Look, if you follow U.S. politics even casually, this name has probably crossed your feed a few times lately: Jack Smith. And sitting on the other side of the table, almost like a permanent counterweight in this story, is Jim Jordan. What could have been just another congressional hearing turned into something much bigger. It became a battle over narrative, a political stage, a symbol of a country still trying to process what Trump was, what came after him, and what’s still ahead. And that’s what we’re talking about here, no rush, pulling together what CNN, NBC News, and Axios reported, connecting the dots and trying to understand what’s really at stake. ## Who Jack Smith is and why he bothers so many people Jack Smith has never been a media figure. Not even close. People who follow the inner workings of the Justice Department know him as a tough, highly technical prosecutor, the kind who prefers court filings over TV appearances. Maybe that’s exactly why his appointment as special counsel to investigate Donald Trump caused so much noise. In practice, Smith led two of the most explosive investigations in recent U.S. history. One focused on efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The other dealt with the handling and retention of classified documents after Trump left the White House. That alone would have been enough to put anyone in the middle of a political hurricane. Those investigations resulted in formal charges against Trump in 2023. And from that moment on, the temperature skyrocketed. For Democrats, it was the system doing its job. For Republicans, especially those aligned with Trump, it was blatant political persecution. ## The charges against Trump and the brake imposed by the 2024 election Here’s a detail many people forget, or conveniently ignore. When Trump won the 2024 election and returned to the presidency, the Justice Department applied a long-standing policy that bars the prosecution of a sitting president. That decision did not come from Jack Smith. It’s institutional, one of those rules that survives different administrations. The practical result was that the charges were dropped. Not because Smith backed down. Not because the substance of the cases collapsed. But because the system simply stops at that point. And that’s exactly where the Republican narrative kicks in. The idea that this was all a political maneuver that ultimately failed. Smith argues the opposite. He says the decisions were based on facts, evidence, testimony, documents. That Trump himself was the central factor, not ideology or party pressure. ## Jim Jordan steps into the spotlight Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is a character all on his own. He makes no secret of his combative style or his closeness to Trump. From the start, Jordan made it clear he intended to scrutinize Jack Smith down to the smallest detail. For him and other Republicans on the committee, Smith represents what they call the politicization of the Justice Department. The strategy was clear. Subpoena Smith, apply pressure, question motives, raise suspicions, energize the base. In December 2025, that happened behind closed doors. A long deposition, more than eight hours, no cameras, no audience. According to transcripts and later accounts, Smith stuck to his line. Calm, technical, repeating that he followed the law, that his actions were evidence-based, and that Trump was not targeted for who he is, but for what he did. ## From closed-door testimony to a public stage Even after that private deposition, the pressure didn’t ease up. If anything, it intensified. Republicans kept hammering the claim of political motivation. That’s when the move that changed the tone came into play. Jack Smith made it clear he was willing to testify publicly. Not to create drama, but to make sure his answers weren’t filtered through leaks or selective interpretations. He wanted to say it all in front of the cameras, with the public watching. Jim Jordan then announced that Smith would testify publicly on January 22, 2026. Officially, the justification was transparency. In reality, everyone knows this hearing became a first-rate political event. ## What’s really at stake in this public hearing This isn’t just about Jack Smith defending himself. And it’s not only about Jim Jordan attacking him. What’s on the line is trust in institutions. For part of the country, Smith represents someone who tried to hold a powerful president accountable. For another part, he symbolizes a state apparatus that allegedly crossed the line. In the public hearing, Smith will have the chance to say, openly and on the record, what he already said behind closed doors. That the charges against Trump stemmed from Trump’s own behavior. That no one should be above the law. That his work didn’t end because it was wrong, but because institutional rules demanded it. On the other side, Jordan and his allies are expected to double down on claims of abuse, bias, and political targeting. ## How the media is reading the moment CNN, NBC News, and Axios agree on one thing. This is not routine. A former special counsel, fresh off investigations of this magnitude, testifying publicly before a committee controlled by political opponents of the man he investigated is rare. The coverage also highlights that Smith doesn’t seem interested in rhetorical combat. He knows every word will be clipped, shared, and amplified. Even so, he prefers daylight over backroom shadows. It’s hard not to see this as a reflection of the current U.S. political climate. Everything becomes spectacle, and everything becomes a fight over who gets to define the facts. ## Why this matters beyond the United States This may sound like distant noise, but it isn’t. Debates about the limits of prosecutorial power, political use of investigations, and institutional boundaries resonate across democracies worldwide. Anyone who has seen similar dynamics elsewhere will recognize the script. Investigations become banners. Testimonies turn into shows. Truth itself becomes contested ground. ## What to expect on January 22, 2026 Don’t expect bombshell revelations. Don’t expect shocking confessions. The impact of this hearing won’t come from what’s new, but from what’s reinforced. Smith will likely repeat that he acted within the law. Jordan will insist there was political motivation. Each side speaking more to its own audience than trying to persuade the other. Still, the fact that this will happen publicly already changes the game. It pulls the debate out of the shadows and puts it on display, with all the risks that come with that. ## A settling of scores that still isn’t over The Trump era left deep marks. This testimony is just another chapter in that unresolved story. It doesn’t close anything. It doesn’t heal wounds. But it helps explain why the United States remains locked in a cycle of permanent confrontation. Jack Smith, whether people like him or not, became a character in this narrative. So did Jim Jordan. And once again, the public watches, trying to separate facts from performance. ## FAQ Jack Smith, Jim Jordan, and the congressional testimony ### Who is Jack Smith Jack Smith is a former U.S. Justice Department special counsel who led investigations into Donald Trump related to the 2020 election and classified documents. ### Why is Jack Smith testifying publicly He was called to testify by the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jim Jordan, and agreed to do so publicly after previously giving a closed-door deposition in December 2025. ### What does Jim Jordan accuse Jack Smith of Jim Jordan and other Republicans claim Smith’s investigations were politically motivated and amounted to an abuse of power. ### Were the charges against Trump dropped Yes. They were withdrawn after Trump won the 2024 election, due to a Justice Department policy that prevents prosecuting a sitting president. ### Can the public testimony change anything legally No. Its impact is political and institutional, not legal. ### When is the public hearing January 22, 2026. ## Sources [https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/12/politics/jack-smith-publicly-testify-house-judiciary](https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/12/politics/jack-smith-publicly-testify-house-judiciary) [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/former-special-counsel-jack-smith-testify-publicly-trump-judiciary-com-rcna253740](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/former-special-counsel-jack-smith-testify-publicly-trump-judiciary-com-rcna253740) [https://www.axios.com/2026/01/13/jack-smith-judiciary-hearing-testify-trump](https://www.axios.com/2026/01/13/jack-smith-judiciary-hearing-testify-trump)