U.S. Vice President JD Vance gives remarks following a roundtable discussion with local leaders and community members amid a surge of federal immigration authorities in the area, at Royalston Square on January 22, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Trump administration has sent a reported 3,000-plus federal agents into the area, with more on the way, as they make a push to arrest undocumented immigrants in the region. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Vice President JD Vance took the stage for a second year in a row on Friday at the March For Life rally in Washington, D.C., where he touted the work done by the Trump administration to support the anti-abortion rights movement — but Vance also responded to criticism from some in the pro-life movement that the White House has not done enough so far to advance its agenda.
“Now I must address an elephant in the room. I’ve heard the guy over here talking about it, a fear, a fear that some of you have, that not enough progress has been made, that not enough has happened in the political arena, that we’re not going fast enough, that our politics have failed to answer the clarion call to life that this march represents and that all of us, I believe, hold in our hearts,” Vance said. “And I want you to know that I hear you, and that I understand there will inevitably be debates within this movement.”
Vance asked attendees to reflect on what has been accomplished over the past decade, adding that more actions will be taken in the coming years.
“My friends, I’d ask you to look where the Fight for Life stood just one decade ago and now look where it stands today. We have made tremendous strides over the last year, and we’re going to continue to make strides over the next three years to come. But I’m a realist. I know that there is still much road ahead to travel together,” Vance said.
Vance referenced Trump’s appointment of the three Supreme Court justices who helped overrule Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that stated that the Constitution protected the right to an abortion. Vance said that Trump’s actions led to the “most important” Supreme Court decision of his lifetime.
Vance touted some of the actions the Trump administration has taken on restricting abortion access and supporting the anti-abortion rights movement, including pardoning 23 anti-abortion rights activists about a year ago.
Although Trump did not attend the rally on Friday, he did send in a brief video message where he said he has “made unprecedented strides to protect innocent life and support the institution of the family.” Trump also reflected on appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overrule Roe v. Wade.
“That was a big deal, and because of that, the pro-life movement won the greatest victory in its history,” Trump said of the Supreme Court decision.
The White House also released a statement from Trump reiterating his contributions to the anti-abortion rights movement.
“From the moment I returned to office as the 47th President of the United States, I have taken decisive action to protect the unborn and restore a culture that unapologetically defends the sanctity of life,” Trump said in his statement.
Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister, after speaking in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, on Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026. (Renaud Philippe/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump rescinded an invitation for Canada to join his newly-formed “Board of Peace” amid his escalating feud with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.
The move, which Trump announced late Thursday in a social media post, came after Carney’s headline-making speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in which he warned the rules-based international order largely steered by American hegemony was in the midst of a “rupture.”
“Please let this Letter serve to represent that the Board of Peace is withdrawing its invitation to you regarding Canada’s joining, what will be, the most prestigious Board of Leaders ever assembled, at any time,” Trump posted online as he returned to Washington from Switzerland.
Trump hosted a signing ceremony for his Board of Peace on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum earlier this week. More than two dozen countries have signed on so far, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, though notably none of the U.S.’s major European allies have done so. France, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom have either declined the invitation or expressed significant reservations about the board. The Vatican said Pope Leo, the first American pope, has been asked to join the board and is evaluating the invitation.
Carney, in his address to the gathering of government officials and business leaders, called on middle powers to come together to avoid falling victim to coercion from larger and more powerful nations.
“Middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” Carney said.
Carney added, “We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong, if we choose to wield them together.”
The Canadian leader, without explicitly mentioning Trump by name, also directly criticized the U.S. threat of tariffs for U.S. allies that opposed Trump’s aim to acquire Greenland and made clear Canada’s support for the Danish territory’s sovereignty.
President Trump, the next day, swiped at Carney’s remarks and said the U.S.’s northern neighbor should be “grateful.”
“Canada gets a lot of freebies from us. By the way, they should be grateful also, but they’re not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful. They should be grateful to us, Canada. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements,” Trump said in his WEF speech.
Carney pushed back on Trump in remarks delivered in Quebec City on Thursday.
“Canada and the United States have built a remarkable partnership in the economy, in security, and in rich cultural exchange,” Carney said. “But Canada doesn’t live because of the United States. Canada thrives because we are Canadian.”
Tensions have flared between Trump and Carney for months over tariffs and over Trump’s repeated calls since his return to office to have Canada become the 51st state of the U.S.
An excavator works to clear rubble after the East Wing of the White House was demolished, Oct. 23, 2025. (Eric Lee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The federal judge presiding over a challenge to the White House ballroom project signaled deep skepticism of the Trump administration’s argument that the president has the legal authority to undertake the East Wing renovations and to fund them with private donations.
In a hearing on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon pressed an administration lawyer on both of those issues — as he questioned whether the president has the power to tear down part of what he called “an icon that’s a national institution,” and described the intent to fund it with private gifts as a “Rube Goldberg contraption” that would evade congressional oversight.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit last month seeking to stop the ballroom construction until the project completes the federal review process standard for federal building projects and the administration seeks public comment on the proposed changes.
The National Trust, the privately funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites, was seeking a preliminary injunction.
At the end of the hour-long hearing Thursday, Judge Leon said he will likely not issue a decision this month, but “hopefully” in February. He said he expects the losing side to appeal.
In a statement provided to ABC News, White House spokesman Davis Ingle said: “President Trump is working 24/7 to Make America Great Again, including his historic beautification of the White House, at no taxpayer expense. These long-needed upgrades will benefit generations of future presidents and American visitors to the People’s House.”
The size and cost of the project have increased since first being unveiled. In November, Trump said the project would cost $400 million, after an initial estimate of $200 million. The White House has said the project will be funded by private donations.
Judge Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said the Trump administration appears to be making an “end run” around congressional oversight with the president’s plan to privately raise $400 million for the ballroom project, and he admonished the Justice Department’s lawyer to “be serious” in justifying a legal rationale for it.
While the case presents a series of complicated and overlapping legal issues, the judge spent much of the hearing focused on just two federal statutes — one, which says that no “building or structure” can be built on any federal public grounds in the District of Columbia “without express authority of Congress,” and another that calls for yearly appropriations for the “maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing [and] improvement” of the White House.
Leon noted that Republicans control both houses of Congress, and that the president could have gone to lawmakers to seek approval for the demolition and rebuild. He also suggested the $2.5 million Congress recently appropriated for White House maintenance was for “very small-size projects,” not a ballroom.
Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth responded that Trump didn’t want $400 million in taxpayer money to be used for the project, when he could solicit gifts to the National Park Service to fund it instead. Roth also noted that Congress was never asked in Gerald Ford’s era to approve the building of a swimming pool, or a tennis pavilion during Trump’s first term.
“[Your argument for using NPS’s gift authority] on an icon that’s a national treasure is, what? The ’77 Gerald Ford swimming pool?” Leon asked. “You compare that to ripping down the East Wing? C’mon! Be serious.”
Leon said he saw “no basis” in the legislative history of the park service’s gift authority that would allow Trump to use it to raise $400 million to build a new White House ballroom. “None,” Leon said. “Zero.”
Arguing for the National Trust, attorney Tad Heuer described the president as a “temporary tenant of the White House, not the landlord.” Leon suggested “steward” might be a more fitting term.
“He is not the owner,” Heuer said.
As Roth took the podium to begin his argument on behalf of the administration, he attempted to convince the judge that the National Trust has no standing to sue. Leon abruptly cut him off.
“I’m very comfortable with standing in this case,” Leon said. “Sorry to disappoint you. You’ll get your chance at the Court of Appeals.”
Roth warned the judge that an order halting construction at this stage could expose the existing White House structure to damage and potentially lead to security concerns, since it’s widely believed that a replacement for a previously-existing underground bunker is part of the project. The National Trust has said it would not object to continued construction on the security portion of the work.
“It can’t be divided out that way,” Roth said of the security-related construction, “unless we want the court to be the project manager on site.”
Leon declined to issue an order from the bench. He said the coming winter storm made it unlikely he would issue a ruling on the National Trust’s motion for a preliminary injunction before the end of this month.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddard contributed to this report.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story misidentified an attorney for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The story has been corrected and updated.
Senator Amy Klobuchar attends a field hearing at the Minnesota Senate Building on Jan. 16, 2026, in St Paul, Minnesota. (Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar filed paperwork on Thursday to create a campaign committee to run for governor in the state — the latest step indicating that she is nearing an official announcement to enter the race.
A source close to the senator said that her filing “is a preliminary step necessary for any candidate considering a run. The senator will make an announcement of her plans in the coming days.”
Klobuchar is widely seen as the most popular Democrat in the state, and could help the party avoid a pitched primary fight to succeed Gov. Tim Walz, who dropped his bid for reelection as governor earlier this month.
Walz decided to suspend his run for a third term amid intensifying federal pressure on his state following a welfare fraud investigation. Walz said he would not run for reelection because he would not be able to give a campaign all of his attention as he works to defend Minnesota against those allegations of fraud.
The state has been at the center of the Trump’s administration immigration crackdown, drawing large protests following a federal agent’s fatal shooting of Renee Good, and threats from President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that authorizes the use of the military on U.S. soil for certain purposes.
Frey defended himself and Walz on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday, calling the investigation “deeply concerning,” and saying he intends to comply with it.
“Look, we have done nothing wrong, so of course we will comply in it, but at the same time, we need to be understanding how wild this is,” Frey said.
In a statement posted on X, Walz called the investigation “political theater.”
“This Justice Department investigation, sparked by calls for accountability in the face of violence, chaos, and the killing of Renee Good, does not seek justice,” Walz said the statement. “It is a partisan distraction.”
Klobuchar, who is also seen as a possible 2028 presidential candidate after running in 2020, won reelection to the Senate in 2024.
One Democratic Party county chair in Minnesota, speaking with ABC News after Walz dropped out of the race, said that Klobuchar likely would have a lock on the party’s nomination if she runs.
Another county party chair told ABC News at the time that to some in the party, a bid by Klobuchar didn’t seem to make sense because she could be a candidate for Senate Majority Leader if Democrats flip the chamber. Klobuchar is currently a member of Democratic Senate leadership.
Earlier this week, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he would not run for governor.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner speaks after the President held a signing ceremony for the “Board of Peace” at the World Economic Forum (WEF) on January 22, 2026, in Davos, Switzerland. The US-backed “Board of Peace” is intended to administer the fragile ceasefire in the Gaza Strip after the war between Israel and Hamas. The final makeup of the board has not been confirmed. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a real estate developer, on Thursday unveiled some of the Trump administration’s “master plan” for rebuilding war-torn Gaza that includes waterfront developments and other luxury buildings.
Kushner, whop spoke alongside President Donald Trump at his Board of Peace signing in Davos, Switzerland, said the plans for Gaza will emulate what other newly redeveloped Middle Eastern cities will look like.
Kushner, who has been part of the Gaza peace negotiations, suggested the construction would be done in just two or three years. The Board of Peace estimates that the plan would require more than $25 billion to develop modern utilities and public services.
“We’ve developed ways to redevelop Gaza. Gaza, as President Trump’s been saying, has amazing potential, and this is for the people of Gaza,” he said.
Kushner, who showed slideshows with concept art of his “master plan” said that the plan includes development done in zones.
“In the beginning, we were toying with the idea of saying, Let’s build a free zone, and then we have a Hamas zone. And then we said, You know what? Let’s just plan for catastrophic success. We have mass signed a deal, demilitarized. That is what we are going to enforce,” he said.
Kushner displayed a “master Plan” that depicts four phases: Rafah, or “city 1”; Khan Younis or “city 2”; Center Camps or “city 3”; and Gaza City or “city 4.”
In “New Rafah,” Kushner put up a slide that claims there will be over 100,000 permanent housing units, 200 education centers, 180 cultural, religious and vocational centers and 75 medical facilities.
A section shows “coastal tourism” with 170 towers with areas for residential areas and industrial complex data centers and advanced manufacturing behind it, split up by parks, agriculture and sports facilities.
The “coastal tourism” renderings show flashy high-rises, hotels and luxury villas on shimmering waters.
Kushner said the next 100 days will be focused on sending humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, with quantities consistent with what was included in the January 19, 2025, agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove the estimated 68 million tons of rubble and to open roads.
“We continue to be focused on humanitarian aid, a humanitarian shelter, but then creating the conditions to move forward,” he said.
Increasing the amount of humanitarian aid entering the Gaza Strip is a key element of the overall ceasefire deal. While international aid organizations have reported being able to operate more freely in parts of Gaza where Israeli troops have withdrawn, it is hard to quantify how much aid has entered the strip since Oct. 10, when the first phase of the ceasefire deal went into effect.
International aid organizations still report more aid is needed across the Strip – from food to medical supplies to shelter.
Winter storms have made the situation on the ground in Gaza even more difficult, as heavy rains have caused flooding in displacement camps and lower temperatures have made living conditions even more difficult. About 1 million Palestinians currently need shelter assistance, according to the UN. Ten children have died of the cold, the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health has said.
The 100 Day plan also accounts for reconstruction, suggesting improved temporary housing in transition until permanent housing is ready, a Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza will be created, synthesize the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will “create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza,” according to Kushner.
A special economic zone would be established, with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries, he added.
Kushner said that many of the funds for this project will come from the private sector, touting “amazing investment opportunities.”
Trump, who also spoke at the conference, contended the war in Gaza “was really coming to an end” and praised the redevelopment plan.
“I’m a real estate person at heart, and it’s all about location, and I said, look at this location on the sea, look at this beautiful piece of property, what it could be for so many people,” he said.
“People that are living so poorly are going to be living so well,” he added.
Over 90% of residential buildings in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks and subsequent war that followed, according to the UN.
While the ceasefire has largely held, there have been intermittent incidents of violations from both sides. At least 483 people have been killed since the first phase of the ceasefire went into effect, the Hamas-run Gaza Government Media Office said.
Last year, Trump boasted that the U.S. would “take over” the Gaza Strip, “level the site” and rebuild it.
When asked by a reporter during the Feb. 4, 2025, during a White House news conference with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if Palestinians relocated would have the right to return, Trump responded, “Why would they want to return?”
When another reporter asked who would live in Gaza, Trump responded, “the world’s people,” saying, “the potential in the Gaza Strip is unbelievable.”
“History, as you know, just can’t let it keep repeating itself. We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal. And I don’t want to be cute. I don’t want to be a wise guy. But the Riviera of the Middle East, this could be something that could be so … magnificent,” the president said during the news conference.
The president was criticized later that month over a AI generated video that he shared on social media that depicted him and Netanyahu sunbathing in a location dubbed “Trump Gaza,” which showed a luxury resort.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying Thursday before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, was unequivocal about who caused the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence,” Smith testified. “We followed the facts and we followed the law — where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power.”
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
The former special counsel said that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge Trump in his two investigations.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and, who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisors,” Smith said of his election interference probe.
In seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, Trump was “looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith testified.
Trump was not “was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him, things that conflicted with him staying power, he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith told committee members.
Smith told legislators that he would not be intimated by President Trump’s statements calling for him to be investigated.
“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 said. “I’m not going to be intimidated. We did our work pursuant to Department policy. We followed the facts, and we follow the law.”
Asked about the sweeping pardons Trump granted those who were charged with attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, Smith said, “I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who assaulted police officers. I don’t get it. I never will.”
Republican Rep. Troy Nehls, who is retiring from the House, addressed the Capitol Police officers who were in the chamber.
“I would like to quickly address the police officers from Jan. 6, ” Nehls said. “I’m a member of the new select committee to actually examine, actually examine what happened that day, and I can tell you gentlemen that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump. It lies with … the U.S. Capitol leadership team. We know, we know they had the intelligence, and there was going to be a high propensity for violence.”
Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Smith discussed the witnesses his team had interviewed in his election interference probe.
“There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that what he was saying was false,” Smith said. “And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it’s going to impose a cost on them in their lives — my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that, because they pay a cost for telling the truth.”
Smith said that he got the phone toll records for some members of Congress because his office was investigating the conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of the matters, that were assigned to me, including attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get toll records, to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them,” Smith said, arguing that it was a normal piece of an investigation.
In a back-and-forth with Republican Rep. Darryl Issa, Smith said he didn’t target then-President Joe Biden’s political enemies.
“Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa asked.
“No,” Smith said. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”
He said that the decision to bring charges against Trump was solely his decision and that he was not pressured by any Biden official.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
In his introductory remarks, Smith also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. 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, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for ten years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. 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 — the opposite of Donald Trump,” Raskin said.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell said that Republicans on the dais “are a joke.”
“They’re wrong. History will harshly judge them,” he said.
Smith’s appearance Thursday marked his second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors in December. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report dealing with the classified documents case.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying Thursday before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, was unequivocal about who caused the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence,” Smith testified. “We followed the facts and we followed the law — where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power.”
Smith, who led investigations into Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election and alleged mishandling of classified documents, is testifying publicly for first time about his probes.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
The former special counsel said that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge Trump in his two investigations.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and, who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisors,” Smith said of his election interference probe.
In seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, Trump was “looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith testified.
Trump was not “was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him, things that conflicted with him staying power, he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith told committee members.
Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Smith discussed the witnesses his team had interviewed in his election interference probe.
“There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that what he was saying was false,” Smith said. “And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it’s going to impose a cost on them in their lives — my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that, because they pay a cost for telling the truth.”
Smith said that he got the phone toll records for some members of Congress because his office was investigating the conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of the matters, that were assigned to me, including attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get toll records, to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them,” Smith said, arguing that it was a normal piece of an investigation.
In a back-and-forth with Republican Rep. Darryl Issa, Smith said he didn’t target then-President Joe Biden’s political enemies.
“Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa asked.
“No,” Smith said. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”
He said that the decision to bring charges against Trump was solely his decision and that he was not pressured by any Biden official.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
In his introductory remarks, Smith also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. 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, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for ten years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. 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 — the opposite of Donald Trump,” Raskin said.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell said that Republicans on the dais “are a joke.”
“They’re wrong. History will harshly judge them,” he said.
Trump’s Thursday appearance marks Smith’s second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors last month. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report dealing with the classified documents case.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying Thursday before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, said that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge President Donald Trump in his two investigations.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and, who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisors,” Smith said of his election interference probe.
In seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, Trump was “looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith testified.
Trump was not “was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him, things that conflicted with him staying power, he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith told committee members.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Smith discussed the witnesses his team had interviewed in his election interference probe.
“There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that what he was saying was false,” Smith said. “And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it’s going to impose a cost on them in their lives — my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that, because they pay a cost for telling the truth.”
Smith said that he got the phone toll records for some members of Congress because his office was investigating the conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of the matters, that were assigned to me, including attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get toll records, to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them,” Smith said, arguing that it was a normal piece of an investigation.
In a back-and-forth with Republican Rep. Darryl Issa, Smith said he didn’t target then-President Joe Biden’s political enemies.
“Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa asked.
“No,” Smith said. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”
He said that the decision to bring charges against Trump was solely his decision and that he was not pressured by any Biden official.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
In his introductory remarks, Smith also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. 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, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for 10 years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. 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. The opposite of Donald Trump, who now is purporting to take over,” Raskin said.
Trump’s Thursday appearance marks Smith’s second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors last month. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report dealing with the classified documents case.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.”
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) —President Donald Trump broke the law, former counsel Jack Smith told committee members Thursday at an appearance before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
Regarding the 2020 election, Smith said that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
He also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Merrill Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith also said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. 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, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Donald Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for ten years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. 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. The opposite of Donald Trump, who now is purporting to take over,” Raskin said.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
His Thursday appearance marks Smith’s second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors last month. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.
(WASHINGTON) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Thursday that trilateral talks between Ukraine, Russia and the United States are expected to be held in the United Arab Emirates.
“I think that it will be the first trilateral meeting in Emirates. It will be tomorrow and the day after tomorrow,” Zelenskyy said as he spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
