Former Special Counsel Jack Smith made his first public appearance before Congress on Thursday, defending his criminal investigations into President Donald Trump while facing a barrage of criticism from Republican lawmakers and the president himself.
During a contentious hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Smith maintained that his prosecutorial decisions were guided solely by evidence and the law, not political considerations. The testimony marked the first time the former prosecutor has spoken publicly about his high-profile cases against Trump since resigning his position shortly before the president’s inauguration in January 2025.
Jack Smith made up his own legal theory to justify spying on sitting Members of Congress. Then he hid what he was doing with non-disclosure orders.
He tore the Constitution in two for one purpose: to influence the 2024 election and stop Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/0yeocHDEqB
— Congressman Brandon Gill (@RepBrandonGill) January 23, 2026
Smith Stands by Federal Charges Against Trump
Throughout the hearing, Smith repeatedly emphasized his commitment to prosecutorial independence and rejected suggestions that his investigations were politically motivated. The former war crimes prosecutor told lawmakers that the evidence against Trump was overwhelming and would have supported convictions in both federal cases he pursued.
“I made my decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith testified. “President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law—the very laws he took an oath to uphold.”
Smith’s investigations resulted in two separate federal indictments against Trump. The first, filed in August 2023, centered on the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The charges included conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiracy against constitutional rights.
The second indictment, issued in June 2023 in Florida, focused on Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office. That case included 40 counts ranging from conspiracy to obstruct justice to violations of the Espionage Act for mishandling sensitive national security materials.
Trump Responds with Social Media Attack
As Smith testified on Capitol Hill, President Trump took to social media to launch a scathing attack on his former prosecutor, calling for criminal charges against the special counsel without providing specific evidence to support such action.
BUSTED! This is the Moment where Jack Smith REVEALS he NEVER had a Case against Trump. The President BELIEVED he WON (lots of ppl agree btw) —-POTUS believed, therefore NOT “falsity” or False Claims. The “criminal intent” is NOT there. Excellent Job by the @judiciaryGOP!!!! pic.twitter.com/INhYJ9ogva
— Greg Kelly (@gregkellyusa) January 23, 2026
“Based on his testimony today, there is no question that Deranged Jack Smith should be prosecuted for his actions,” Trump wrote on social media. “He destroyed the lives of many innocent people, which has been his history as a prosecutor. At a minimum, he committed large-scale perjury!”
The president’s comments reflect the ongoing tension between Trump and federal law enforcement officials who investigated his conduct. Since returning to the office, Trump has repeatedly criticized the Justice Department’s previous actions and suggested potential retribution against those involved in the investigations.
Partisan Divide on Display
The congressional hearing showcased the deep partisan divisions that have characterized discussions of Trump’s legal troubles. Democratic committee members praised Smith’s professionalism and dedication to the rule of law, while Republicans questioned his motives and criticized what they characterized as a politically driven prosecution.
Smith, who previously served as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, was appointed as special counsel in November 2022 during the Biden administration. His mandate was specifically designed to provide independence from regular Justice Department oversight, given the sensitive nature of investigating a former president who was also a declared candidate for the 2024 election.
The special counsel role became particularly complex as Trump simultaneously faced criminal charges while campaigning for president. This unprecedented situation raised questions about the intersection of criminal justice and electoral politics that ultimately became moot when Trump won the 2024 election.
🚨MAGA IMMEDIATELY regrets calling Jack Smith to testify as he reaffirms Trump’s 100% GUILT:
SMITH: The evidence established…Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2024 results…and illegally kept classified documents…in a bathroom." BOOM.
— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) January 22, 2026
Cases Dismissed Following Election Victory
Both federal cases against Trump were dismissed after his electoral victory in November 2024, in accordance with longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the prosecution of sitting presidents. This policy, while not constitutionally mandated, has been consistently applied to avoid potential conflicts between the executive branch’s law enforcement responsibilities and the presidency.
Smith resigned from his position in January 2025, just before Trump’s inauguration, effectively ending his tenure as special counsel. His departure was widely anticipated given the Justice Department’s policy and the change in administration.
During Thursday’s testimony, Smith expressed confidence that his cases would have succeeded if circumstances had been different. He told lawmakers that the evidence collected during his investigations established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” and that he would make the same prosecutorial decisions again under similar circumstances.
Implications for Future Presidential Accountability
Smith’s testimony raises broader questions about presidential accountability and the challenges of prosecuting high-level political figures. His cases against Trump represented the first time in American history that a former president faced federal criminal charges, creating unprecedented legal and constitutional questions.
The special counsel emphasized that his approach would have been identical regardless of the defendant’s political affiliation. “If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” he stated.
This assertion addresses ongoing debates about whether former presidents should receive special consideration in criminal matters or be held to the same legal standards as ordinary citizens. Smith’s position clearly favors equal application of the law regardless of political status.
Looking Forward
The hearing represents a significant moment in the ongoing discussion about Trump’s legal challenges and their impact on American politics. While the federal cases have been resolved through dismissal rather than trial, the underlying questions about presidential conduct and accountability remain relevant for future administrations.
Smith’s detailed defense of his prosecutorial decisions provides insight into the evidence that federal investigators believed they had assembled against Trump. His testimony suggests that the cases were dismissed due to constitutional and policy considerations rather than weaknesses in the underlying charges.
As Trump begins his second term as president, the tensions highlighted during Thursday’s hearing are likely to continue influencing discussions about executive power, criminal justice, and the rule of law. Smith’s testimony serves as a historical record of one of the most controversial prosecutorial efforts in American political history.
The former special counsel’s appearance before Congress marks the end of a chapter in American legal and political history, while simultaneously raising questions that will likely persist long after the current political moment has passed.
Sorry Smitty!!!! YOU LOSE!!!!