A new filing from a federal district court at the District of Columbia shows that Special Counsel Jack Smith gained access to President Trump’s private messages, draft posts, and location data from Twitter, the social media platform now known as X. 

The warrant was issued by Judge Beryl Howell in January, but a second hearing was held on February 9, the transcript of which was posted to the court’s records database on Tuesday. At the hearing, Judge Howell affirmed her warrant and ordered the social media giant to hand over any and all information related to Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, including associated email addresses and phone numbers, location data, private messages, and draft posts that were never made public.

After Mr. Smith’s office claimed Twitter was not complying with the warrant, Judge Howell said she would go through the warrant with lawyers “tediously,” adding that “it seems like that kind of supervision of Twitter is necessary here.” Twitter missed the deadline to turn over all information, which resulted in a $350,000 sanction. 

One of Mr. Smith’s lawyers, Thomas Windom, told Judge Howell that Twitter had failed to turn over “associated account information,” including email addresses, phone numbers, or location data. Mr. Windom called such information “a useful tool in identifying what other accounts are being used by the same user or by the same device that has access to the account.”

Judge Howell accused Twitter of delaying the release of certain information to the government because the company’s chief executive, Elon Musk, is trying to curry favor with Mr. Trump. “Is it because the CEO wants to cozy up with the former president, and that’s why you are here?” Judge Howell asked one of Twitter’s lawyers, George Varghese. “No, your honor,” Mr. Varghese responded. “It’s whether or not they are facially valid.”

A copy of the warrant was also posted to the court’s website on Tuesday. It shows that Mr. Smith was granted access to view what searches were made from the account between October 2020 and January 2021. The special counsel’s office also sought all communications related to the suspension of Mr. Trump’s account in the days after the January 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol, as well as any communications related to the reinstatement of the account. 

Included in the January 2023 search warrant was a nondisclosure provision that forbade Twitter from informing Mr. Trump that his now-active account was being searched by the special counsel’s office. Lawyers for Twitter argued at the February 9 hearing that the nondisclosure order should be thrown out so that Mr. Trump could himself challenge the search warrant. She denied that request.

Twitter appealed the inclusion of the nondisclosure provision before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the provision violated the First Amendment and the Stored Communications Act, which governs when and how the government can access private user information from technology companies. 

On August 9, a written decision was made public, though it had been issued privately in July by three judges of an appellate court — Florence Pan, Nina Pillard, and J. Michelle Childs, all of whom were appointed to the bench by Democratic presidents. Judge Pan wrote the unanimous decision that upheld Judge Howell’s search warrant and nondisclosure provision. 

Judge Pan wrote that the district court was correct in affirming the warrant because there could be “evidence of criminal offenses” within Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, especially any communication related to attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Judge Pan continued, writing that “the district court found that there were ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ that disclosing the warrant to former President Trump ‘would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation.’”

It is not yet clear what information Mr. Smith may have gleaned from accessing Mr. Trump’s account. After entering a plea of “not guilty” before a federal magistrate judge earlier this month, Mr. Trump made increasingly harsh statements in public about Mr. Smith, calling him “deranged,” among other things. 

This led the presiding judge in the case, Tanya Chutkan, to issue a protective order that limits what information will be turned over to the former president’s legal team. It also curtails what trial information Mr. Trump and his lawyers can discuss publicly. 
Since his indictment in the January 6 case, Mr. Trump has assailed both Mr. Smith and Judge Chutkan in social media posts and on the campaign trail. On Monday, he called Judge Chutkan “highly partisan” and “ VERY BIASED & UNFAIR!”