26/01/2026
Jack Smith defends Trump investigations at House hearing: “No one should be above the law”
Former special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers he would make the same charging decisions again, arguing the evidence supported allegations involving election subversion and classified documents. The public hearing underscored the deep partisan divide over the investigations and raised renewed questions about Justice Department independence under Trump’s second term.
- Published
- Revised

WASHINGTON — Former special counsel Jack Smith defended his investigations into President Donald Trump during a public House Judiciary Committee hearing, insisting the work was driven by evidence and the principle that powerful officials must be held to the same legal standard as everyone else.

Smith said his team developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in criminal conduct tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election and to the retention of classified documents after leaving office. He told lawmakers he would bring the same cases again under the same facts, regardless of party.
The hearing quickly split along partisan lines. Republicans argued Smith’s actions represented an abuse of prosecutorial power and an attempt to shape national politics. Democrats used the forum to emphasize the scope of the evidence and to accuse Republicans of trying to rewrite the record surrounding January 6 and the broader post-election pressure campaign.
Smith also faced questions about investigative methods, including subpoenas and efforts to gather phone records. He described such tactics as standard tools and said they were necessary to map contacts and coordination related to efforts to stop the certification of the 2020 results.
Although Smith’s prosecutions were dropped after Trump returned to office, he argued that abandoning accountability for leaders would damage the rule of law. Lawmakers also pressed him on threats of retaliation and whether he expects the current administration to pursue him, a concern tied to broader debate about the Justice Department’s institutional independence.