A January 2023 internal “progress memo” from former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office has resurfaced, prompting fresh Democratic accusations that former — and now current — President Donald Trump retained classified documents at Mar-a-Lago partly for potential financial gain tied to his business interests.
The memo, disclosed by the Department of Justice to the House Judiciary Committee as part of oversight efforts, noted that FBI investigators found certain classified materials commingled with post-presidency documents and that some “would be pertinent to certain business interests.” Prosecutors in Smith’s team assessed this overlap as establishing “a motive for retaining them.”
One document was described as so sensitive that it had been distributed to only six people in the U.S. government. The memo also referenced an incident in which Trump reportedly showed a classified map to unnamed passengers aboard his private plane in 2022, an event witnessed by Susie Wiles, who later became White House chief of staff.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, highlighted the details in a March 24, 2026, letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Raskin described the findings as “damning evidence” and suggested they indicate Trump “may have sold out our national security to enrich himself.” He demanded answers on specifics, including the content of the documents, who viewed the map, and any links to Trump family business ventures, while calling for the full release of remaining investigative files.
Context of the Dismissed Case
The revelations stem from the federal investigation into Trump’s handling of presidential records after leaving office in January 2021. Hundreds of boxes containing classified information were transported to Mar-a-Lago, where some were stored in unsecured areas such as a ballroom and bathroom. Prosecutors alleged obstruction when Trump and aides resisted returning the materials in response to subpoenas.
Trump was indicted on 37 felony counts related to willful retention of national defense information and obstruction. He maintained that he had the authority as president to declassify documents and that the materials were personal presidential records mixed with his own items — a defense rooted in broad interpretations of executive power.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case in 2024, ruling that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was improper. Following Trump’s 2024 election victory, the Justice Department dropped further pursuit consistent with policy against prosecuting a sitting president. Judge Cannon also blocked public release of portions of Smith’s final report.
Partisan Reactions and Limitations
Democrats, including Raskin, have framed the memo as evidence of corrupt intent linked to Trump’s global business dealings, such as hotels, licensing, and foreign projects. Outlets like MS NOW and others amplified the “financial gain” narrative, noting the documents’ relevance to business interests as a potential explanation for why Trump fought to keep them.
The White House and Trump allies have rejected the claims as recycled partisan attacks and “lawfare.” They point out that the memo represents early investigative speculation rather than proven facts or courtroom findings. No charges of espionage, sale of secrets, or direct monetization were ever brought, and the case never reached trial on the merits.
Critics of the original prosecution have long highlighted perceived double standards, including the handling of classified documents found in President Biden’s garage and other locations, which resulted in no charges.
Broader Implications
Mishandling of classified information poses genuine national security risks regardless of motive, whether archival habits, ego, or perceived legitimate claims of ownership. However, proving corrupt financial intent requires a high evidentiary bar that Smith’s team did not ultimately test in court.
The timing of the disclosure — during Republican-led oversight of the prior special counsel’s work — has fueled accusations of selective leaking for political effect. With much of the underlying evidence still sealed or blocked, the “hoarded for financial gain” theory remains an unproven allegation from a dismissed investigation.
As the Trump administration continues, expect ongoing congressional sparring over access to the full records. The episode underscores persistent tensions between executive privilege claims, national security classification rules, and political accountability.
About The Author
