Which parts of Jack Smith's deposition were redacted or withheld when Congress released it?
Executive summary
The House Judiciary Committee released a transcript and video of former special counsel Jack Smith’s closed‑door deposition on Dec. 31, 2025, but the transcript was explicitly labeled “partially redacted” and accompanied by an errata PDF, meaning portions of Smith’s testimony were withheld from public view [1] [2]. Reporting identifies the redactions as tied to material the Justice Department had treated as sealed or sensitive — including investigatory exhibits and narrow evidentiary details such as toll‑record information — but available sources do not provide a line‑by‑line catalogue of every redacted passage, so definitive specifics beyond that characterization are not present in the public reporting [1] [3] [4].
1. What the committee released — and how it labeled the document
House Republicans posted a 255‑page transcript and an accompanying video of Smith’s more than eight‑hour deposition but made clear in the public file that portions had been redacted, producing a “Redacted‑with‑Errata” PDF that signals intentional withholding of text prior to public release [2] [1]. Multiple outlets described the transcript as “partially redacted” when summarizing the released material, and Lawfare and PBS both note the committee’s phrasing that certain content was omitted or blacked out in the public version [1] [5].
2. What reporters and lawmakers say was being protected
Coverage and statements from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee indicate the redactions align with categories the Justice Department historically treats as sensitive: sealed exhibits, grand‑jury or court‑sealed materials, and narrow operational details tied to subpoenas and phone‑record collection — for example, Smith’s discussion of obtaining toll records for a limited window around January 6, which he characterized as metadata only (numbers and timestamps), not call contents [3] [6]. Fox News and other outlets emphasized that Republican questioning focused on those subpoenas and phone records, suggesting why portions of that questioning or the evidence referenced might have been redacted [4].
3. Limits of public reporting — what cannot be asserted from sources
None of the provided sources publish a granular inventory showing every excised line or the committee’s legal justification paragraph‑by‑paragraph; the primary public artifact is the redacted PDF itself, which shows blacked‑out material but does not, in these reports, come with a public index explaining each redaction [2]. Lawfare notes the transcript was released with redactions, and reporting across CNN, PBS, The Guardian and others summarizes themes and quotes from the unredacted portions, but those accounts cannot substitute for a technical accounting of each withheld passage [1] [7] [5] [6].
4. Political context and competing narratives about the redactions
The timing and presentation of the release became a political flashpoint: critics accused Republicans of “burying” the transcript on New Year’s Eve and of using selective redactions for partisan advantage, while Democrats and Smith’s allies argued Smith had sought a public forum and that some redactions were legally required to protect sensitive law‑enforcement material [8] [3]. Observers therefore frame the redactions both as procedural protections — consistent with longstanding DOJ practices around sealed evidence and sensitive investigative material — and as a tactical choice by the committee about what to make public and when [1] [8].
5. How to get closer to a definitive accounting
The only explicit way to determine exactly which passages were withheld is to consult the committee’s posted redacted transcript and video and to seek any accompanying committee or DOJ redaction log; the redacted PDF is the primary public record referenced across reporting and would show the blacked‑out passages, even if it does not explain each redaction in prose [2]. Reporters and committee statements point to sealed investigative exhibits and toll‑record details as the most likely categories of withheld material, but the sources do not offer a comprehensive, line‑by‑line justification accessible in the published coverage [1] [3] [4].