Cruz says the nondisclosure orders were "explicitly contrary to federal statute" and "explicitly contrary to the federal constitution"
Ted CruzU.S. senator from Texas, questioning Smith at the Senate Judiciary hearing
Sen. Ted Cruz's questions and former special counsel Jack Smith's answers on nondisclosure orders, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 3:16:57 to 3:20:17 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Ted Cruz's questions and Smith's answers on nondisclosure orders and 2 U.S.C. section 6628, about 3:17:00 to 3:20:15 on the archived video timeline)
Sen. Ted Cruz asked Smith about 2 U.S.C. section 6628, which Cruz said protects Senate communication records, and said Smith gave a judge an order contrary to federal law and got the judge to sign such orders repeatedly. When Smith said his office's work securing the subpoenas and nondisclosure orders was consistent with the law, Cruz said the orders were explicitly contrary to federal statute and to the federal constitution.
“So instead, you gave the judge an order that was contrary to federal law, and you got the judge to sign order after order after order that was contrary to federal law. ... It was explicitly contrary to federal statute. It was explicitly contrary to the federal constitution.”
Original video
Where this statement fits
Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
On September 29, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled "Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters," with former special counsel Jack Smith as its only witness. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and other Republicans said that Smith's team, in the FBI's Arctic Frost investigation and its own election case, obtained members of Congress's phone toll records and text messages, used nondisclosure orders to keep members from learning of it, and breached the Speech or Debate Clause. Smith said the toll records were non-content records obtained after he directed his staff to consult the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, and that the nondisclosure orders were consistent with the law and Justice Department policy at the time. Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the attacks on Smith "petty, personal, and political." The sides and the documents give different counts of the members affected. The dispute is whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper.
Source and context
Original video
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Ted Cruz read language from a nondisclosure order, asked Smith about a federal statute on Senate communication records, and Smith explained why his office sought the orders.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Watch the clip from this source at the top of the page.
Before the quotation
Cruz said he believed the judge who signed the orders should be impeached. He asked Smith whether he had evidence that 20 percent of the Republicans in the Senate would destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses, citing language in a nondisclosure order, and Smith said his office had strong reason to believe Donald Trump would obstruct the investigation. Cruz then asked whether Smith knew of 2 U.S.C. section 6628; Smith said he did, did not recall discussing it at the time and did not recall it being part of the application.
After the quotation
Cruz also said AT&T had declined to hand over his phone records because doing so would violate the Speech or Debate Clause and that the special counsel's team did not go to court to enforce the subpoena; Smith said he did not believe that was what happened. Asked about regrets, Smith said he regretted that the people he worked with had been unfairly fired and vilified.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Cruz said the nondisclosure orders Smith's office obtained were contrary to a federal statute and to the Constitution. That rejects the nondisclosure orders as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Jack Smith
More from this case
Read the full caseGrassley calls Smith's actions unlawful and unconstitutional
“the major embarrassment of the hearing was Democrats falling over themselves defending unlawful and unconstitutional actions by Jack Smith.”Read statement
Harker argues for personal accountability in Blackburn's suit
“She filed it against Jack Smith in his personal capacity to seek accountability, not money”Read statement
Chenoweth condemns alleged concealment supporting the records order
“I think that it's intolerable behavior”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Cruz says the nondisclosure orders were "explicitly contrary to federal statute" and "explicitly contrary to the federal constitution"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3315-sen-ted-cruz-asked-smith-about-2-u
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Cruz says the nondisclosure orders were "explicitly contrary to federal statute" and "explicitly contrary to the federal constitution"". First published: 2026-09-29. Last updated: 2026-09-29. https://disputeindex.com/events/3315-sen-ted-cruz-asked-smith-about-2-u