Former special counsel Jack Smith arrives to testify during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on Jan. 22, 2026 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Republicans on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee sought to poke holes Thursday in former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into President Donald Trump, while Democrats on the panel commended him and Smith restated his finding that Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election results.

Republicans on the panel accused Smith, a longtime prosecutor who has led investigations of public officials of both major U.S. parties and international figures, of undertaking a partisan probe targeting Trump ahead of the 2024 election. 

“It was always about politics,” Chairman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said to open the hearing.

During the hearing, Trump posted on social media a suggestion that he would seek to prosecute Smith. 

But Smith, and the many Democrats on the committee who defended him Thursday, repeatedly asserted that his investigation was by the book, guided by Justice Department policies, legal requirements, “the facts and the law.”

“I made my decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith said in an opening statement. “President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law — the very laws he swore an oath to defend.”

Smith led two prosecutions of Trump during the years between his presidential terms. 

One, in District of Columbia federal court, accused Trump of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. The other, in Florida federal court, accused Trump of mishandling classified documents. 

Grand juries indicted Trump in both cases but the Justice Department dropped both cases after Trump’s 2024 election victory, consistent with department policy that forbids prosecution of a sitting president.

Trump attempting ‘intimidation’

Midway through the five-hour hearing, Trump posted to Truth Social his analysis of the meeting and a veiled threat against Smith.

“Deranged Jack Smith is being DECIMATED before Congress,” he wrote. “If he were a Republican, his license would be taken away from him, and far worse! Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me. The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM — A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!”

In the hearing room, Smith directly rejected charges he was motivated by partisanship, and said he would not give in to intimidation attempts by Trump.

“If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” he said. “No one — no one — should be above the law in this country.”

Vermont Democrat Becca Balint noted Trump had used the term “Deranged Jack Smith” 185 times on Truth Social. 

“I think … the statements are meant to intimidate me. I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made as a warning to others what will happen if they stand up,” Smith responded. 

“We did our work pursuant to department policy,” he continued. “We followed the facts, we followed the law, and that process resulted in proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he committed serious crimes. I’m not going to pretend that didn’t happen because he’s threatening me.”

Phone records

Several committee Republicans challenged Smith’s pursuit of phone records from members of Congress related to the election interference case.

The case included an examination of Trump’s attempt to block Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, on Jan. 6, 2021. Smith and other prosecutors sought phone logs leading up to the eventual attack on the Capitol that day.

Republicans on the panel accused Smith of violating Congress’ rights as a co-equal branch of government and took further umbrage at efforts by Smith and his colleagues to keep the records requests secret, and noted that only Republicans’ records had been sought.

Jordan said his phone records were among those obtained, and described the entire investigation as a partisan attack on Trump.

“Even the Democrats said this was wrong,” he said. “We shouldn’t be surprised. Democrats have been going after President Trump for 10 years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did.”

Smith said the investigation had to do with Trump’s pressure campaign on members of Congress to object to the election results, including appeals to Republicans’ partisan loyalties. If the president had been a Democrat, he’d have sought Democrats’ records, he said.

He and Democrats on the panel also noted that the phone records only included data like the length, time and date of phone calls, without disclosing anything about their content. Such records are typical pieces of conspiracy investigations, they said.

Complimentary Dems

Democrats complimented and defended Smith throughout the hearing. 

“Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts,” ranking Democrat Jamie Raskin of Maryland said. “You followed every applicable law, ethics rule and DOJ regulation. Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity Section. You acted based solely on the facts.”

Raskin contrasted Smith’s approach with that of Trump, who he said sought unprecedented control over the Justice Department to pursue “political vendetta and motives of personal revenge.”

Several other Democratic members held Smith up as an exemplary public servant.

“I want to thank you for your service,” Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen said. 

“I think you’re a great American, and you came out of this as being somebody who people can respect and look up to,” he said. “We should be instilling people’s desire to go into justice, to go into law, to go into government. You’re an example of the type of person they should follow.”

Federal agents block in and stop a woman to ask her for another person’s whereabouts Monday, Jan. 19, 2026 in south Minneapolis. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — The House Thursday passed four appropriations bills to fund the government and avert a partial shutdown, but Democrats largely objected to spending on the Department of Homeland Security amid aggressive immigration enforcement in communities across the country. 

Democrats have pushed for tougher oversight of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In addition, members of the progressive wing of the caucus vowed to not approve any funding for DHS after federal immigration agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis earlier this month. 

The 37-year-old mother’s death led to massive community protests and  thousands of ICE agents have aggressively descended into Minnesota.

“(Homeland Security Secretary) Kristi Noem and ICE are out of control,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. “Taxpayer dollars are being misused to brutalize U.S. citizens, including the tragic killing of Renee Nicole Good. This extremism must end.” 

The four bills — Defense; Homeland Security; Labor, Health and Human Services and Education; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development — are the last remaining appropriations bills needed to avoid a partial government shutdown by Jan. 30. 

The Homeland Security funding bill passed 220-207. The remaining bills passed 341-88.

Democrats who joined Republicans in voting for the Homeland Security bill included Reps. Jared Gold of Maine, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state, Tom Suozzi of New York, Don Davis of North Carolina, Laura Gillen of New York and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.

Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted against the DHS funding bill.

Separately, GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx, chairwoman of the Rules Committee, added a provision to repeal a law that allows members of the U.S. Senate to sue for up to half a million dollars if their phone records were obtained by special counsel Jack Smith during his investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. In a rare move, the provision passed unanimously. 

Smith was also on Capitol Hill Thursday to testify about his investigation before lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

The Senate will take up the appropriations bills when senators return from recess next week.

What does the Homeland Security bill include?

The Homeland Security bill provides $64.4 billion in funding for fiscal year 2026. It cuts funding for Customs and Border Protection by $1.3 billion, and maintains flat funding for ICE at $10 billion.

The bill attempts to put guardrails around immigration enforcement by allocating $20 million for body cameras for ICE and CBP officers. 

It also requires DHS to provide monthly updates on how the agency is spending the $190 billion it received from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the president’s signature tax and spending cuts package signed into law last summer.  

The bill also restricts ICE to spending only $3.8 billion of its fiscal budget on detention. However, the agency will still be able to pull $75 billion from OBBBA, including for detention.

Most Dems say they can’t back any ICE funding

During Thursday’s debate of the bill, Republicans supported the Homeland Security bill, and argued that it contains other agencies beside immigration enforcement. 

But a majority of Democrats said they could not vote to approve the agency’s funding because of ICE’s actions.

“I think we should look at the bill in its totality,” GOP Appropriations Chair Tom Cole of Oklahoma said. “Encouraging people to believe we have massive bad actors in a particular agency… comparing law enforcement officers to the Gestapo or Nazis, that’s not true. The right thing to do is to fund the people who protect America.”

Foxx criticized Democrats for their concerns over ICE enforcement tactics. On the House floor, she defended the agency, arguing that “ICE agents are arresting some of the worst criminals imaginable.”

“The issue is that ICE is terrorizing communities and attacking people, including U.S. citizens,” countered the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. “This is an out-of-control agency at war with communities across the country and they don’t give a damn that you are a U.S. citizen.”

The top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said he could not support voting for the bill because the Trump administration has weaponized the agency and “DHS has strayed from its core mission.”

“Republicans in control of Congress, however, are conducting zero oversight and do nothing but send blank check after blank check to DHS,” he said in a statement. “I have consistently supported the DHS workforce over the past two decades and continue to do so, but I cannot – in good conscience – vote to send another dime to CBP and ICE as they terrorize our communities and sully the constitution.”

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said she will vote against the bill, even though she is proud of several provisions, such as the increase to Federal Emergency Management Agency funding and a pay raise for air traffic controllers. 

But, she said, “It is impossible to ignore the impact ICE has had.”

“ICE is an agency that has shown itself to be lawless,” she said.

Republicans tout body camera provision

GOP Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, the chair of the panel that deals with funding for Homeland Security, defended the funding bill, and noted that it provides immigration officers with body cameras. He said funds are also provided in the measure for the Coast Guard and agencies dealing with cybersecurity. 

Cuellar of Texas, the top Democrat on that same panel, acknowledged that “this bill is not perfect.” 

“It’s better than the alternative, leaving the department with a blank check,” he said. “This bill flat funds ICE but at the same time, we strengthen oversight of ICE.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum said the ICE enforcement in Minnesota and across the country is one of the “worst cases of civil rights violations by the federal government in recent history.”   

“Minnesotans are being racially profiled on a mass scale, assaulted on our streets, kidnapped from our communities,” she said.