Former U.S. special counsel Jack Smith defended his investigations of President Donald Trump before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 29, 2026, rejecting Republican allegations that his office used federal law enforcement powers for political purposes.
Smith told senators in Washington that he stands behind his decisions to prosecute Trump over efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the retention of classified documents after leaving office.
He also said he would not be deterred by threats that he himself could face prosecution, according to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing record.
Smith Stands By the Trump Cases
In prepared testimony, Smith said his office followed Justice Department policies and based its decisions on evidence rather than Trump’s political affiliation or 2024 presidential candidacy.
Smith said his investigation had developed evidence that prosecutors believed could prove Trump’s alleged criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. That conclusion represents Smith’s prosecutorial assessment. The allegations were never tested through completed federal trials, and Trump denied wrongdoing in both cases. Smith’s prepared Senate testimony outlined his defense of those decisions.
Smith also said he would make the same prosecution decision if presented with the same facts involving a former president from either political party. The hearing itself was formally titled “Oversight of Jack Smith’s Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters.”
Senate Hearing Focuses on Lawmakers’ Phone Records
Much of the hearing centered on investigative subpoenas involving Republican members of Congress.
Smith’s investigators obtained telephone toll records for several Republican lawmakers while examining communications surrounding January 6, 2021. Toll records identify information such as the numbers involved, timing and duration of calls, rather than the content of conversations.
Smith said investigators needed the records because Trump and his associates had contacted senators while Congress was preparing to certify the presidential election results. The Associated Press reported that there is no general legal prohibition on investigators obtaining lawmakers’ toll records.
Republican senators argued that the subpoenas showed improper targeting of political opponents. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley also said records obtained by investigators included financial information connected to thousands of political donors.
During questioning, Smith confirmed that his investigation had acquired financial information but said he could not recall every subpoena issued by the office. Grassley detailed his concerns in a committee statement after the hearing.
The dispute centers on whether the scope, procedures, and handling of congressional information were justified and consistent with constitutional protections.
Latest Verified Status
As of September 30, 2026, no criminal charges have been filed against Jack Smith. Republican lawmakers have continued congressional investigations into his conduct, while Reuters reported on the hearing and the continuing dispute over his investigations.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan referred Smith to the Justice Department on July 22, alleging that Smith made intentionally false statements to Congress concerning records obtained during the investigation. Smith and his lawyers dispute that accusation and maintain that his previous testimony was truthful. The House Judiciary Committee referral set out Jordan’s allegations.
The Justice Department has not publicly announced a prosecution resulting from Jordan’s referral.
Why the Trump Cases Ended
Smith was appointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to oversee investigations involving Trump’s retention of classified documents and efforts surrounding the 2020 election. The Justice Department published the special counsel appointment at the time.
The election case was dismissed after Trump’s 2024 election victory because of the Justice Department’s longstanding position that a sitting president cannot be federally prosecuted. Smith’s January 2025 report said the dismissal reflected that constitutional position rather than a reassessment of the evidence. The explanation appears in the special counsel’s final report.
The two federal cases therefore ended without juries determining Trump’s guilt or innocence. The continuing congressional fight now concerns a different issue: whether Smith and his investigators stayed within appropriate legal and institutional limits while pursuing them.
Smith told senators that he remains prepared to defend his record despite calls for his prosecution. Congressional Republicans have indicated that their oversight of the former special counsel and the broader investigation known as Arctic Frost will continue.
