Former special counsel Jack Smith is set to testify publicly before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday morning, a high-profile appearance that will reopen debate over his now-dismissed criminal cases against President Donald Trump, placing Smith under sustained scrutiny he largely avoided while the prosecutions were active.
The hearing, beginning at 10 a.m., will allow Smith to again defend his conclusion that Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election and that his team assembled what he described as “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Republicans, meanwhile, are preparing to use the forum to confront Smith directly over investigations they have long characterized as politically driven and constitutionally overreaching.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) said the hearing is meant to expose what he views as the culmination of a decadelong campaign to target Trump through the justice system.
“Jack Smith is really the culmination of this weaponization of the Biden-Garland Justice Department against President Trump,” Jordan said in a recent interview with Fox Business. “Thank goodness the American people saw through it.”
Smith’s testimony follows an eight-hour closed-door interview with the committee on Dec. 19, the transcript of which was released on New Year’s Eve. In that deposition, Smith rejected claims that his work was influenced by partisan considerations and insisted his charging decisions were made without regard to Trump’s political identity or 2024 candidacy.
“I would never take orders from a political leader to hamper another person in an election,” Smith said, calling the allegation “laughable.”
Both of Smith’s prosecutions are now defunct. The election interference case in Washington ended after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, while the classified documents case in Florida was dismissed by a Trump-appointed judge who ruled Smith lacked proper congressional authorization. That same judge, Aileen Cannon, has since kept large portions of Smith’s final report under seal, sharply limiting what he can publicly disclose about that investigation. Trump on Tuesday filed a motion in Cannon’s court seeking to block the release of his final report over the classified documents case, telling her the “inherently biased” report would “irreparably harm” him and his former co-defendants in the case.
In the time since those cases collapsed, Smith’s legal theories have been reexamined with a level of skepticism that extends well beyond Republican critics. With the immediacy of the prosecutions gone, commentators and legal analysts have revisited the cases more critically than much of the mainstream coverage did at their peak, raising fresh concerns about constitutional boundaries, prosecutorial discretion, and the long-term implications of criminalizing core political conduct.
A Washington Post editorial recently pushed back on Smith’s prosecutions, warning that the Jan. 6 election interference case, predicated on Trump’s Jan. 6 speech to thousands of his supporters in Washington, D.C., would risk criminalizing political speech itself and could be exploited by future administrations with very different priorities. The editorial also highlighted Smith’s failed attempt to impose a sweeping gag order on Trump during the campaign, a move that was partially rejected by a federal appeals court, including judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
The editorial focused in particular on Smith’s theory that Trump’s repeated false claims about the 2020 election constituted criminal fraud unprotected by the First Amendment. Smith defended that position during his closed-door interview, arguing that knowingly false statements aimed at obstructing a lawful government function fall outside constitutional protection.
Critics have countered that political speech, including inflammatory or misleading claims about elections, has traditionally been policed by voters, not prosecutors, and that Smith’s framework risks giving future Justice Departments a powerful tool to suppress disfavored political expression.
Smith is also expected to face pointed questioning over his office’s efforts to obtain phone toll records from Republican lawmakers, including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, as part of the Jan. 6-related Arctic Frost investigation that began in April 2022 during the FBI under former Director Chris Wray‘s watch.
Republicans have described the subpoenas as an invasive fishing expedition, while Smith has maintained the records were lawfully obtained, narrowly tailored, and consistent with routine investigative practice.
JACK SMITH OPENS LAW FIRM WITH FORMER DOJ LAWYERS WHO WORKED ON JAN. 6 CASES
Beyond the legal debates, research suggests the prosecutions may have had limited ability to reshape public attitudes. A recent academic study examining reactions to rhetoric from both Trump and Smith found that prosecutorial messaging modestly reduced support for Trump only among voters already inclined against him, while simultaneously hardening opposition among his supporters, reinforcing the view that Smith’s cases did not deter voters from choosing Trump in the most recent election.
Smith’s legal team has said he is prepared for the televised hearing and welcomes the opportunity to publicly explain his work. An attorney for Smith told CNN on Wednesday that his client is “not afraid” of Trump ahead of the widely anticipated hearing.
