Tempers flared and political divisions were on full display in Washington, D.C., on January 22, 2026, as former special counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding his high-profile investigations into former President Donald Trump. The hearing, which was already anticipated as a flashpoint between Republican and Democratic lawmakers, took a dramatic turn when a heated altercation broke out between two men whose lives have been profoundly shaped by the events of January 6, 2021: Michael Fanone, a former D.C. Metropolitan Police officer, and Ivan Raiklin, a conservative activist known for promoting conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.
According to NewsNation, the confrontation unfolded during a brief recess in Smith’s testimony. Video footage captured Fanone and Raiklin facing off, with emotions running high as other former police officers and uniformed Capitol Police intervened to keep the peace. Fanone, who defended the Capitol against rioters on January 6, accused Raiklin of making deeply personal threats. Pointing at Raiklin, Fanone declared, “This guy has threatened my family, threatened my children, threatened to rape my children, you sick bastard.” Raiklin, in a calm retort, said, “See how many people are restraining you, and look at me, totally in control over my mind and body.”
The tense exchange did not go unnoticed by security. Additional U.S. Capitol Police officers were called to the scene, and while it remains unclear whether Raiklin was ordered to leave or left of his own accord, he exited the hearing room shortly after the incident. Harry Dunn, another former Capitol Police officer who served on January 6, was seen trying to pull Fanone away from the confrontation, underscoring the emotional toll that day continues to exact on those who were there.
The charged atmosphere in the hearing room was further stoked by the presence of Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers militia. Rhodes, convicted of seditious conspiracy and originally sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the January 6 attack, had his sentence commuted by President Trump as one of his first acts after returning to the White House in January 2025. His appearance at the hearing was a stark reminder of the lingering influence of figures connected to the Capitol riot, and the controversial decisions made in its aftermath.
Jack Smith’s testimony itself was a lightning rod for partisan debate. As reported by BBC, Republicans on the committee lambasted Smith’s investigations as politically motivated, accusing him of orchestrating a “partisan attack” on Trump. Democrats, meanwhile, applauded Smith’s efforts, focusing their questioning on Trump’s alleged wrongdoing and his actions surrounding the events of January 6. The divide was palpable, with each side using the hearing to reinforce their own narratives about accountability and justice.
Smith, who led probes into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his alleged mishandling of classified documents, found himself in the crosshairs not only of lawmakers but also of the former president himself. During the hearing, President Trump, fresh from his trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos, launched a public attack on Smith via Truth Social, further escalating the political drama. Smith responded to these attacks with characteristic resolve. “I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made as a warning to others of what will happen if they stand up,” he told lawmakers. He added, “I believe I will continue to be targeted by Trump’s justice department because they have been ordered to by the president.”
The hearing also touched on one of the most controversial actions of Trump’s new term: the mass pardoning of Capitol rioters. Smith did not mince words about the dangers posed by those who had been convicted for assaulting police officers on January 6. “The people who assaulted police officers and were sentenced to prison are dangerous,” Smith asserted, noting that some of those pardoned had already committed new crimes. This revelation drew sharp reactions from Democratic members of the committee, who have long argued that such pardons undermine the rule of law and embolden extremist actors.
The presence of high-profile figures like Stewart Rhodes and the confrontation between Fanone and Raiklin highlighted the enduring impact of January 6 on American political life. For many, the events of that day are far from resolved. As Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) spoke during the hearing, blaming Capitol Police leadership rather than Trump for the failures of January 6, Fanone could be seen coughing into his hands and appearing to mutter a vulgar response—an unvarnished expression of the raw emotions still simmering beneath the surface.
The hearing room itself seemed to become a microcosm of the nation’s ongoing struggle to reckon with the legacy of January 6. On one side, those who defended the Capitol—like Fanone and Dunn—continue to bear the scars of that day, both physical and psychological. On the other, individuals like Raiklin and Rhodes represent a persistent current of denial and defiance, challenging the legitimacy of the 2020 election and the prosecutions that followed.
Throughout the proceedings, the Capitol was under heightened security, a reminder that the threat of political violence and unrest has not fully receded. The decision to call in additional officers after the Fanone-Raiklin altercation underscored the seriousness with which authorities are treating even minor disruptions in this fraught environment.
As the day’s testimony drew to a close, it was clear that the questions raised by January 6—and the investigations, prosecutions, and pardons that have followed—remain deeply divisive. Smith’s cases against Trump, both concerning the 2020 election and the handling of classified documents, were dropped when Trump returned to power, a development that continues to fuel debate over the independence of the justice system and the limits of presidential authority.
For those watching from outside the hearing room, the events of January 22 offered a vivid snapshot of a nation still wrestling with the fallout from one of its darkest chapters. The clash between Fanone and Raiklin, the partisan fireworks in the committee, and the looming presence of figures like Stewart Rhodes all served as reminders that the story of January 6 is far from over. As lawmakers, law enforcement, and the public continue to confront the consequences of that day, the stakes for American democracy remain as high as ever.