Jack Smith tells Senate panel he will not be silenced, defends Trump prosecutions as Republicans allege partisan overreach

What happened

Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, defending his decision to bring two federal criminal cases against President Trump and telling lawmakers he "will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution" from the Trump administration, according to IBTimes UK. Smith said his investigation developed "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation," and that he would prosecute again on the same facts "regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat." He added that he made his charging decisions "without regard to President Trump's political association, activities, beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election," and that the rule of law is being threatened "like never before."

Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, rejected that framing, saying "The Smith election case ultimately wasn't just about Trump. It was about partisan agents and prosecutors mapping out the Republican apparatus." The panel's top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, accused Republicans of spreading "baseless conspiracy theories" to "whitewash" the history of Trump's 2020 election loss and the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, calling the attacks on Smith "petty, personal and political" and "a smoke screen to distract from the president's own clear, unlawful conduct."

Much of the Republican questioning centered on Smith's team obtaining telephone toll records, meaning the date, length and time of calls rather than their content, for Republican lawmakers who were in contact with Trump around January 6, 2021. Smith defended the subpoenas as "common practice" and said "My office didn't spy on anyone," a statement he first made at a January hearing, as reported by Bay News 9. At the hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, cited a claim that the contents of 44 lawmakers' text messages had been obtained, a figure that is disputed and that Smith's team has not confirmed. Jordan referred Smith to the Justice Department in July 2026 for potential prosecution over alleged misleading testimony in a December 2025 exchange. Smith's attorneys vigorously dispute the allegation, saying his testimony concerned non-content toll records and was accurate.

Smith was appointed special counsel in November 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. Both federal cases he brought, one over 2020 election interference and one over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, ended in felony indictments but were dropped after Trump's 2024 election victory, citing Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president. Judge Aileen Cannon had dismissed the documents case in July 2024, ruling that Smith's appointment was unlawful. The Trump administration last year announced it would revoke the security clearances of Smith's lawyers, and the Office of Special Counsel, an independent watchdog, opened an investigation into Smith.

Why it matters

The hearing marks an unusual public collision between a former special counsel and the president he prosecuted, playing out before a Senate committee controlled by the president's party. Smith's testimony puts on the record his claim that the evidence against Trump met the criminal standard, a position the dropped cases never allowed a jury to weigh. Republicans used the session to argue that the investigation itself was an abuse of prosecutorial power aimed at the Republican Party's apparatus, pointing to the toll records subpoenas and Jordan's criminal referral. The dispute also touches on unresolved structural questions: whether special counsel appointments are lawful, a question Cannon answered no in the documents case, and how the Justice Department's sitting-president policy shapes accountability when indictments are dismissed after an election. With the administration having moved against Smith's lawyers' clearances and a watchdog investigation open, the hearing signals that the legal and political conflict over the 2020 election and January 6 remains active more than two years into Trump's second term.

How it is being covered

Ground.news figures show 34 outlets carrying the story, with a left/centre/right split of 26/58/16 percent, and 25 of the 31 rated sources scoring high or very high on factuality. On the centre, the AP wire report carried by Bay News 9 led with Smith's testimony and his defense of the toll records subpoenas, while IBTimes UK framed the story around Smith's warnings that the rule of law is under threat. Right-leaning coverage, per the findings, gives greater weight to the toll records dispute, Jordan's claim about the 44 text messages and his criminal referral, while left-leaning coverage emphasizes Smith's warnings and Durbin's defense of the investigation; the findings note no blindspot, meaning no side is entirely ignoring the story.

What to watch

Watch whether the Justice Department acts on Jordan's July 2026 criminal referral, and how Smith's attorneys' defense of his December 2025 testimony holds up if a probe advances. Watch also for any Senate follow-up on the toll records subpoenas, which Republicans have made their central exhibit, and for the outcome of the Office of Special Counsel investigation into Smith. Any new court ruling on the legality of special counsel appointments would reshape the ground on which both sides are arguing.

By the numbers

Source snapshot