Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has taken the unusual step of requesting to testify in open, public hearings before both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, seeking to address what he and his legal team describe as persistent mischaracterizations of his high-profile investigation into former President Donald Trump. Smith’s formal request, delivered in letters to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, marks a dramatic escalation in the ongoing clash over the legitimacy, scope, and political implications of the Justice Department’s inquiries into Trump’s conduct.
Smith’s investigation, code-named “Arctic Frost,” focused on Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and his actions surrounding the tumultuous aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, particularly the events of January 6, 2021. The probe, which began in November 2022 after Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel, has cost taxpayers more than $50 million and sparked fierce debate across the political spectrum.
“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,” Smith’s attorneys, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski, wrote in their letter, as reported by Fox News Digital and UPI. They emphasized that 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 request did not come out of the blue. On October 14, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan demanded that Smith testify behind closed doors, with a transcript available, alleging prosecutorial overreach and evidence manipulation. Jordan’s letter accused Smith of conducting “partisan and politically motivated prosecutions” and insisted that “your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.”
But Smith, who resigned from his position before Trump returned to office in January 2025, pushed back against the idea of a closed-door session. He insists that only public hearings can adequately address the public’s questions and the swirling allegations against him. “He is prepared to answer questions about the Special Counsel’s investigation and prosecution, but requires assurance from the Department of Justice that he will not be punished for doing so,” Smith’s lawyers wrote, highlighting the delicate balance between transparency and the legal constraints imposed by federal grand jury secrecy rules.
Smith’s legal team also requested access to the Special Counsel files, which he no longer has the ability to access, and guidance from the DOJ on what he can and cannot discuss publicly. Without these assurances and resources, Smith contends, he cannot provide “full and accurate answers” to lawmakers’ questions. According to Fox News Digital, Smith’s attorneys are in the process of seeking official guidance from the Department of Justice on these matters.
The controversy over Smith’s investigation intensified after it was revealed that, as part of “Arctic Frost,” Smith’s team subpoenaed telecommunications companies in 2023 to obtain phone records of several prominent Republican senators and one GOP congressman. The list included Senators Lindsey Graham, Marsha Blackburn, Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley, Cynthia Lummis, Bill Hagerty, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, and Representative Mike Kelly. These subpoenas covered calls made between January 4 and January 7, 2021, zeroing in on the period immediately before and after the Capitol riot.
An FBI official told Fox News Digital that Smith’s team was able to see which phone numbers were called, as well as the locations where those calls originated and were received. The calls were believed to relate to the vote to certify the 2020 election results. Smith defended the subpoenas as “entirely proper” and consistent with Justice Department policy, stating in correspondence to Senator Grassley that “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.”
Senator Grassley, for his part, has insisted that Congress must have a complete factual record before any hearings proceed. “Jack Smith certainly has a lot of answering to do, but first, Congress needs to have all the facts at its disposal,” Grassley told Fox News Digital. “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.”
The investigation’s cost, now exceeding $50 million, has also become a flashpoint. Critics argue that the expense is emblematic of prosecutorial overreach, while Smith’s defenders maintain that the stakes—alleged threats to the integrity of American democracy—justify the resources expended. The political divide is further highlighted by the fact that, after months of investigation, Smith charged Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. However, after Trump was elected president again, Smith sought to dismiss the case, and Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request, as reported by UPI and Fox News Digital.
Democrats, meanwhile, have welcomed Smith’s offer to testify publicly. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland wrote, “Mr. Smith has made clear that he is prepared to address those allegations publicly, and 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.” Raskin further argued that 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 himself, in a rare interview on October 8, 2025, at University College London, denied any political motivations behind his team’s work. “The idea that politics played a role in who worked on that case, or who got chosen, is ludicrous,” Smith told interviewer Andrew Weissmann, a former member of Robert Mueller’s special counsel team. “The people on my team were similar to what I saw throughout the Department of Justice throughout my career. Apolitical people who wanted to do the right thing and do public service.”
Amid these developments, Trump and his Republican allies continue to claim that Smith’s investigations were politically motivated attempts to derail Trump’s candidacy and presidency. There is ongoing discussion about Trump pressing the Justice Department to pay a $230 million settlement for the costs incurred during the investigations, including both Smith’s probe and the earlier Russia investigation led by Robert Mueller.
As Congress weighs Smith’s request for public testimony, the broader debate over the balance between transparency, accountability, and the rule of law shows no sign of abating. The coming hearings—if they take place in public as Smith desires—promise to be a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle over the legacy of the Trump investigations and the future of congressional oversight of the Justice Department.
With Smith’s willingness to answer questions in the open, the stage is set for a rare and revealing confrontation—one that could shed new light on one of the most contentious chapters in recent American political history.
