Jack Smith’s Deposition Before the House Judiciary Committee

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee unfolded in two sessions: a closed-door deposition on December 17, 2025, and a public hearing on January 22, 2026. Together they produced more than thirteen hours of sworn testimony in which Smith defended both federal prosecutions of Donald Trump, said he believed the evidence proved Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in each case, rejected Republican claims that the investigations were politically motivated, and told lawmakers he expected the Trump administration to pursue criminal charges against him in retaliation.¹

What Smith Said About the Election-Interference Case

Smith told the committee his team “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”² He said Trump knew he had lost. “He was looking for ways to stay in power. When people told him things that conflicted with staying in power, he rejected them.”¹

Smith repeatedly emphasized that many of his strongest witnesses were “fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and who wanted him to win the election” but chose to tell the truth about what they saw.³ He also confirmed that he never reached final charging decisions on the alleged co-conspirators identified in the case before his office was shut down after Trump’s reelection. His team had interviewed Rudy Giuliani, Boris Epshteyn, and other alleged co-conspirators during the investigation.⁴

“The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine,” Smith testified, “but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts.”⁵

Chairman Jim Jordan pressed Smith on whether his final report’s definitive statements of Trump’s guilt violated Justice Department standards against publicly asserting the guilt of an untried defendant. Smith distinguished his report from those written by Special Counsels Robert Hur and Robert Mueller, saying he used “definitive” and “strong” language because he felt he had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He also acknowledged the report did not “conclusively prove” guilt because the cases never reached a jury.⁶

Jordan also pressed Smith about meetings with Attorney General Merrick Garland in June 2023, citing reports that Garland had expressed reservations about the D.C. indictment and concerns that it relied too heavily on statements protected by the First Amendment. Smith said he could not recall the specifics but testified that Garland never instructed him on whether to proceed and described their discussions as exchanges between “experienced lawyers.” He noted Garland held the authority to block the prosecution but did not use it.⁶

What Smith Said About the Classified Documents Case

On the Mar-a-Lago case, Smith testified that his office “developed powerful evidence that showed that President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January of 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a ballroom and a bathroom,” and that Trump “repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.”²

Smith could not go further. A January 21, 2025, order from Judge Aileen Cannon barred him from discussing nonpublic material contained in Volume Two of his final report — the volume covering the documents investigation — including interview transcripts, search warrant materials, and attorney-client communications.⁶ Democrats criticized the committee for holding the deposition without access to Volume Two, arguing Trump’s efforts to keep it sealed prevented a full accounting of the classified documents investigation.⁷ Volume Two remains sealed; Judge Cannon issued a 15-page ruling on February 23, 2026, permanently barring the Justice Department from releasing it, and an appeal was pending before the Eleventh Circuit.⁸

The Arctic Frost Phone Records

The most contentious subject across both proceedings was Smith’s decision to subpoena the phone toll records of Republican members of Congress as part of an investigation codenamed “Arctic Frost.” Oversight by Senator Chuck Grassley found the FBI obtained tolling data — timestamps, call duration, recipients, and general location, but not call content — for the personal phones of eight Republican senators and one House member for the period of January 4 through January 7, 2021. The targeted lawmakers were Senators Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis, and Marsha Blackburn, along with Representative Mike Kelly.⁹ Separate oversight found Smith’s team issued at least 84 subpoenas to Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, with at least 10 specifically targeting records of Republican members of Congress, and used judicial non-disclosure orders to prevent the lawmakers from learning about the requests.¹⁰

Republicans argued the subpoenas violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Smith disagreed. He testified the toll records were “lawfully subpoenaed” to map communications between the White House and lawmakers around January 6 and were essential to demonstrating criminal intent. He said he sought the records with approval from the Justice Department’s public integrity section and described the practice as common in criminal investigations. “I didn’t choose those Members; President Trump did,” Smith told the committee, saying Trump and his associates contacted those lawmakers “in furtherance of their criminal scheme.”⁵

Smith acknowledged at the public hearing that the Justice Department has since changed its guidance to require prosecutors to inform courts when non-disclosure orders pertain to the records of members of Congress.¹¹

First Amendment, Gag Orders, and Confidential Sources

Jordan argued that a president’s claims about election fraud sit at “the core of the First Amendment rights of a Presidential candidate.” Smith drew a firm line. A candidate may falsely claim to have won an election, he said, but using “knowingly false statements” to “target a lawful government function” is fraud, and “fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.”⁶ He described the false elector scheme as “affinity fraud,” in which Trump exploited the trust of his own supporters to undermine a democratic process.¹²

Republicans at the public hearing challenged the gag orders Smith obtained against Trump in the election subversion case, arguing the government could not point to specific instances of witness intimidation. Smith pushed back, citing “vile death threats” against election workers. “It is not incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings.”¹³

Republicans also pressed Smith on a $20,000 payment the FBI made to a confidential source who reviewed video and photographic evidence related to the Capitol attack. Smith acknowledged the payment but said he did not know the total number of similar payments made during the investigation.¹³

Retaliation, and the Order Targeting Covington & Burling

Smith’s most pointed new statements at the public hearing concerned retaliation. He told lawmakers he had “no doubt that the President wants to seek retribution against me” and said he expected the Trump administration to pursue criminal charges against him “because they have been ordered to by the president.”¹

He called Trump’s public statements about him, including a Truth Social post labeling him a “deranged animal,” an attempt “to chill people from having an association with me” and a “warning to others of what will happen if they stand up.” Asked about the mass pardoning of January 6 defendants, Smith answered: “I think all of us, if we’re reasonable, know that there’s going to be more crimes committed by these people in the future. I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who assaulted police officers.”¹⁴

Smith’s warnings had a concrete backdrop. On February 25, 2025, Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing the suspension of security clearances for employees of Covington & Burling LLP, the law firm representing Smith in his personal capacity, who assisted his work as special counsel. The memorandum also directed federal agencies to terminate engagements with the firm “to the maximum extent permitted by law” and ordered a review of all government contracts with Covington.¹⁵ The administration alleged the firm had provided Smith with “$140,000 in free legal services” to support investigations that it said “spent more than $50 million in taxpayer dollars to target President Trump.”¹⁶

How the Testimony Was Structured

The path to Smith’s testimony began in October 2025, when Chairman Jim Jordan demanded that Smith voluntarily provide documents and answer questions about his tenure. Smith offered to testify publicly before both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, an offer Jordan’s committee rejected in favor of the closed-door deposition format the panel typically uses before any public hearing.¹⁷ Jordan issued a formal subpoena on December 3, 2025, compelling Smith to appear on December 17 and to produce documents by December 12.¹⁸

Smith appeared at 10:05 a.m. in the Rayburn House Office Building for a nearly eight-hour session, with questioning structured in alternating one-hour rounds between majority and minority members.¹¹ Two constraints shaped the session. The Department of Justice prohibited Smith from disclosing information protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which governs grand jury secrecy, and Judge Cannon’s sealing order restricted him on Volume Two material. Rather than invoke blanket privileges, Smith and his counsel worked out a procedural agreement with committee staff: when a question bumped against one of these restrictions, the parties would flag the concern, try to navigate around it, or set the question aside. Smith committed to answering “consistent with the Department’s guidance” and did not refuse to respond to any question outright.⁶

The committee released a partially redacted 255-page transcript and accompanying video on December 31, 2025.¹⁹ The public hearing on January 22, 2026, lasted about five hours and covered much of the same terrain, giving Smith a televised platform to repeat his central claims. Trump, traveling from the World Economic Forum in Davos, posted on Truth Social during the hearing that Smith was being “DECIMATED before Congress.”³

Ranking Member Jamie Raskin and other Democrats framed the investigations not as “failed” prosecutions but as cases “blocked” by a combination of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, the longstanding DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, and Judge Cannon’s rulings. After the transcript’s release, Raskin said “the Republicans didn’t lay a glove on him.”¹²

What Remains Unresolved

Smith’s testimony left several threads hanging. No formal criminal investigation of Smith by the current Justice Department has been publicly confirmed, despite his stated expectation that one would come. The alleged co-conspirators from the election case remain uncharged at the federal level, with Smith having confirmed he never reached final charging decisions before his office closed. Volume Two of his final report remains sealed under Judge Cannon’s permanent injunction, with an Eleventh Circuit appeal pending. No follow-up hearings or formal referrals stemming from Smith’s own testimony have been publicly announced.

Smith closed the public hearing with a line that served as both defense and warning: “The rule of law is not self-executing.”¹

1
Politico. Jack Smith Testimony Trump
2
BBC News. Jack Smith Deposition Released
3
PBS NewsHour. Key Moments From Jack Smith’s House Testimony
4
Politico. Takeaways From Jack Smith’s Congressional Testimony
5
Politico. Jack Smith Trump Deposition Congress
6
House Judiciary Committee. Smith Deposition Transcript
7
House Judiciary Committee Democrats. Judiciary Democrats Back Legal Challenge to Trump DOJ’s Withholding of Full Special Counsel Report
8
Politico. Judge Cannon Jack Smith Classified Docs Report
9
Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden FBI Spied on Eight Republican Senators as Part of Arctic Frost Investigation
10
Senator Chuck Grassley. Grassley Demands Answers From Telecom Companies
11
CNN. Jack Smith House Judiciary Committee Deposition Released
12
House Judiciary Committee Democrats. Ranking Member Raskin Statement on the Release of Former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Deposition
13
CNN. Jack Smith Trump House Testimony Live Updates
14
BBC News. Jack Smith Trump House Testimony Live
15
The White House. Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts
16
JURIST. Trump Targets Firms in a Troubling Development for the Rule of Law
17
House Judiciary Committee. Ex-Special Counsel Jack Smith Subpoenaed by House Republicans
18
The Indiana Lawyer. House Republicans Subpoena Jack Smith for Closed-Door Interview
19
Lawfare. House Judiciary Committee Releases Jack Smith Deposition Transcript