WASHINGTON, D.C. — Former U.S. special counsel Jack Smith took the witness stand on January 22, 2026, in a widely watched hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, where he vigorously defended his decisions to bring criminal charges against former President Donald J. Trump. The public session — the first of its kind since Smith resigned from his role — highlighted deep partisan divisions over the legal and political legacy of the cases he led.

Smith, appointed in 2022 by the Department of Justice to oversee investigations into Trump, had previously led two major federal prosecutions: one alleging Trump illegally retained classified government documents after leaving office and another accusing him of seeking to overturn the 2020 election results. Both cases were later dropped after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, following longstanding DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president.

At the hearing, Smith maintained his actions were driven by evidence and the rule of law. “No one should be above the law in our country, and the law required that he be held to account,” Smith told the committee, underscoring that his prosecution decisions were made without regard to Trump’s political affiliation.

Defense of Investigations

Smith detailed how his team had gathered a breadth of evidence during their investigations, describing a wide-ranging effort to examine Trump’s actions after the 2020 election. He said the inquiry exposed what he characterized as a broad conspiracy aimed at blocking the lawful certification of electoral results, and emphasized that some of the most compelling witnesses came from within Trump’s own campaign and supporter network.

Smith also addressed criticisms over investigative tactics, including the subpoena of phone records and testimony from Republican lawmakers, defending them as necessary to understand the scope of the alleged scheme.

Partisan Clash

Republican committee members, led by Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, repeatedly alleged that Smith’s investigations were politically motivated and aimed at derailing Trump’s political ambitions. Jordan argued that Smith pursued charges to “get President Trump” and prevent his re-election. Smith rejected these assertions and said he followed the facts and evidence.

Democratic lawmakers, for their part, praised Smith’s integrity and his adherence to legal standards, framing his work as essential to upholding constitutional norms. Some Democratic members highlighted Trump’s repeated denials of wrongdoing and public attacks on Smith and other prosecutors.

Trump’s Reaction

While Smith testified, Trump criticized him on social media, calling Smith a “deranged animal” and demanding professional consequences, including possible prosecution. The former president’s remarks underscored the ongoing political charge surrounding the legal battles that shadowed Trump’s tenure and post-presidency.

Smith himself acknowledged the heightened stakes of the hearing, saying he did not intend to be intimidated by public attacks or political backlash. “I will not be intimidated,” he told lawmakers.

Broader Implications

The hearing offered the American public one of the most thorough public accounts to date of Smith’s prosecutorial decisions and the evidence collected against a former president. It also spotlighted the deep partisan divides in Congress over accountability, justice, and political influence in high-stakes federal investigations.

Despite the drop in both cases following Trump’s return to the White House, Smith reiterated that if presented with similar facts under current law, he would pursue prosecution again — a statement that both underscored his commitment to the rule of law and illuminated the enduring controversies of these landmark investigations.

Sources: Al Jazeera, AP News, Reuters