around that dismissal and could expose protected material, including grand jury information and attorney-client communications—despite the fact that the case never went to trial.
In their filing, Trump’s attorneys wrote that “President Donald J. Trump respectfully moves, in his individual capacity and as a former defendant in this since-dismissed criminal action, for an order prohibiting the release of Volume II of the Final Report prepared by so-called ‘Special Counsel’ Jack Smith and his office.”
They argue that releasing the second volume would unfairly harm Trump by reviving allegations that were never tested in court. The motion contends that publishing investigative conclusions after a case has been thrown out would deny Trump the opportunity to challenge those claims through normal judicial proceedings.
The filing also frames the report as the product of an investigation a court has already deemed improperly authorized, warning that continued reliance on Smith’s work could conflict with that ruling.
Trump, who has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, has long accused the Justice Department of being weaponized against him during his bid to return to the White House.
The judge’s decision could have broader implications, shaping not only the political fallout from Smith’s investigations but also the boundaries of what prosecutors may disclose once a criminal case has ended.
Days after Trump’s filing, Smith testified publicly before the House Judiciary Committee about his investigations into Trump, including the January 6 and classified documents cases, after previously appearing behind closed doors. Smith said his team developed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and insisted their actions were driven by evidence, not politics.
He added that, given the same facts today, he would pursue charges against a former president regardless of party, emphasizing that “no one should be above the law.”
