Smartmatic Asks Judge to Dismiss DOJ Charges as Trump Retribution for 2020 Election Stance

Smartmatic filed a motion in federal court Monday asking a Miami judge to dismiss criminal bribery charges against the company, arguing the Trump administration weaponized the Justice Department to punish it for refusing to accept false claims that it rigged the 2020 presidential election.

The motion, filed March 10 in USA v. Donato Bautista (S.D. Fla., No. 1:24-cr-20343), accuses the administration of pursuing vindictive and selective prosecution against SGO Corporation Limited, the U.K.-based parent of Smartmatic. The company asks the court to dismiss the charges outright or, alternatively, to grant discovery into what it characterizes as improper political interference in the Justice Department's charging decisions.

The criminal case itself stems from alleged bribery tied to the 2016 Philippine elections. Prosecutors charged current and former Smartmatic executives in 2024, during the Biden administration, over allegations the company conspired to bribe a Philippine government official to win business and conspired to launder money in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The company itself was not charged until a superseding indictment in October 2025, which made Smartmatic the first business in 15 years to be indicted under the FCPA.

Smartmatic's motion argues the timing is not coincidental. "The only consequential changes in this case since 2024 were the President, his DOJ, and their well-documented crusade to unconstitutionally target their perceived political enemies, like Smartmatic," the company wrote. The filing contends that President Trump "has openly waged a campaign of retribution against his perceived enemies, chief among them those who undermine his mantra that the 2020 election was rigged, and demanded the Department of Justice take up the sword."

The motion cites Trump's own conduct as evidence of animus. "Public statements by the President and his allies show that the Executive Branch harbors animus to Smartmatic, and that the President has directed subordinates within to prosecute entities involved in the 2020 U.S. election," the filing states. In a pointed reference to the Justice Department's physical headquarters, the motion declares: "It is the President's face alone on the massive banner now draped across Main Justice."

The filing also draws a direct line between the criminal prosecution and Smartmatic's ongoing civil defamation litigation. The company has sued Fox News, Newsmax, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Michael Lindell, and Jeanine Pirro, seeking billions of dollars in damages for amplifying false claims about its role in the 2020 election. Pirro, a former Fox host, currently serves as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and is simultaneously a named defendant in one of Smartmatic's suits. The motion argues the indictment benefits those defendants directly: "Discovery may reveal additional evidence that the Administration, potentially under the influence of Fox News or other allies staring down defamation claims, directed DOJ to indict SGO." Fox News has already cited the bribery charges as grounds to delay the defamation case and reduce any potential payout.

"On more than one occasion post-indictment, the president has reposted videos claiming that Smartmatic was involved in the rigging of elections around the world, including the U.S. 2020 presidential election," the filing noted, framing those reposts as evidence of continued political targeting.

Vindictive and selective prosecution motions have historically been difficult to win, but several recent defendants have secured early footholds using similar arguments. Former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James both raised selective prosecution claims against what they described as politically motivated Trump-era indictments; both cases were dismissed before courts reached the merits, and the Justice Department has appealed those dismissals. Kilmar Abrego Garcia also scored a preliminary win on comparable grounds.

The Justice Department has not publicly responded to Smartmatic's motion. With billions in civil damages and a felony corporate indictment hanging simultaneously over the company, the Miami court's decision on whether to grant dismissal or allow discovery will test how far federal judges are willing to scrutinize the political architecture behind a criminal prosecution.