In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing political clash over former President Donald Trump’s legal battles, former Special Counsel Jack Smith has formally requested to testify in open, public hearings before both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The move, announced on October 23, 2025, comes amid intensifying scrutiny over Smith’s high-profile investigations into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and his alleged mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Smith’s offer to testify publicly is a direct response to demands from congressional Republicans, who have called for answers about the scope and conduct of his investigations. However, Smith’s request comes with clear conditions: he wants assurance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that he will not face punishment for his testimony and guidance on what he is permitted to discuss, especially when it comes to grand jury secrecy and the unreleased portions of his final report.
According to Fox News Digital, Smith’s attorneys, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski, sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. In their letter, they wrote, “Given the many mischaracterizations of Mr. Smith’s investigation into President Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Mr. Smith respectfully requests the opportunity to testify in open hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.”
The attorneys emphasized Smith’s adherence to established legal standards and DOJ guidelines throughout his career, stating, “During the investigation of President Trump, Mr. Smith steadfastly adhered to established legal standards and Department of Justice guidelines, consistent with his approach throughout his career as a dedicated public servant.”
Smith’s team also highlighted the need for DOJ guidance on federal grand jury secrecy requirements and authorization on the matters he may discuss, including Volume II of the Special Counsel’s Final Report, which remains unavailable to the public. They further requested access to the special counsel’s files, which Smith no longer has the ability to access, in order to provide “full and accurate answers” to lawmakers’ questions.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, seized on Smith’s willingness to testify publicly, urging Chairman Jordan to accept the offer. In a letter, Raskin wrote, “I can think of no reason to deny the American people the opportunity to hear his testimony, under oath and with questioning from Members of both parties, and to let all Americans judge for themselves the integrity of Mr. Smith’s investigations. There is no reason his appearance should be in the shadows of a backroom and subject to the usual tiresome partisan tactics of leak-and-distort.”
Smith’s investigations have been a lightning rod for controversy since their inception. Appointed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022, Smith was tasked with probing both Trump’s alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election results and his handling of hundreds of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The investigations led to two indictments against Trump: one for election interference and another for the classified documents case. Both cases were dismissed after Trump’s surprise victory in the 2024 presidential election, a development that left many legal observers and political figures divided.
Chairman Jordan, a vocal critic of Smith’s work, had initially invited the former special counsel to appear for a closed-door, transcribed interview. Jordan’s request followed revelations that Smith had subpoenaed phone records of several Senate Republicans in the days surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. According to Fox News Digital, the subpoenas focused on calls made between January 4 and January 7, 2021, and were part of Smith’s "Arctic Frost" investigation into the events leading up to and following the riot. The phone records targeted prominent Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham, Marsha Blackburn, Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley, Cynthia Lummis, Bill Hagerty, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, and Representative Mike Kelly.
Smith has defended the subpoenas as "entirely proper" and consistent with DOJ policy. In a letter to Senator Grassley, Smith’s lawyers explained, “As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol.” Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, speaking on CNN, supported Smith’s approach, calling the collection of such records “run-of-the-mill investigative practice” that would be conducted under the authority of a grand jury subpoena. “This is not something that a prosecutor, an FBI agent, [would] just dream up off the top of their heads and, you know, call up the phone company and say, ‘Hey, send us everything you have.’ There is a process. These records are accessed lawfully under the purview of the grand jury,” McCabe said, adding that the request had been “grossly misrepresented” by Republicans.
The political battle over Smith’s investigations has only intensified with the refusal of Judiciary Committee Republicans to allow public testimony, even as the DOJ continues to withhold the full Special Counsel report on Trump’s classified documents case. This report, which cost taxpayers more than $50 million, remains a point of contention, with Democrats arguing that the public has a right to see what their money funded and Republicans insisting that all relevant records be collected before any hearings take place.
Senator Grassley, for his part, has said, “Jack Smith certainly has a lot of answering to do, but first, Congress needs to have all the facts at its disposal. Hearings should follow once the investigative foundation has been firmly set, which is why I’m actively working with the DOJ and FBI to collect all relevant records that Mr. Smith has had years to become familiar with.”
Smith’s willingness to testify is seen by many as an effort to set the record straight amid what he and his supporters describe as widespread mischaracterizations of his work. In a rare public appearance in London earlier this month, Smith pushed back against suggestions that his investigations were politically motivated, stating, “The idea that politics would play a role in big cases like this, it’s absolutely ludicrous, and it’s totally contrary to my experience as a prosecutor.”
The stakes are high for both parties. For Democrats, a public hearing with Smith offers a chance to showcase the integrity of the investigations and counter Republican claims of DOJ overreach. For Republicans, it presents an opportunity to grill Smith on the details of his probes, particularly the unprecedented step of subpoenaing lawmakers’ phone records. Meanwhile, the American public is left waiting—eager for transparency, clarity, and perhaps a few straight answers in a saga that has already cost tens of millions and deeply divided the nation.
As Congress weighs Smith’s offer and the DOJ considers its guidance, the nation watches, wondering if this rare public testimony will finally shed light on one of the most contentious chapters in recent American political history.
