Here’s what happened.
Former special counsel Jack Smith came under intense fire from Senate Republicans Tuesday as lawmakers confronted him over his investigations of President Donald Trump and accused his team of abusing federal prosecutorial power.
The explosive Senate Judiciary Committee hearing put Smith face-to-face with some of his toughest Republican critics, including Sens. Chuck Grassley, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Eric Schmitt and John Kennedy.
Republicans questioned everything from Smith’s investigative tactics to records involving members of Congress, while Smith repeatedly defended his decisions and insisted politics played no role in his prosecutions.
The result was a contentious hearing that reopened one of Washington’s biggest debates: whether the federal cases against Trump represented legitimate law enforcement or an improper use of government power against a political opponent.
Grassley Opens With Scathing Criticism
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley set the tone almost immediately.
The Iowa Republican accused Smith’s operation of abusing its authority and argued that newly obtained records raised troubling questions about how the investigation was conducted.
Grassley alleged that Smith’s team broke rules and acted improperly while investigating Trump and people connected to him.
Those remain allegations made by Grassley and other Republicans. Smith strongly disputed the suggestion that his prosecution was driven by partisan considerations.
The committee’s scrutiny has focused heavily on the investigation known as Arctic Frost, which ultimately became connected to Smith’s federal election case against Trump.
Republicans have raised particular concerns about investigative records that touched lawmakers, journalists and others caught up in the sprawling federal probe.
For conservatives who have spent years questioning whether federal agencies treated Trump fairly, the hearing offered another high-profile examination of how that investigation operated.
Eric Schmitt’s Confrontation Takes an Unexpected Turn
One of the day’s most dramatic moments came when Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt challenged Smith over allegations involving Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
Schmitt suggested that evidence showed Smith had traveled to Atlanta in February 2024 and attended an Atlanta Hawks basketball game around the time Willis was pursuing her separate Georgia case against Trump.
The senator suggested that Smith’s testimony about the matter could raise questions about whether he had been truthful.
But the confrontation quickly took an unexpected turn.
Smith said he had not attended an Atlanta Hawks game in Georgia.
Instead, he said he attended a women’s college basketball game between the Iowa Hawkeyes and Maryland Terrapins in Maryland.
Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar highlighted the apparent mix-up between the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa Hawkeyes.
Independent reporting on the hearing subsequently confirmed that Smith attended the Iowa-Maryland game.
The moment drew attention online, but it did little to cool the larger Republican criticism of Smith’s investigation.
Hawley Presses Smith Over Congressional Records
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley shifted attention toward investigative information involving members of Congress.
Hawley questioned Smith about whether his team obtained records containing communications involving lawmakers.
Smith acknowledged that investigators received records from the National Archives that included contacts with members of Congress.
Republicans argue the matter deserves far more scrutiny.
They have raised concerns about privacy, congressional independence and the possibility that investigative authorities were used too broadly against Trump’s political allies.
Smith has rejected the suggestion that Republican lawmakers were targeted simply because of their political affiliations.
Cruz Accuses Smith of Political Bias
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz also delivered one of the hearing’s most aggressive lines of questioning.
Cruz pressed Smith on whether personal political views had influenced his decisions and accused the former special counsel of pursuing Trump through a partisan lens.
Smith denied the accusation.
He maintained that his team followed Justice Department procedures and evaluated evidence without considering Trump’s political party, beliefs or presidential candidacy.
That disagreement sits at the heart of the controversy surrounding Smith.
Republicans argue the prosecutions demonstrated how powerful federal institutions can be used against a political figure.
Smith and his supporters maintain that Trump’s status as a former president and presidential candidate did not place him beyond the reach of federal criminal investigations.
Kennedy Questions Smith’s Political Connections
Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy also challenged Smith over questions of perceived political bias.
Kennedy brought up Smith’s wife and her involvement in a documentary about former first lady Michelle Obama.
Republicans have previously pointed to her political donations and professional history while questioning whether Smith operated in an environment hostile to Trump.
Smith has consistently maintained that his prosecutorial decisions were based on evidence and federal law rather than political considerations.
Kennedy’s questions nevertheless underscored a broader Republican concern about public confidence in politically sensitive Justice Department investigations.
Republicans Focus on Arctic Frost
A major part of the hearing revolved around Arctic Frost, the federal investigation examining efforts surrounding the aftermath of the presidential election.
Republicans say records emerging from that investigation raise serious concerns about its scope.
Grassley’s committee has disclosed material involving communications connected to lawmakers and journalists, prompting Republican arguments that investigators swept too broadly while pursuing evidence.
Grassley described Smith’s operation in extremely critical terms during the hearing.
Smith countered that investigators were following evidence relevant to a legitimate criminal inquiry.
The dispute could have implications well beyond Smith himself.
At issue is how much investigative power federal prosecutors should have when an inquiry intersects with elected officials, journalists, political organizations and presidential campaigns.
Smith Refuses to Back Away From Trump Prosecutions
Despite the barrage of criticism, Smith remained steadfast.
He told senators that he continues to stand behind his decisions as special counsel, including the decision to pursue criminal charges against Trump.
Smith said political affiliation did not determine his prosecutorial decisions.
He argued that investigators developed evidence they believed justified bringing the cases and said he would apply the same standard regardless of whether the president involved was a Republican or Democrat.
Republicans remain deeply skeptical.
They contend the prosecutions should be viewed in the context of Trump’s status as the leading political opponent of the Biden administration during the 2024 election cycle.
Smith disputes that characterization and says his office followed established legal procedures.
What Happened to Jack Smith’s Trump Cases?
Smith was appointed special counsel by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022.
He ultimately oversaw two federal criminal cases against Trump.
One involved Trump’s handling of classified and national-defense documents after leaving the White House.
The second dealt with Trump’s efforts surrounding the aftermath of the presidential election.
Neither case ultimately produced a jury verdict.
The classified-documents case was dismissed in July 2024 by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith’s appointment violated federal appointment requirements.
The election case was later dismissed after Trump won the 2024 election and prepared to return to the White House.
Longstanding Justice Department policy holds that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted.
As a result, the underlying allegations in Smith’s cases were never decided by a trial jury.
Democrats Defend Smith
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee offered a dramatically different interpretation of Smith’s record.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin defended the former special counsel and argued that Smith had been tasked with investigating extraordinarily serious events surrounding January 6 and more.
Democrats accused Republicans of attacking the prosecutor rather than focusing on the conduct his team investigated.
They also argued that Smith and other career prosecutors were carrying out professional responsibilities rather than participating in a political campaign against Trump.
Republicans rejected that argument and continued pointing to what they described as troubling investigative practices.
The divide left little common ground between the two parties.
The Larger Battle Over the Justice Department
The Jack Smith hearing was about more than one former prosecutor.
It also reflected a much larger debate over the Justice Department, presidential power and Americans’ confidence in federal law enforcement.
Republicans have increasingly argued that politically sensitive investigations need tighter safeguards to prevent federal authority from being used against political opponents.
Democrats counter that prosecutors must be able to investigate alleged criminal conduct even when powerful political figures are involved.
Smith remains one of the most controversial figures at the center of that debate.
And Tuesday’s hearing made clear that congressional scrutiny of his investigations is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
For Republicans, the unanswered questions center on exactly how Smith’s team used its investigative authority and whether proper limits were respected.
For Smith, the answer remains unchanged: he says his prosecutors followed the evidence and carried out their responsibilities without regard to politics.
With congressional investigations continuing, the fight over Jack Smith’s handling of the Trump cases remains very much alive.