Washington, DC — Former United States Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee for nearly five hours on January 22, 2026, defending the investigations into Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference and handling of classified documents.
Speaking at the hearing, Smith said both federal cases, one over Trump’s retention of classified materials, the other over attempts to subvert the 2020 vote, were driven by evidence, not politics.
The session marked the first time the public heard from Smith in detail since his resignation.
As Trump called for the former Special Counsel to be "prosecuted for his actions," for "large-scale perjury,” Smith told lawmakers he expects the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against him in the future.
Here are five top takeaways from his five-hour testimony:
1. Smith stood by charging Trump
Smith said he would have prosecuted the cases again under the same facts, regardless of political party.
The evidence, he asserted, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in criminal activity, describing the election interference probe as an "unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power."
Smith stated, "I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump."
2. Trump directly responsible for January 6
Smith told lawmakers that Trump “preyed” on his supporters’ loyalty, ignored advisers confirming the election was legitimate, and sought to retain power.
The Capitol attack, he insisted, was foreseeable and exploited by the former president, whom he called “the person who caused Jan. 6.”
Smith told the panel: "Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6." He added that Trump wanted to retain power, making the violence foreseeable.
3. Investigations fact-driven, not political
Smith rejected claims of partisan motivation, emphasising that his team “followed the facts and followed the law.”
The charges stemmed from evidence of serious crimes in both election subversion and classified documents cases, not political bias, he emphasised.
"My team followed the facts and followed the law." Smith defended the probe and insisted he acted "without regard to politics" with "no second thoughts about the criminal charges" brought.
4. Evidence sufficient for convictions
Smith said his office developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that could have won at trial in both indictments — one for efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the other for illegally retaining classified materials at Mar-a-Lago.
He asserted his investigations "developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that "could have won at trial," with sufficient evidence to convict Trump in both indictments.
5. Undeterred by potential intimidation
Smith warned that failing to hold those responsible for attempting to subvert the 2020 election could have had catastrophic consequences.
He also signaled he was undeterred by any potential future intimidation from Trump administration officials.
The former Special Counsel noted that "the rule of law is not self-executing."
