2026年2月23日 / 美国东部时间上午10:20 / CBS新闻
华盛顿 — 一名联邦法官周一永久禁止司法部公布前特别检察官杰克·史密斯报告中涉及调查特朗普总统涉嫌不当处理敏感政府文件及涉嫌妨碍联邦调查的部分内容。
美国地区法官艾琳·坎农批准了特朗普及其两名前同案被告沃尔特区·诺塔和卡洛斯·德奥利维拉的请求，发布禁令，禁止公布史密斯报告的第二卷。该命令禁止司法部长帕姆·邦迪或其继任者公布或分享最终报告的这一部分内容。
邦迪此前已认定，报告的第二卷不应向公众发布，部分原因是对史密斯被任命为特别检察官的合法性存在疑问。2024年7月，负责审理特朗普文件案的坎农裁定，史密斯被非法任命为特别检察官，并驳回了对总统的指控。
史密斯对这一裁决提出上诉，但在特朗普赢得白宫连任后，此案最终告一段落。
“特别检察官史密斯在缺乏合法授权的情况下，在此诉讼中提起了起诉，并启动了导致所有指控被驳回的最终命令。因此，本案中的前被告与任何处于这种情况下的其他被告一样，仍然享有宪法秩序中神圣不可侵犯的无罪推定，”坎农在其裁决中写道。“出于明显的原因，法院无需在没有法定或其他合法指令的情况下采取违反该保护措施的行动。”
坎农是特朗普在其第一任期内任命的美国佛罗里达州南部联邦地区法院法官，她还写道，第二卷包含“大量有待保护的证据材料”，这些材料仍受案件初期发布的保护令约束。
她表示，允许公布报告将导致与案件相关的大量材料公开。
“此外，虽然前特别检察官确实在其工作结束时发布了最终报告，但他们似乎要么根本没有提起指控，要么是在通过认罪或审判判定有罪后才发布，”坎农继续说道。“法院难以找到这样一种情况：一名前特别检察官在提起刑事指控后，在没有判定有罪的情况下仍发布报告，至少在这种情况下不存在这种情况——即被告从一开始就对指控提出异议，并仍然宣称自己无罪。”
在没有坎农禁令的情况下，史密斯的报告原定于周二公开。
特朗普的律师之一肯德拉·沃顿表示，法官“正确裁定，在已被驳回的刑事案件中，广泛披露受保护的大陪审团证词和证据材料，以及由违宪检察官发布的意见和未经证实的指控，这在美国司法系统中是不恰当的。坎农法官在这些重要的正当程序问题上展现出的勇气和司法决心，应该得到认可，并在全美法学院的课堂上进行教授。”
史密斯的发言人拒置评。司法部未立即回应置评请求。
特朗普及其私人法律团队上月要求坎农发布一项命令，禁止“现任、前任和未来的”司法部官员发布该报告。
司法部支持特朗普的请求，同意史密斯的第二份报告“不应在司法部之外发布”。
“第二卷的不当发布将构成对法院在基础刑事诉讼中宪法裁决的不可逆转的违反，以及对权力分立基本原则的违反，”特朗普的律师辩称。
司法部律师还声称，史密斯的调查“从一开始就是非法的”。
“史密斯不仅将司法部武器化，针对一位主要总统候选人以追求反民主的目的，而且他是在没有法律授权的情况下这样做的，同时还针对受宪法保护的活动，”他们写道。
检察官继续表示：“简而言之，史密斯的任期以非法和不当行为为特征，其工作成果绝不应被赋予本部门的全部分量和权威，”并补充说，邦迪已将该报告标记为“内部审议性通信，享有特权和机密性，不应在司法部之外发布。”
史密斯在2023年对特朗普提起了两起刑事案件。第一起源于2020年总统大选后试图颠覆权力交接的指控，第二起涉及特朗普在其第一任期结束后涉嫌不当处理敏感政府文件。特朗普否认有任何不当行为，并对所有指控均不认罪。
在特朗普再次当选总统后，这两起案件均告结束。史密斯在特朗普开始第二任期就职前辞职，但在离职前，他向当时的司法部长梅里克·加兰提交了一份详细说明其调查的两卷报告。
该报告迅速成为法律争议的焦点。特朗普在文件案中的两名同案被告诺塔和德奥利维拉试图阻止公布史密斯报告中涉及2020年大选调查的部分内容。
然而，他们的努力未能成功，该卷报告在特朗普第二任期就职前几天向公众公布。但第二卷仍未公开。
加兰因诺塔和德奥利维拉正在进行的法律程序，将报告的这一部分列为机密。但2025年2月，联邦上诉法院批准了司法部撤销对他们指控的请求，使此案告终。
尽管如此，坎农去年1月发布了一项禁止公布第二卷的命令。司法部、诺塔和德奥利维拉在去年3月的法庭文件中表示，“在任何情况下都不应命令公布史密斯报告的第二卷。”
Judge permanently blocks release of Jack Smith’s report on Trump classified documents case
February 23, 2026 / 10:20 AM EST / CBS News
Washington — A federal judge on Monday permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing the portion of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report that details his investigation into President Trump’s alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents and alleged obstruction of the federal probe.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted requests from Mr. Trump and two of his former co-defendants in the case, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, to issue an order prohibiting the release of the second volume of Smith’s report. The order bars Attorney General Pam Bondi or her successors from releasing or sharing that portion of the final report.
Bondi had already determined that the report’s second volume shouldn’t be released to the public, in part because of questions surrounding the legality of Smith’s appointment as special counsel. Cannon, who was overseeing the prosecution of Mr. Trump in the documents case, ruled in July 2024 that Smith was unlawfully appointed special counsel and dismissed the charges against the president.
Smith had appealed that decision, but the case ultimately ended after Mr. Trump won a second term in the White House.
“Special Counsel Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this action and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final order of dismissal of all charges. As a result, the former defendants in this case, like any other defendant in this situation, still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order,” Cannon wrote in her decision. “For obvious reasons, the Court need not take actions in contravention of that protection absent a statutory or other lawful directive to do so.”
Cannon, who was appointed to the U.S. district court in South Florida by Mr. Trump during his first term, also wrote that the second volume contains “voluminous discovery” that remains subject to a protective order issued during the early stages of the case.
She said that allowing the release of the report would lead to large amounts of material related to the case becoming public.
“Moreover, while it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work, it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial,” Cannon continued. “The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt, at least not in a situation like this one, where the defendants contested the charges from the outset and still proclaim their innocence.”
Without Cannon’s order, Smith’s report was set to become public on Tuesday.
Kendra Wharton, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, said the judge “properly ruled that the broad disclosure of protected grand jury testimony and discovery materials related to a dismissed criminal case, along with the publication of opinions and unproven accusations by an unconstitutional prosecutor, has no place in the American judicial system. Judge Cannon’s courage and judicial resolve on these important due process issues should be recognized and taught in law school classrooms across America.”
A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Trump and his personal legal team asked Cannon last month to issue an order that would block “current, former and future” Justice Department officials from ever releasing the report.
The Justice Department backed Mr. Trump’s request, agreeing that Smith’s second report “should not be released outside of the Department of Justice.”
“The potential, improper release of Volume II would constitute an irreversible violation of this Court’s constitutional rulings in the underlying criminal action and of bedrock principles of the separation of powers,” Mr. Trump’s attorneys argued.
Justice Department lawyers separately claimed Smith’s investigation was “unlawful from its inception.”
“Smith not only weaponized the Department of Justice against a leading presidential candidate in pursuit of an antidemocratic end, but he did so without legal authority and while targeting constitutionally protected activity,” they wrote.
Prosecutors continued: “Put simply, Smith’s tenure was marked by illegality and impropriety, and under no circumstance should his work product be given the full weight and authority of this Department,” adding that Bondi has marked the report “an internal deliberative communication that is privileged and confidential and should not be released outside the Department of Justice.”
Smith brought two criminal cases against Mr. Trump in 2023. The first stemmed from an alleged effort to subvert the transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election, and the second involved the president’s alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents after the end of his first term. Mr. Trump denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Both cases came to an end after Mr. Trump won the presidency again. Smith resigned before Mr. Trump was sworn in for a second term, but before leaving his post, he submitted a two-volume report detailing his investigations to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The report quickly became the focus of legal wrangling. Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants in the documents case, Nauta and de Oliveira, attempted to block the release of a portion of Smith’s report involving the investigation into the 2020 election.
Their efforts, however, were unsuccessful, and that volume was made public days before Mr. Trump’s second inauguration. But the second volume has remained out of the public’s view.
Garland had kept that part of the report secret because of ongoing legal proceedings involving Nauta and de Oliveira. But a federal appeals court granted a Justice Department request to drop the case against them last February, bringing it to an end.
Still, Cannon had issued an order last January barring the release of the second volume. The Justice Department, Nauta and de Oliveira said in a court filing last March that “under no circumstances should the court order the release of” the second volume of Smith’s report.