Former special counsel Jack Smith will testify in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee next week, giving Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the panel a chance to grill him in a public setting on his prosecutions of President Donald Trump.

Smith will appear before the committee on Jan. 22, one month after he sat for a closed-door deposition with the committee and testified for eight hours about his special counsel work, a source familiar told Fox News Digital.

Smith had long said he wanted to speak to the committee publicly, and although Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, first demanded the deposition, the chairman also said an open hearing was on the table.

Smith investigated Trump and brought two indictments against him over the 2020 election and alleged retention of classified documents. Trump pleaded not guilty and aggressively fought the charges, and Smith dropped both cases when Trump won the 2024 election, citing a Department of Justice policy that discourages prosecuting sitting presidents.

In a public hearing, House lawmakers will be able to question Smith in five-minute increments, whereas in the deposition, each party questioned Smith in one-hour sessions. Politico first reported that Smith would appear for a hearing sometime this month.

Smith gave little new information during his initial meeting with the committee and defended his work.

‘I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,’ Smith said, according to a transcript of the deposition. ‘We took actions based on what the facts, and the law required, the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.’

Smith said he followed DOJ policy when his team made the controversial decision to subpoena numerous Republican senators’ and House members’ phone records as part of his 2020 election probe. Smith noted the subpoenas sought a narrow set of data.

‘If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators [to delay the election certification proceedings], we would have gotten toll records for Democratic senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them, that’s — that lies with Donald Trump,’ Smith said.

The Republicans have said the subpoenas were unconstitutional violations of the speech or debate clause, and they have broadly said the Biden DOJ abused its authority by bringing, in their view, politicized criminal charges against a former president and presidential candidate.

Trump, who has long decried Smith as a ‘thug’ and said he belongs in jail, has said he welcomes Smith at a public hearing.

Asked about Smith’s appearance next week, a representative for Smith provided a statement from one of his lawyers, Lanny Breuer.

‘Jack has been clear for months he is ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing about his investigations into President Trump’s alleged unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents,’ Breuer said.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is introducing a bill aimed at restricting any unauthorized military action by President Donald Trump, amid growing debate over his comments about acquiring Greenland ‘one way or the other.’

Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., is leading the legislation along with Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., and Don Bacon, R-Neb., according to POLITICO.

‘This is about our fundamental shared goals and our fundamental security, not just in Europe, but in the United States itself,’ Keating said in a statement to the outlet.

The group involved in the effort is soliciting broader support for the legislation and say they hope additional Republicans will back the effort to restrict funding for any unauthorized military action against U.S. allies.

In a letter to colleagues, Keating said ‘this legislation takes a clear stand against such action and further supports NATO allies and partners,’ according to POLITICO.

While the measure does not specifically name any specific countries, it is clearly in response to Trump’s repeated threats against Greenland.

Keating said the decision to omit Greenland’s name was meant to broaden the legislation’s focus. He said he met with the Danish Ambassador and the head of Greenland representation.

‘This isn’t just about Greenland. This is about our security,’ Keating said.

Keating also said he believes slashing funding is the most impactful way to disincentivize Trump administration officials from taking action.

‘War powers are important, but we’ve seen with Democratic and Republican presidents that that’s not as effective,’ he said. ‘It’s hard to get around having no funds or not allowing personnel to do it.’

This comes after the Senate advanced a bipartisan resolution last week that would limit Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela after the U.S. military’s recent move to strike the country and capture its president, Nicolás Maduro. The Upper Chamber could pass the measure later this week, although its future in the House remains uncertain despite some support from Republicans.

On Greenland, administration officials are openly weighing options such as military force to take the Danish territory, a move that would violate NATO’s Article V, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all of them and could end the alliance of more than 75 years.

‘We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not,’ Trump said on Friday. ‘Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.’

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and four party leaders reaffirmed last week that the self-governing island has no interest in becoming part of the U.S.

‘We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,’ the leaders said, adding that Greenland’s ‘future must be decided by the Greenlandic people.’

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as well as the leaders of Italy, Spain and Poland, also signed a letter stating: ‘Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.’

The chance of expanding U.S. control over Greenland has drawn mixed reactions from Congress. While most Democrats have opposed the idea, some Republicans have voiced support for pursuing closer ties with the territory.

Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., who introduced legislation to make it the 51st U.S. state, although he said the best way to acquire Greenland is voluntarily.

‘I think it is in the world’s interest for the United States to exert sovereignty over Greenland,’ Fine told Fox News Digital.

Former President Bill Clinton has been summoned to appear on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning, as Republicans threaten a possible criminal referral if the ex-commander-in-chief skips out.

He and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have both been subpoenaed to appear before the House Oversight Committee for separate closed-door depositions for the panel’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

Clinton was scheduled to appear Tuesday morning at 10 a.m., but it’s not clear whether he will do so. The deposition is expected to move forward regardless.

A spokeswoman for the committee told Fox News Digital on Friday that neither had confirmed their scheduled dates at that point.

‘The Clintons have not confirmed their appearances for their subpoenaed depositions. They are obligated under the law to appear, and we expect them to do so. If the Clintons do not appear at their depositions, the House Oversight Committee will initiate contempt of Congress proceedings,’ the spokeswoman said.

Both Clintons were originally scheduled to appear before the committee in October, but their deposition dates were postponed while the panel was in talks with their attorneys.

Their deposition dates were delayed again when House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., was informed the former first couple would be attending a funeral.

‘They’re saying now that he’s going to a funeral on that day, so we’ve been going back and forth with the lawyer,’ Comer told Fox News Digital in December. ‘We’re going to hold him in contempt if he doesn’t show up for his deposition.’

The House Oversight Committee would need to advance a contempt resolution before it’s considered by the entire chamber. If a simple majority votes to hold someone in contempt of Congress, a criminal referral is then traditionally made to the Department of Justice.

A criminal contempt of Congress charge is a misdemeanor that carries a punishment of up to one year in jail and a maximum $100,000 fine if convicted.

In the absence of mutually agreed-upon new dates, new subpoenas were issued for Bill and Hillary Clinton to appear on Jan. 13 and Jan. 14, respectively.

They were two of 10 people who Comer initially subpoenaed in the House’s Epstein investigation after a unanimous bipartisan vote directed him to do so last year.

Clinton was known to be friendly with the late pedophile before his federal charges but was never implicated in any wrongdoing related to him.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Clintons’ lawyer and Bill Clinton’s spokesperson to ask whether he would appear Tuesday, but did not receive a response.

As protests spread across Iran and the government responds with lethal force, amid increasing reports claiming thousands have been killed, a growing question is being debated by analysts and Iranians alike: Is the Islamic Republic facing its most serious threat since the 1979 revolution, or does it still retain enough coercive power to survive?

For Mehdi Ghadimi, an Iranian journalist who spent decades protesting the regime before being forced to leave the country, this moment feels fundamentally different from anything that came before.

‘From 1999, when I was about fifteen, until 2024, when I was forced to leave Iran, I took part in every street protest against the Islamic Republic,’ Ghadimi told Fox News Digital. ‘For roughly half of those years, I supported the reformist movement. But after 2010, we became certain that the Islamic Republic is not reformable, that changing its factions is a fiction.’

According to Ghadimi, that realization gradually spread across Iranian society, culminating in what he describes as a decisive shift in the current unrest.

‘For the first time in the 47 years of struggle by the Iranian people against the Islamic Republic, the idea of returning to the period before January 1979 became the sole demand and the central point of unity among the people,’ he said. ‘As a result, we witnessed the most widespread presence of people from all cities and villages of Iran in the streets, on a scale unprecedented in any previous protests.’

Ghadimi claimed the chants on the streets reflected that shift. Instead of demanding economic relief or changes to dress codes, protesters openly called for the fall of the Islamic Republic and the return of the Pahlavi dynasty.

‘At that point, it no longer seemed that we were merely protesting,’ he said. ‘We were, in fact, carrying out a revolution.’

Still, Ghadimi was clear about what he believes is preventing the regime’s collapse.

‘The answer is very clear,’ he said. ‘The government sets no limit for itself when it comes to killing its own people.’

He added that Tehran appears reassured by the lack of consequences for its actions. ‘It has also been reassured by the behavior of other countries that if it manages to survive, it will not be punished for these blatant crimes against humanity,’ he said. ‘The doors of diplomacy will always remain open to them, even if their hands are stained with blood.’

Ghadimi described how the regime cut off internet access to disrupt coordination between protesters and opposition leadership abroad. He said that once connectivity was severed, the reach of video messages from the exiled Prince Reza Pahlavi dropped dramatically.

While Iranian voices describe a revolutionary moment, security and policy experts caution that structural realities still favor the regime.

Javed Ali, an associate professor at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, said the Islamic Republic is facing far more serious threats to its grip on power than in years past, driven by a convergence of military, regional, economic and diplomatic pressures.

‘The IRGC is in a much weaker position following the 12-day war with Israel last summer,’ Ali said, citing ‘leadership removals, ballistic missile and drone capabilities that were used or damaged, and an air and radar defense network that has been significantly degraded.’

Ali said Iran’s regional deterrence has also eroded sharply. ‘The so-called Axis of Resistance has been significantly weakened across the region,’ he said, pointing to setbacks suffered by Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Shiite militias allied with Tehran.

Internally, Ali said demographic pressure is intensifying the challenge. ‘Iran’s younger population is even more frustrated than before with deteriorating economic conditions, ongoing social and cultural restrictions and repeated violent crackdowns on dissent,’ he said.

Ali also pointed to shifting external dynamics that are limiting Tehran’s room to maneuver, including what he described as a stronger U.S.-Israel relationship tied to the Netanyahu-Trump alliance. He added that there are ‘possible joint operations already underway to support the protest movement inside Iran.’

Israeli security sources, speaking on background, said Israel has no such interest in intervening in a way that would allow Tehran to redirect domestic unrest outward.

‘Everyone understands it is better to sit and wait quietly and not attract the fire toward Israel,’ one source said. ‘The regime would like to make this about Israel and the Zionist enemy and start another war to repress internal protests.’

‘It is not Israel against Iran,’ the source added. ‘We recognize that the regime has an interest in provoking us, and we do not want to contribute to that.’

The source said a collapse of the Islamic Republic would have far-reaching consequences. ‘If the regime falls, it will affect the entire Middle East,’ the official said. ‘It could open a new era.’

Ali said Iran is increasingly isolated diplomatically. ‘There is growing isolation from Gulf monarchies, the fall of Assad in Syria and only muted support from China and Russia,’ he said.

Despite those pressures, Ali cautioned that Iran’s coercive institutions remain loyal.

‘I think the IRGC, including Basiji paramilitary elements, along with the Ministry of Intelligence, are still loyal to the regime out of a mix of ideology, religion, and self-interest,’ he said, citing ‘power, money and influence.’

Whether fear of collapse could drive insiders to defect remains unclear. ‘Whether there are insiders willing to flip because of a sense of imminent collapse of the clerical structure is hard to know,’ Ali said.

He placed the probability of an internal regime collapse at ‘25% or less,’ calling it ‘possible, but far less probable.’

For now, Iran appears caught between two realities: a population increasingly unified around the rejection of the Islamic Republic, and a security apparatus still willing to use overwhelming force to preserve it.

As Ali noted, pressure alone does not bring regimes down. The decisive moment comes only when those ordered to enforce repression decide it is no longer in their interest to do so.

Despite the scale of unrest, Ghadimi cautioned that the outcome remains uncertain.

‘After these four hellish days, without even knowing the fate of our friends and loved ones who went into the streets, or whether they were alive or not, it is truly difficult for me to give you a clear assessment and say whether our revolution is now moving toward victory or not,’ he said.

He recalled a message he heard repeatedly before leaving Iran, across cities and social classes.

‘The only thing I consistently heard was this: ‘We have nothing left to lose, and even at the cost of our lives, we will not retreat one step from our demand for the fall of the Islamic Republic,’’ Ghadimi said. ‘They asked me to promise that now that I am outside Iran, I would be their voice.’

‘That spirit is what still gives my heart hope for victory,’ he added. ‘But my mind tells me that when mass killing carries no punishment, and when the government possesses enough bullets, guns and determination to suppress it, even if it means killing millions, then victory would require a miracle.’

Iran is not merely experiencing another wave of street protests. It is facing a crisis that strikes at the core of the Islamic Republic—and, for the first time in years, places the regime’s survival in real doubt.

Across Iran, demonstrations sparked by economic collapse and corruption have rapidly transformed into direct challenges to clerical rule. Security forces have responded with live fire, mass arrests, and communications blackouts. International reporting cites hundreds of people killed and thousands detained. Internet shutdowns point to a regime determined to suppress not only dissent, but proof of it.

Iran has behaved this way before. What has changed is the strategic environment—and the growing sense among Iranians that the system itself is failing.

Still, one must be clear-eyed: Iran’s leaders will not go quietly. They do not see themselves as ordinary autocrats clinging to power. In their own theology, they see themselves as executing Allah’s will.

A Regime That Sees Repression as Divine Duty

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has framed its authority through velayat-e faqih—the rule of the Islamic jurist. Under this doctrine, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not simply a political figure. He is the guardian of an Islamic revolution believed to be divinely sanctioned.

That theological worldview directly shapes how the regime responds to dissent. When Iranian security forces fire into crowds, the regime does not see itself as suppressing political opposition; it sees itself as crushing heresy, sedition, and rebellion against God’s order. Protesters are routinely labeled ‘corrupt on earth,’ a Quranic phrase historically used to justify severe punishment.

Public condemnation and moral appeals alone will not move Tehran. Its rulers believe endurance, sacrifice, and violence are virtues—especially when used to preserve the revolution.

Even regimes driven by religious certainty can collapse once their power structures fracture.

Why this moment differs from 2009—or 2022

Iran has seen mass protests before. In 2009, the Green Movement threatened the regime after a disputed election. In 2022, nationwide protests erupted following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman who died in morality-police custody after being detained for allegedly violating Iran’s hijab rules. Each time, the regime survived.

Several factors suggest this moment is different.

First, the economy is far worse. Iran faces sustained currency devaluation, unemployment, and inflation that has crushed the middle class and hollowed out state legitimacy. That pressure is compounded by a deepening water crisis that has crippled agriculture, strained urban life, and fueled unrest in multiple provinces. Economic despair is no longer peripheral; it now sits at the center.

Beyond economics, Iran’s external deterrence has eroded. The war with Israel in 2025 inflicted real damage. Senior Iranian commanders were killed. Air defenses were penetrated. Missile and drone infrastructure was disrupted. Iran’s aura of invulnerability—carefully cultivated over decades—was badly shaken.

At the same time, Iran’s proxy network is under strain. Hamas has been devastated. Hezbollah has suffered significant losses and now faces domestic pressure in Lebanon. The Houthis remain disruptive but isolated. Tehran’s so-called ‘axis of resistance’ looks less like an unstoppable force and more like a series of costly liabilities.

Most importantly, the regime’s coercive apparatus is under stress. And this is where the future of Iran will be decided.

Watch the IRGC and the Basij—the outcome may hinge on their choices

No institutions matter more right now than the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its paramilitary arm, the Basij.

Often described as the regime’s ‘eyes and ears,’ the Basij are not a conventional military force but a nationwide population-control and internal surveillance network. Embedded in neighborhoods, universities, factories, and mosques, they monitor dissent, identify protest organizers, and move quickly to intimidate or detain them—often before demonstrations can spread. 

During past unrest, including the 2009 Green Movement and the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests, Basij units played a central role in suppressing resistance through beatings, arrests, and close coordination with IRGC security forces. Their value to the regime lies not in battlefield strength, but in omnipresence and ideological loyalty.

Their mission is to control dissent at the local level—before it becomes national. As long as the Basij remain loyal and effective in towns, neighborhoods, and campuses, the regime can contain unrest. If they hesitate, defect, or stand aside, Tehran’s grip weakens rapidly.

The Basij are the real instrument of population control. If the regime is forced to deploy the IRGC widely for internal order, it signals that local control has failed—and that the system is under far greater strain.

The Trump administration should be careful not to hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The IRGC, by contrast, controls the military and functions as an economic empire. Beyond internal security, the IRGC also shapes Iran’s foreign policy—overseeing missile forces, regional proxies, and external operations. It exists to defend the revolution abroad, while the Basij exists to control society at home.

Over the past three decades, the IRGC has embedded itself in Iran’s most important industries—energy, construction, telecommunications, transportation, ports, and black-market finance. Entire sectors of the Iranian economy now depend on IRGC-controlled firms and foundations.

This creates a decisive tension. On one hand, the IRGC has every reason to defend the regime that enriched it. On the other, prolonged instability, sanctions, and economic collapse threaten the very assets the Guards control. At some point, self-preservation may begin to compete with ideological loyalty.

That is why Iran’s future may depend less on what protesters do in the streets—and more on whom the IRGC ultimately chooses to back.

Three outcomes appear plausible.

The first is repression. The Basij could maintain local control while the IRGC backs the Supreme Leader, allowing the regime to crush dissent, and impose order through overwhelming force. This would preserve the Islamic Republic, but at the cost of deeper isolation and long-term decay.

The second is continuity without clerical dominance. A ‘soft coup’ could sideline aging clerics in favor of a military-nationalist leadership that preserves core power structures while shedding the regime’s most unpopular religious figures. The system would remain authoritarian—but altered.

The third is fracture. If parts of the Basij splinter or stand aside—and the IRGC hesitates to intervene broadly—the regime’s internal control could unravel quickly. This is the least likely outcome, but the most transformative—and the one most favorable to long-term regional stability.

Revolutions tend to succeed not because crowds grow larger, but because security forces eventually stop obeying orders.

America’s strategic objective: clarity without ownership

The United States must be disciplined about its goal.

America should not seek to ‘run Iran,’ redraw its culture, or impose a leader. That approach has failed elsewhere. But neither should Washington pretend neutrality between an abusive theocracy and a population demanding dignity.

Our strategy is clear:

Prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

End Iran’s export of terrorism and proxy war.

Push Iran toward regional stability rather than disruption.

Encourage a government that derives legitimacy from its people, not coercion.

Achieving that outcome requires pressure without provocation.

What the Trump administration and allies should do now

First, expose repression relentlessly. Iran’s internet blackouts are a weapon. The U.S. and allies should support every lawful means of keeping Iranians connected and atrocities visible.

Second, target the regime’s enforcers—not the public. Sanctions should focus on specific IRGC units, Basij commanders, judges, and security officials responsible for killings and mass arrests. Collective punishment only strengthens regime propaganda.

Third, signal consequences—and off-ramps. Those ordering violence must know they will be held accountable. Those who refuse unlawful orders should know the world is watching—and remembering.

Fourth, deter external escalation. Tehran may try to unify the nation through confrontation abroad. Strong regional missile defense, maritime security, and allied coordination reduce the regime’s ability to change the subject with war.

Finally, do not hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The bottom line

Iran’s rulers believe they are carrying out divine will. That makes them dangerous—and stubborn. But it does not make them immortal.

Every revolutionary regime eventually faces a moment when fear stops working, money runs out, and loyalty fractures. Iran may be approaching that moment now.

The outcome will not be decided by speeches in Washington, but by choices in Tehran—especially inside the IRGC.

If the Guards conclude their future lies with the people rather than the clerics, Iran could finally turn a page. If they do not, repression will prevail—for a time.

America’s task is not to force history, but to shape the conditions under which it unfolds—with care, strategy, and moral clarity.

Because when the Islamic Republic finally faces its reckoning, the world must be ready—not to occupy Iran, but to ensure that what replaces the tyranny is not simply the same regime in a different uniform.