The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the so-called grand conspiracies was followed by the departure of prominent figures. According to various media reports, the second prosecutor resigned from the investigation, a probe of the Ministry of Justice, who was accused of the political opponents of Targing Trump. At the same time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), after the dismissal of James Comay in 2017, had launched an investigation, code-named Arctic Frost, into the possibility that Trump could act as a Russian asset; the investigation was later revealed to have obtained records of calls from several Republican congressmen. The Senate Judicial Committee has arranged for the former Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, to testify on 29 September 2026, and Republican parliamentarians are using this opportunity to examine whether past investigations against Trump exceeded their authority. On the other hand, Republican senators have requested an investigation into the Tramp family business deal, while Democrats have indicated that if they win in the mid-term election, they will investigate the Tramp business transaction. The White House also declassified part of the FBI secret investigation into whether Trump was acting under Russian duress after Komi ' s dismissal. These events are intertwined and constitute a complex picture of the investigative powers of the Ministry of Justice, the investigative powers of the FBI and the oversight powers of the Congress.
There are reports that the second prosecutor resigned from the investigation by the Ministry of Justice into a “grave plot” against the political opponents of Trump. This investigation was referred to by some as probe against the hostile forces of Trump. The resignation itself did not disclose the list of specific subjects of the investigation, nor did it contain a public indictment or a description of the scope of the investigation, but it occurred against the background of the ongoing controversy within the Ministry of Justice over the nature and legality of the investigation. At the same time, United States Department of Justice past investigative records indicate that former Special Prosecutor Jack Smith obtained the private communications records of dozens of members of Congress in the course of investigations into the alleged improper handling of confidential documents by Trump and the attempt by Trump to overturn the 2020 election results. According to an open FBI document in 2025, the Smith investigation covered the records of eight Republican senators and a Republican deputy, as well as the telephone records of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judicial Council. The Judicial Committee later found that the Smith investigation involved over 160 Republicans, including Steve Bannon, a former White House consultant, Scott Perry, Rudy Giuliani, a former New York City Mayor, Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, John Eastman, and Mark Meadows, who later served as Chief of Staff of the White House in Trump. The manner and scope of access to these records are central to the parliamentary review.
Jack Smith will attend the Senate Judicial Committee hearing on 29 September 2026, 9 a.m. Eastern United States time. On the Republican side, in July, members of Parliament expressed the view that Smith might have provided false statements in his testimony to Congress and suggested that the Ministry of Justice consider prosecuting them. Smith ' s lawyer denied this allegation, claiming that his testimony was true. The core of the dispute revolved around a question-and-answer period in the closed testimony of December 2025. At that time, Smith was asked whether, as part of the investigation, the prosecutor had sent summonses to certain Republican senators to obtain phone records (toll records). The call records show only the time, date, duration and telephone number of the call and do not contain the content of the communication. Smith answered “No” when asked “Does the Senate's call record that you requested contain a call?” And when asked again whether the call record contained a text message, he answered “No”. Jordan, in a transfer letter to the Ministry of Justice, stated that this response was misleading after it was made public from Sen. Chuck (Senator Chuck). The hearings will be questioned about this exchange of records, whether Smith obtained the scope and manner of the members ' communications records during the investigation, and whether these acts constitute an improper violation of the privacy of members of Congress. As a result, the Senate Judicial Committee has been at the forefront of the current review, whereby Republican parliamentarians have advanced oversight of past Trump investigations.
The White House declassified part of the FBI's secret investigation into an investigation code-named Arctic Frost. According to reports of declassified documents, after Komi was dismissed, the FBI conducted an investigation into the possibility of Trump acting as a Russian asset. The theoretical premise of this investigation was that the dismissal of the Director of the FBI by Trump might indicate that he was acting in the interests of Russia. The decryption memorandum shows that the FBI is still conducting a full investigation into an incumbent president in the absence of a substantive basis for the “Russian collusion” theory that has been assessed by key personnel and that the original investigative basis was later determined by Durham to be insufficient to sustain the investigation. The investigation eventually produced no allegations. When the White House released the declassified information, it presented the incident as part of a political campaign to restrain the first government of Trump by using unfounded allegations and through extensive media coverage. At the same time, the FBI had previously used the Steele Dossier — a series of reports prepared by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, and funded by the Clinton campaign team and the Democratic National Commission — as a basis for an application for surveillance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by Carter Page. FISA allows the Government to obtain a search warrant for specific national security surveillance. The disclosure of these declassified information has raised the level of discussion about the FBI ' s investigative powers, the adequacy of the investigative prerequisites and whether the investigation was influenced by political considerations.
The investigation surrounding the Tramp family business transaction is proceeding along two different parliamentary lines. There were reports that a Republican senator had requested an investigation into the transactions of the Tromp family business. At the same time, the Democrats have indicated that if they win the mid-term elections, they will investigate the rich business transaction of the Trump family. The Washington Times reported that Democrats were also concerned about the $400 million White House Dance Hall project in Trump, which would be investigated if the House were to regain control. These survey proposals are still at the stage of proposals and political commitments, and there are no specific investigative initiation notices or summonses. On the other hand, the Washington Post reported that legislators had asked the Pentagon to open an investigation into the Tromp family-backed companies. This requirement refers to contractual relations relating to national defence rather than mere commercial transactions. These different investigative proposals reflect the different interests of the two parties in Congress around the business activities of the Trump family: the Republican side focused on promoting investigations into the Trump family business, the Democratic side focused on potential investigative commitments after the mid-term election, and also included concerns about the White House Dance Hall project and the Pentagon contractual relationship. These proposals are currently in the political game stage, and there are no publicly available official data or investigation orders on whether actual investigations are initiated, on which committee they are led, whether the scope of the investigations includes specific transaction amounts or contract details.
In addition to the investigation against the political opponents of Trump, the FBI has been close to launching a broad bribery investigation against Senator Susan Collins of Maine. The survey originally originated from the interaction between Collins ' main fund-raiser and Hawaiian defence contractor Navitech. According to reports from ProPublica, by 2022 the defence contractor had admitted to the FBI that his company had won millions of dollars in federal contracts by funding the election campaign of dozens of influential politicians. By 2024, FBI agents had sufficient evidence to advance a broad bribery investigation that could involve top two-party legislators. However, when Trump returned to the White House, the FBI anti-corruption team was removed and the investigation was suspended. The agent Michelle Ball, who assisted in obtaining the contractor ' s confession, was dismissed from his post for involvement in the investigation of Trump ' s attempt to overthrow the 2020 elections and is currently being prosecuted. The departure of Bauer and the removal of the anti-corruption team led to the termination of the investigation when the evidence was close to full. The Democratic opponent of Collins, Troy Jackson, called it “the highest level of corruption”, and Maine will make its final decision in 40 days. The FBI had previously conducted an investigation into the Collins team, but it was discontinued. The Collins office denied the allegations and the FBI indicated that an earlier review had not revealed that she had problems. These reports indicate that the reorganization of the internal anti-corruption investigative capacity of the FBI has had a direct impact on the continuation of a number of ongoing investigations.
The actual impact of this series of events fell first and foremost on parliamentarians and former government officials. Public records of the Judicial Council indicate that Smith ' s investigation obtained communications records of over 160 Republicans, including Jordan ' s own telephone records. This means that those parliamentarians and former officials involved in the investigation need to face the question of whether the scope of the investigation goes beyond reasonable boundaries, whether the communications records have been obtained with due process and whether they have been misused in follow-up investigations. For FBI staff, AP News reported that FBI staff involved in the Tramp Malarago case were seeking clear guidance on subpoenas in Florida's “big conspiracy” investigation. This indicates that first-line investigators are also facing issues of application and procedure for cross-file summonses. The current investigation proposal is still in the proposal stage and the actual investigation is dependent on the outcome of the mid-term election and the follow-up by the Congressional Committee. For the Maine electorate, Collins ' rivals have taken the suspension of the FBI anti-corruption investigation as the subject of the campaign and voters will decide in 40 days. For the general public, the core of these events lies in the boundaries of the investigative powers of the Ministry of Justice, whether the use of the investigative powers of the FBI is influenced by political considerations, and how oversight powers are exercised by Congress through hearings and declassification of documents. The reader should then follow up on the progress of the Senate Judicial Committee hearing of 29 September 2026, the further disclosure of the White House declassified documents, whether the Judicial Committee would make a new inquiry or refer recommendations regarding Smith ' s testimony, and whether, after the mid-term election, the two parties in Congress would initiate a specific investigation into the Tramp family ' s commercial transactions. At the same time, the follow-up implications of the restructuring of the FBI Anti-Corruption Unit, including the progress of proceedings in Bauer and the status of other staff dismissed as a result of the investigation into Trump, will also be matters for follow-up.