Which actions by Trump were investigated by the DOJ or special counsels while in office?
Executive summary
Three principal criminal threads were the focus of Department of Justice special counsels while Donald Trump was president: the 2016-era Russian-interference and related obstruction probe led by Robert Mueller; the post-2020 effort to overturn the election and the January 6 events led by Special Counsel Jack Smith; and investigation into retention and mishandling of classified documents, also overseen by Smith — with related subpoenas into business records and foreign contacts tied to those inquiries [1] [2] [3].
1. Mueller’s probe: 2016 campaign contacts, Russian interference and obstruction
The first high-profile special-counsel investigation, led by Robert Mueller, examined whether Trump’s 2016 campaign coordinated with Russian election interference operations and whether the president obstructed that investigation; Mueller’s work focused on contacts between campaign associates and Russian-linked actors and produced a wide-ranging investigative record that included obstruction-related questions about the president’s actions [1]. While reporting here summarizes Mueller’s scope as covering election interference and obstruction, the provided sources do not detail every accused act or Mueller’s ultimate findings, so this account relies on the broad characterization in DOJ-related coverage [1].
2. Smith’s election-interference case: efforts to overturn 2020 and January 6
After the 2020 election the DOJ assigned Jack Smith to a criminal investigation into whether President Trump and associates engaged in a scheme to overturn the lawful transfer of power; Smith’s indictment and public filings allege a coordinated effort to interfere with certification of the Electoral College and to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power surrounding January 6, 2021 [2] [4]. Smith later told Congress his office “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 result, according to reporting summarizing Smith’s testimony and filings [4].
3. Classified records and documents: retention, subpoenas and grand-jury activity
Separately, DOJ special-counsel work examined Trump’s retention of classified material after leaving office and related handling and obstruction issues; Smith’s team subpoenaed Trump and the Trump Organization for documents and business records, sought notes and subpoenaed records about how classified documents were stored and moved, and pursued grand-jury testimony and motions tied to that probe [3]. Reporting describes subpoenas to the Trump Organization about business dealings with several countries and notes contractors and counsel returning marked documents to the special counsel — concrete investigative steps that formed part of the records inquiry [3].
4. Overlap, prosecutions and what the sources do and do not show
The three strands sometimes overlapped in practice — obstruction questions arose both in the Mueller context and in later probes tied to 2020 — and prosecutors used subpoenas, grand-jury subpoenas and indictments as investigative tools [1] [3] [2]. The sourced reporting documents the investigative topics and some prosecutorial steps (indictments, subpoenas, grand-jury materials) but does not supply a full, authoritative list of every investigative act or every allegation; where the sources are silent, this account does not speculate beyond their coverage [3] [4].
5. Competing narratives and stated motives: politicization claims
Trump and his political defenders have consistently framed these investigations as politically motivated, and after his return to office his administration has directed DOJ resources in ways critics call retaliatory; reporting captures both Smith’s defense of his prosecutions and Trump’s attacks — and other watchdogs warning about potential weaponization of the DOJ when administrations pursue political opponents [4] [5] [6]. The sources show a clear adversarial dynamic: special counsels documenting alleged criminal schemes and the president and allies alleging politicized targeting, a political contest that colors public interpretation of the investigations [4] [5] [6].