Portraits in Oversight:
January 6 Attack on the Capitol
-
Protecting the Peaceful Transfer of Power
This Portraits in Oversight was published as part of our book Congress Investigates: George Washington to January 6 and reflects information and events up until December 2024.
On January 6, 2021, the day Congress was scheduled to certify the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Over the course of seven hours, more than 2,000 individuals entered the Capitol building and delayed certification of the election results. Some rioters threatened the vice president, Members of Congress, or staff; some assaulted law enforcement officers; and others ransacked offices or stole property. Together they caused over $2.7 billion in damage and related subsequent costs.[1] The riot also led to at least seven deaths. In response, both the Senate and House initiated extensive investigations into what happened, collected evidence, held hearings, issued reports, and generated reforms to guard against a future attack on the peaceful transfer of power.
2020 Presidential Election
On Nov. 3, 2020, Joseph Biden defeated President Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election, winning electoral votes of 306 versus 232.[2] President Trump and his allies filed 62 lawsuits challenging the election results in courts across the country, but were unsuccessful in changing the electoral count.[3] In December 2020, President Trump announced a rally to be held in Washington, D.C., and encouraged Americans to attend and protest the election results. A key slogan for the rally was “Stop the Steal.” The date of the rally, January 6, 2021, was the same day Congress was scheduled to certify the presidential election results in a joint session. During his speech at the rally, President Trump urged the crowd to march to the U.S. Capitol. Many did and participated in the ensuing riot.
Senate Joint Investigation into Security Failures
On January 8, 2021, two days after the attack on the Capitol, two Senate committees announced a joint, bipartisan investigation into the security failures that rendered the U.S. Capitol vulnerable to attack. They were the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) led by Chair Gary Peters (D-MI) and Ranking Member Rob Portman (R-OH), and the Committee on Rules and Administration (Rules) led by Chair Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Ranking Member Roy Blunt (R-MO). The committees held two joint hearings and issued a joint report with factual findings and recommendations for reforms.
The first hearing, on February 23, 2021, took testimony from law enforcement officials responsible for safeguarding the Capitol grounds and Members of Congress.[4] The witnesses repeatedly expressed frustration with the intelligence failures and law enforcement delays that they viewed as having weakened protections for the Capitol. The first to testify, U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Captain Carneysha Mendoza, described making her way through a violent crowd of over 200 rioters, defending a hallway and the Capitol rotunda for four hours, encountering military grade gas and fire extinguisher sprays deployed by rioters, and suffering chemical burns to her face.[5]
Former USCP Chief Steven A. Sund, who resigned after the January 6 riot, testified seeing “insurgents beating police officers with fists, pipes, sticks, bats, metal barricades, and flagpoles.”[6] He described rioters who “came prepared for war,” noting “they came with their own radio system” and “came specifically with equipment” like climbing gear and explosives. He said police officers “showed tremendous restraint by not using their firearms, which would have likely led to a more chaotic situation and a possible mass casualty incident.”
When asked to explain the delayed deployment of the D.C. National Guard to help counter the attack, former USCP Chief Sund, former House Sergeant at Arms Paul D. Irving, and former Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael C. Stegner, gave conflicting testimony.[7] Mr. Sund and another witness, Metropolitan Acting Chief of Police Robert J. Contee, also pointed to delays caused by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).[8]
The committees held a second joint hearing on March 3, 2021, and took testimony from DOD, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) about the security and intelligence problems.[9] DCNG Major General William Walker testified that the Pentagon had forbidden him to use a Quick Reaction Force or even move National Guard personnel from one traffic control point to another without express prior approval by the Secretary of the Army, a constraint he’d never seen before.[10] When asked why the National Guard took three hours to respond to a request for assistance at the U.S. Capitol, DOD and DHS witnesses provided conflicting explanations.
On June 8, 2021, the two committees released a joint bipartisan staff report.[11] The report presented 21 findings of fact detailing a series of management and operational failures by congressional and executive branch agencies as well as by the DCNG and Washington Metro Police Department. The report also offered a series of recommendations to prevent and counter future attacks on the U.S. Capitol. They included empowering the USCP Chief to request DCNG assistance in emergencies; expanding USCP training, equipment, and intelligence capabilities; and conferring permanent status on a USCP Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU) at the Capitol.
Following the joint committees’ work, the Senate Rules Committee, which had ongoing jurisdiction over USCP, held a separate series of hearings to ensure USCP implementation of the recommended reforms. The first hearing, on June 16, 2021, took testimony from USCP Inspector General Michael A. Bolton.[12] In the second hearing, on December 7, 2021, IG Bolton reported that about half of the USCP recommendations had been implemented.[13] The third hearing, on January 5, 2022, featured USCP Chief J. Thomas Manger who’d been appointed in July 2021, after the joint Senate investigation recommended new USCP leadership.[14] He described USCP’s ongoing reform efforts including equipment upgrades, expanded operational planning, and a new hiring initiative.[15]
In addition, on June 27, 2023, HSGAC Chair Peters released a separate majority staff report providing more in-depth analysis of the intelligence failures related to the January 6 attack.[16] It focused in particular on intelligence miscommunications, missteps, and problems involving the USCP, FBI, and DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). Among other issues, the report stated that the FBI and I&A had failed to monitor and disseminate open-source intelligence including social media posts threatening violence and, days before the attack, had allowed expiration of a third-party contract to flag online threats. The report noted that DHS had also failed to designate January 6th as a National Special Security Event which would have triggered additional safeguards. The report offered a series of recommendations to prevent future intelligence failures at the U.S. Capitol.
Impeachment Proceedings
On January 13, 2021, one week after the attack on the Capitol, the House voted to impeach President Trump for the second time.[17] The House approved one article of impeachment for “Incitement of Insurrection” and delivered it to the Senate on January 25, 2021.[18] The Senate trial began on February 9, 2021, the first impeachment trial involving a president no longer in office. The House managers presented the case utilizing hours of never-before-seen, first-person video footage, police radio transmissions, and security recordings of events during the attack. On February 13, 2021, 57 senators voted to convict, ten votes short of the total needed, leading to the president’s acquittal.[19] Some Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), asserted they were compelled to vote no, because the Senate could convict only a president still in office.[20]
Senate Judiciary Committee Investigation
Also during 2021, the Senate Judiciary Committee initiated an eight-month investigation into actions taken by the White House to pressure the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Led by Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the committee gathered documents, interviewed key DOJ officials, and tracked telephone calls and meetings initiated by President Trump and his senior staff with senior DOJ officials in violation of long-standing policies limiting contacts between the White House and DOJ to prevent politicization of the department.
On October 7, 2021, the committee issued a 394-page majority staff report containing findings of facts and recommendations.[21] The report detailed almost daily White House interactions with DOJ officials urging DOJ investigations, letters, and legal filings alleging election fraud. It also recounted actions taken by President Trump to replace Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with a DOJ environmental lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, willing to take actions sought by the president. The report indicated that when told such an appointment would trigger mass DOJ resignations, the President decided not to replace the Acting Attorney General. The report also described actions taken by President Trump to force the resignation and replacement of the U.S. Attorney in Georgia, Byung Jin Pak, for failing to uncover election fraud in that state. To substantiate its factual findings, the report disclosed over three dozen internal DOJ documents, including emails and handwritten notes.
The majority staff report offered several recommendations for reforms. The first recommendation was to strengthen the post-Watergate protections designed to insulate DOJ from White House political pressures by requiring a mandatory written log of DOJ-White House contacts and authority for the DOJ Inspector General to review that log and investigate apparent violations of contact policies. Additional recommendations included strengthening prohibitions against DOJ interference with elections and expanding federal obstruction crimes to include state election proceedings. Committee Chair Durbin also asked the D.C. Bar to initiate disciplinary proceedings against DOJ attorney Clark. In 2024, a D.C. Bar committee recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law,[22] which Mr. Clark appealed.
House Select Committee
Several standing House committees initiated inquiries into the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, including the Committee on House Administration,[23] Committee on Appropriations,[24] Committee on Oversight and Accountability,[25] and the Committee on the Judiciary.[26] But the most comprehensive, detailed, bipartisan inquiry was conducted by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, also known as the January 6 Committee, established on June 30, 2021.[27]
The House directed the committee to investigate the “facts, circumstances, and causes” of the attack and to conclude its work by the end of 2022. Over the next 17 months of its work, the committee conducted an extensive investigation and held nine hearings and two business meetings, all of which were televised and generated widespread media and public attention. In December 2022, the committee issued an 845-page report detailing its factual findings and recommendations.[28]
The January 6 Committee had nine members. Seven were Democrats: Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Representatives Pete Aguilar (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Elaine Luria (D-VA), Stephanie Murray (D-FL), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and Adam Schiff (D-CA). Two were Republicans: Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).
Prior to forming the select committee, on May 19, 2021, the House had voted 252-175 to form an independent commission to investigate the January 6 attack.[29] That House bill was never acted on by the Senate, however. As a result, on June 30, 2021, the House voted 222-190 to form the select committee instead.[30] Only two Republicans, Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, voted in favor of its creation; both eventually became committee members.
Under House Rules, the House Speaker appoints the members of all select committees.[31] Accordingly, the resolution creating the January 6 Committee stated that the “Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.”[32] House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy recommended five Republicans for the committee, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two – Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) who had been “personally involved” in some relevant events and Jim Banks (R-IN) who had already stated publicly that the committee was created “solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.”[33] In response, Mr. McCarthy withdrew all five of the Republicans he had recommended. In the end, Speaker Pelosi appointed seven Democrats and two Republicans to the committee and chose not to fill the remaining four slots. Her decision was later challenged in several court cases, but no court found error with her selection of the January 6 Committee members.[34]
In July 2021, the committee began hiring staff and organizing its work. Over the next 17 months, the committee employed nearly 100 staffers, contractors, and consultants.[35] The staff served committee members on both sides of the aisle.
Hearings and Business Meetings
On July 27, 2021, soon after its establishment, the January 6 Committee held a hearing that featured four U.S. Capitol Police officers, Harry Dunn, Michael Fanone, Aquilino Gonell, and Daniel Hodges, testifying about their experiences during the January 6 attack.[36] Committee Chair Thompson opened the hearing with these solemn words:
Let me say a few words at the outset about this Committee’s work …. We’re going to be guided solely by the facts: the facts of what happened on January 6th, the run-up to that tragic day, and what has taken place since. … There is no place for politics or partisanship in this investigation. Our only charge is to follow the facts where they lead.[37]
Nearly a year passed before the committee held another hearing; members and staff used the time to investigate what happened. The staff reportedly collected and reviewed over 1 million documents,[38] viewed and analyzed hundreds of hours of video, and conducted over 1,000 interviews.[39] The committee also reportedly issued over 100 subpoenas.[40] Targets who filed lawsuits to block those subpoenas were largely unsuccessful.[41]
Beginning in June 2022, the committee orchestrated a series of eight public hearings over two months, each of which received extensive, live coverage on media outlets seen by millions of Americans. The hearings presented testimony from over 70 witnesses and used innovative techniques to convey information to the public.[42] For example, rather than having every committee member question every witness for a set time limit, the committee designated one or two committee members to question the witnesses with no set time limit. The committee also made extensive use of visual materials including film clips from television footage, U.S. Capitol internal camera recordings, recorded committee depositions, and other sources, hiring television producers to help present the evidence in a compelling way.
Each hearing lasted about two hours and conveyed information organized around a selected topic. The vast majority of the hearing witnesses were Republicans, most of whom had worked in the Trump White House, in state government, or in other avenues of public service.[43]
The first hearing, on June 9, 2022, provided an overview of the series and placed former President Trump at the center of what the committee described as a deliberate effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election.[44] Committee Vice Chair Cheney stated:
Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated 7-part plan to overturn the Presidential election and prevent the transfer of Presidential power. In our hearings, you will see evidence of each element of this plan.[45]
The committee heard live testimony from Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards and documentary filmmaker Nick Quested about what they saw on January 6. The committee also showed video clips of statements by over a dozen individuals describing the events of the day including former Vice President Pence, Attorney General William Barr, Steve Bannon, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley. In addition, the committee showed video of rioters explaining that they had stormed the Capitol, because they thought President Trump had directed them to stop the election from being stolen from him.
The second hearing, on June 13, 2022, focused on evidence that the president knew he had lost the election but decided to falsely allege that he had actually won and was denied victory due to election fraud.[46] The committee played video clips from President Trump’s campaign, White House, and Justice Department personnel, including Attorney General Barr, indicating they had told the president he’d lost and saw no evidence of election fraud that would have changed the outcome.
The committee took live testimony from Chris Stirewalt, a Fox News employee who called the election results in Arizona; a former U.S. Attorney from Georgia, Byung Jin “B.J.” Pak, who found no evidence of election fraud in that state; former Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican who saw no evidence of widespread election fraud in Philadelphia; and Ben Ginsburg, a prominent Republican election law expert. Witnesses described the pressures exerted on them by President Trump or his allies to support false claims of election fraud despite courts repeatedly dismissing those claims for lack of evidence.
The third hearing, on June 16, 2022, focused on efforts to pressure Vice President Pence to reject multiple state-certified presidential electoral results at the joint session of Congress on January 6, send those results back to the states, or simply declare Mr. Trump the winner of the election.[47] The hearing detailed the intense effort undertaken by President Trump, campaign attorney John Eastman, and others to convince Vice President Pence to act. The hearing presented live testimony from the vice president’s legal counsel, Greg Jacob, who described both the sustained pressure campaign and how the vice president withstood it.[48] In addition, Mr. Jacob and retired Judge Michael Luttig, a respected Republican, explained why the vice president lacked the authority to change the electoral count.[49] The hearing also showed rioters chanting “Hang Mike Pence” and threatening his safety at the Capitol, and a tweet sent by President Trump during the attack condemning the vice president’s failure to stop the electoral count.[50]
The fourth hearing, on June 21, 2022, focused on efforts to pressure state officials to change their presidential election results.[51] The hearing presented a montage of video clips on actions taken by President Trump, his campaign lawyers, and others using false information or intimidation tactics to try to convince state officials to rescind their certifications, send alternate electors to Congress, or simply declare President Trump the winner.[52] The hearing also detailed the origins of the “fake elector” plan and efforts by President Trump and his allies to vilify state officials who disagreed with his claims of election fraud.[53]
The hearing took live testimony related to Arizona and Georgia. The first witness was Republican Rusty Bowers, speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. He testified how President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and others pressed him to overturn the state’s election results, claiming massive election fraud but without providing proof. He explained that he refused to act, because he was unwilling to break his oath to uphold the state and federal Constitutions.[54]
Four witnesses described a similar pressure campaign in Georgia. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his chief operating officer Gabriel Sterling testified about a January 2, 2021, hour-long telephone call in which President Trump pressed them to find him an additional 11,780 votes to win the state in a recount, again claiming massive voter fraud without proof.[55] The hearing showed that after the two officials debunked the fraud claims, President Trump’s allies reacted by vilifying both men. In addition, in dramatic testimony, two Georgia election workers from Fulton County, Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, who testified live, and her mother Ruby Freeman, who spoke at a recorded deposition, explained how Rudy Giuliani had falsely claimed that a video showed them mishandling ballots, leading to their being falsely accused of election fraud and subjected to numerous threats including from strangers who showed up at their home.[56] Despite the pressure campaign and vilification of uncooperative state officials, no state altered the certification of its votes.
The fifth hearing, on June 23, 2022, focused on efforts to pressure the Department of Justice (DOJ) to support President Trump’s false claims of election fraud.[57] Two former senior DOJ officials testified, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donahue. Both stated that President Trump had repeatedly pressed DOJ to investigate unsubstantiated election fraud claims, at one point suggesting the appointment of a special counsel to take over the investigation and at another point suggesting that DOJ seize state voting machines.[58] They also testified about a letter drafted by DOJ environmental lawyer Jeff Clark to be sent to Georgia falsely declaring that DOJ had “significant concerns” about election fraud and recommending that the Georgia legislature consider approving new electors. Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donahue said they rejected the letter, not only because it was contrary to the facts but also because DOJ lacked legal authority to address state elector issues.
Mr. Donahue also testified about a lengthy December 27, 2021 telephone call about the election in which President Trump told Mr. Donahue, “Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.”[59] After learning that President Trump planned to appoint Mr. Clark as Attorney General to force DOJ to support his election fraud claims, both witnesses described a January 3, 2022, White House meeting in which they informed the President that senior DOJ officials would resign if that happened.[60] President Trump decided not to replace Mr. Rosen.
The sixth hearing, on June 28, 2022, featured a single witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, former top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.[61] Ms. Hutchinson provided testimony about actions taken by President Trump, Mark Meadows, and others before and on the day of the January 6 attack. She testified that, on January 6, President Trump was informed but was unconcerned that some members of the crowd at his rally were armed, saying that they weren’t going to use the weapons against him, and that despite a warning from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone not to go to the Capitol for fear of being charged with a crime of “obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count,” President Trump had tried to force his security detail to drive him there after his speech. In addition, she testified that the President refused multiple pleas to calm the chaos. She described hearing Mr. Cipollone being upset at what was happening, including the crowds’ chants to hang Vice President Pence, saying that the White House needed to “do something more” to stop the attack on the Capitol and Mark Meadows responding “something to the effect of, you heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it.” The hearing showed that, at 4:17 p.m., three hours after the riot began, President Trump issued a tweet telling the rioters to go home.
The seventh hearing, on July 12, 2022, focused on President Trump’s actions summoning angry protesters to Washington for the rally, tweeting it “will be wild,” and later directing the crowd to march to the Capitol.[62] The hearing played video clips from a deposition provided the prior week by former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Mr. Cipollone stated that he saw no evidence of widespread election fraud. He also described a six-hour White House meeting on December 18, 2020, in which President Trump, campaign lawyer Sidney Powell, White House advisors, and others hotly debated the election fraud claims and a draft executive order to enable the president to direct the U.S. military to seize state voting machines. The draft would have also allowed him to appoint a special counsel – Ms. Powell – to investigate election fraud. The draft order was strongly opposed by Mr. Cipollone and other White House aides. It was after that meeting that President Trump, at 1:42 a.m., posted his tweet announcing the January 6 rally.
In addition, the hearing presented evidence showing that right-wing media promoted the rally as a way to contest the election results; social media posts called for violence; and extremist groups coordinated their actions. Evidence also indicated that President Trump’s instruction to march to the Capitol was not spontaneous but planned.[63] Two witnesses, Jason Van Tatenhove, former spokesperson for the extremist group Oath Keepers, and Stephen Aryes, a January 6 rioter and criminal defendant, provided live testimony. Mr. Tatenhove, who left the Oath Keepers in 2017, described the group as a “violent militia.”[64] Mr. Aryes, who attended the rally as an individual, testified he hadn’t planned to march to the Capitol, but after President Trump’s speech, was “just following what he said.”[65] He said he left the Capitol when President Trump tweeted that the crowd should go home.
The eighth and final hearing in the series, on July 21, 2022, focused on President Trump’s conduct during the attack on the Capitol and his refusal for three hours to take any action to quell the violence.[66] Former White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews and former national security aide Matthew Pottinger provided live testimony about Mr. Trump’s refusal to call off the attack as it was happening despite pleas from family, Members of Congress, White House staff, and conservative commentators. The committee also showed that, at a critical moment, rather than calm the violence, the President issued a tweet condemning Vice President Pence which further angered rioters.[67] The hearing also played video clips from a deposition by Metropolitan Police officer Sgt. Mark Robinson who was assigned to the President’s motorcade on January 6, and corroborated Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony about the heated exchange between the President and the security team who refused to drive him to the Capitol.[68]
Having concluded the hearings on President Trump’s multi-part effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the committee took the next three months to analyze new information that continued to emerge. On October 13, 2022, the committee held a business meeting which disclosed some of that evidence.[69] Records from President Trump’s allies, the Secret Service, and others helped substantiate earlier evidence and shed light on “President Trump’s state of mind, his intent, his motivations” on January 6.[70] Some of the new records also demonstrated that the Secret Service had ample warning of the upcoming violence, knew that armed individuals were present at the rally, and were aware of the threats directed to Vice President Pence and others.[71]
At the end of the business meeting, the committee voted unanimously to issue a bipartisan subpoena to former President Trump for relevant documents.[72] Committee members explained they needed those documents to complete their work. Mr. Trump responded with a lawsuit to block the subpoena.[73] Before any court ruling, however, due to the deadline to finish its work, the committee sent a letter withdrawing the subpoena on December 28, 2022.[74] Due to the same deadline, the committee withdrew subpoenas from other witnesses as well.[75]
The committee’s final public session, on December 19, 2022, was a business meeting in which each committee member recapped a portion of the evidence and described the committee’s findings of fact.[76] The committee also aired film footage summarizing its earlier hearings as well as a clip from a new deposition by senior Trump adviser Hope Hicks.
At the end of the hearing, the committee members voted unanimously to approve the committee’s final bipartisan report. Three days later, on December 22, 2022, the committee released its report to the public. The report detailed the committee’s year-long investigation, the evidence it collected, and its factual findings. The report also offered recommendations for reforms.[77] They included supporting legislation to clarify that the vice president cannot overturn state certifications of their electoral votes; strengthening U.S. strategies to combat violent extremism; analyzing the Insurrection Act for possible changes; designating the congressional session to count electoral votes as a National Special Security Event triggering extra safeguards; and clarifying the ability of Congress to enforce its subpoenas in court.
On January 3, 2023, having archived its records, the January 6 Committee disbanded.
Aftermath
The aftermath of the January 6 attack and the investigations by Congress included policy reforms, criminal prosecutions, and electoral consequences.
The most important policy reform was congressional enactment, on December 29, 2022, of the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act.[78] Adopted on a bipartisan basis, the new law clarified the procedures related to the presidential electoral count process, permissible court and congressional challenges to state electoral votes, and the vice president’s ministerial role in counting those votes, stating that the vice president has “no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes” over state electoral votes. In addition, the U.S. Capitol Police and other federal agencies continued to implement the many reforms recommended by Congress to better secure the U.S. Capitol.
In 2021 and 2022, the House voted to refer for prosecution for contempt of Congress five individuals who’d refused to comply with subpoenas issued by the January 6 Committee: Steven Bannon, an outside advisor to President Trump; Peter Navarro, a senior White House advisor; Mark Meadows, the president’s chief of staff; Daniel Scavino, President Trump’s social media director; and Jeffrey Clark, a former DOJ lawyer. DOJ indicted and obtained convictions of Mr. Bannon and Mr. Navarro, each of whom served four months in prison, the first contempt of Congress prison sentences in 50 years.[79] Without public explanation, DOJ chose not to indict the other three officials referred for prosecution.
The January 6 Committee also referred multiple individuals to DOJ for possible prosecution, including President Trump.[80] In addition, the committee referred four members of Congress, Andy Biggs, Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, and Scott Perry, to the House Ethics Committee to determine whether noncompliance with a committee subpoena violated House standards and warranted disciplinary action.[81]
For its part, the DOJ launched one of the largest prosecution efforts in its history into the January 6th attack. By November 2024, it had indicted over 1,500 individuals, 1,200 of whom had pleaded guilty or were convicted after a contested trial, and 645 of whom were sentenced to prison. The indictments for federal crimes ranged from disorderly conduct and trespassing to seditious conspiracy;[82] 169 defendants were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Additional indictments were planned, but with Mr. Trump’s re-election and promise to pardon most if not all of the convicted individuals, the prosecutions ceased.
Mr. Trump was also indicted. On August 1, 2023, a special counsel appointed by DOJ, Jack Smith, charged the former president with four criminal obstruction and conspiracy counts for interfering with the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.[83] In July 2024, a controversial 6-3 Supreme Court ruling found for the first time in U.S. history that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official actions taken while in office.[84] Following that ruling, Special Counsel Smith filed a superseding indictment narrowing the charges to focus on unofficial actions taken by Mr. Trump in his role as a candidate seeking office.[85] Once Mr. Trump won re-election as U.S. president, however, DOJ dismissed the indictment in its entirety due to its long-standing policy against prosecuting a sitting president.
In August 2023, the state of Georgia indicted Mr. Trump for interfering with the presidential election results in that state.[86] The indictment alleges that Mr. Trump and others violated state law by operating a criminal enterprise to influence the 2020 election results. After his re-election as president, Mr. Trump’s legal counsel moved to dismiss the state indictment as well so contending it would hinder a sitting president.
In addition to policy reforms and criminal proceedings, the January 6 attack and related congressional investigations impacted some elections. In early 2022, the Republican National Committee officially censured Rep. Cheney and Rep. Kinzinger for their actions as January 6 Committee members.[87] Rep. Cheney subsequently lost her 2022 primary election in Wyoming; Rep. Kinzinger had earlier chosen not to run for re-election. Rep. Luria, another January 6 Committee member, lost her re-election campaign that same year. On the presidential level, Mr. Trump ran for the office in 2024 but did not select former Vice President Pence as his running mate. In November 2024, Mr. Trump won re-election as U.S. president.
Conclusion
The January 6 attack on the Capitol shocked the nation. The House and Senate investigations into the facts garnered widespread media and public attention, but did not resolve divergent public views of what happened. Polls taken in 2024, for example, indicated that about one-third of the U.S. adult population did not accept the January 6 Committee’s findings related to Mr. Trump and continued to question the validity of the 2020 presidential election results.[88]
History shows that evidence collected by Congress continues to undergo careful scrutiny over time. By collecting key evidence related to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Congress will help Americans analyze and understand a critical event in U.S. history. In addition, the congressional investigations generated needed reforms to strengthen U.S. Capitol security, safeguard the peaceful transfer of power after a presidential election, and protect the future of American democracy.
Learn More
- Final report of the January 6 Committee.
- C-SPAN video of January 6 Committee hearings and business meetings.
- Document collection related to January 6 attack compiled by Union College.
- Report by DOJ IG on the FBI’s use of undercover agents and confidential sources during the attack.
- January 6th. (2023) [Documentary film].
- Democracy on Trial (2024) [Documentary Film].
[1] Government Accountability Office. (2023, February). Capitol attack: Federal agencies identified some threats, but did not fully process and share information prior to January 6, 2021, p. 1. https://www.gao.gov/assets/d23106625.pdf
[2] National Archives. (n.d.) 2020 Electoral College Results. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020
[3] House Report 117-663. Final report: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, (2022, December 22). p. 210. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-J6-REPORT/summary
[4} Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol: Hearing before HSGAC and Rules, 117th Cong. (2021, February 23 and March 3). https://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG-117shrg44585/CHRG-117shrg44585.pdf
[5] Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, pp. 9-10 (2021, February 23).
[6] Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, pp. 14-15, 24 (2021, February 23).
[7] Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, pp. 28-29 (2021, February 23).
[8] Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, pp. 25-26 (2021, February 23).
[9] Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, p. 191 (2021, March 3).
[10] Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, pp. 214-215 (2021, March 3).
[11] (2021). Examining the U.S. Capitol attack: A review of the security, planning, and response failures on January 6. Joint staff report by the Senate HSGAC and Rules Committees. https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan%206%20HSGAC%20Rules%20Report.pdf
[12] Oversight of the United States capitol police following the January 6 attack on the Capitol, part I: Hearing before the Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate. 117th Cong. (2021, June 16). https://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG-117shrg44913/CHRG-117shrg44913.pdf
[13] Examining the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, part II: Hearing before the Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate, 117th Cong. p. 7. (2021, December 7). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117shrg46372/pdf/CHRG-117shrg46372.pdf
[14] Oversight of the United States capital police following the January 6 attack on the Capitol, part III: Hearing before the Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate. 117th Cong. (2022, January 5). https://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG-117shrg46692/CHRG-117shrg46692.pdf
[15] Oversight of the United States capital police following the January 6 attack on the Capitol, part III, pp. 9-11 (2022, January 5).
[16] Planned in Plain Sight: A Review of the Intelligence Failures in Advance of January 6th, 2021. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Majority Staff Report. (2023). https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/230627_HSGAC-Majority-Report_Jan-6-Intel.pdf ; Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (2023, July 6). Peters Report Finds Significant Intelligence Failures by FBI and DHS in Lead-Up to January 6th Capitol Attack. [Press Release]. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/dems/icymi-peters-report-finds-significant-intelligence-failures-by-fbi-and-dhs-in-lead-up-to-january-6th-capitol-attack/
[17] 167 Cong. Rec. H191 (daily ed. 2021, January 13) (House roll call vote of 232-197 in favor of H. Res. 24 to impeach President Trump). https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/01/13/167/8/CREC-2021-01-13-pt1-PgH165.pdf
[18] H. Res. 24 (2021, January 25). https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hres24/BILLS-117hres24rds.pdf
[19] 167 Cong. Rec. S733 (2021, February 13) (Senate roll call vote of 57-43 in favor of convicting President Trump). https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/02/13/CREC-2021-02-13-senate.pdf
[20] 167 Cong. Rec. S735 (2021, February 13) (statement of Senator McConnell on impeachment). https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/02/13/CREC-2021-02-13-senate.pdf
[21] Subverting justice: How the former president and his allies pressured DOJ to overturn the 2020 election. (2021, October 7). Senate Committee on the Judiciary. [Majority Staff Report]. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim%20Staff%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
[22] In re Jeffrey B. Clark, D.C. Board Docket No. 22-BD-039, Disciplinary Docket No. 2021-D193, Report and Recommendation of Hearing Committee Number Twelve (2024, August 1). https://statesunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-08-01-issuance-letter-and-report-and-recommendation-of-hearing-committee-number-twelve.pdf
[23] The Committee on House Administration, through its Subcommittee on Oversight, held at least seven hearings on issues related to the January 6 attack, focused primarily on security lapses at the U.S. Capitol and criticisms of the work of the House January 6 select committee. https://cha.house.gov/hearings . In December 2024, the Committee issued a majority staff report summarizing its work during the 118th Congress. https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/6/d/6dae7b82-7683-4f56-a177-ba98695e600d/145DD5A70E967DEEC1F511764D3E6FA1.final-interim-report.pdf
[24] The Committee on Appropriations held at least three hearings related to the January 6 attack on January 26, 2021, and January 11 and February 25, 2022. https://appropriations.house.gov
[25] The Committee on Oversight and Accountability gathered information, conducted interviews, and held at least three hearings related to the January 6 attack. https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/investigations/january-6
[26] The Committee on the Judiciary gathered information and conducted sworn depositions on issues related to the January 6 attack, including regarding pipe bombs placed near party headquarters on Capitol Hill. https://judiciary.house.gov/
[27] H. Res. 503, section 3(1). (2021). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/503#:~:text=H.-,Res.,117th%20Congress%20(2021%2D2022)
[28] House Report 117-663. (2022).
[29] 167 Cong. Rec. H2,592 (daily ed. May 19, 2021) (House roll call vote of 252-175 in favor of H.R. 3233, National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act). https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/05/19/167/87/CREC-2021-05-19-pt1-PgH2592.pdf
[30] 167 Cong. Rec. H3,335 (daily ed. June 30, 2021) (House roll call vote of 222-190 in favor of H. Res. 503 to establish the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol). https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/06/30/167/114/CREC-2021-06-30-pt1-PgH3322.pdf
[31] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule 1, Section 11. 117th Cong. (n.d.) https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-rules.house.gov/files/117-House-Rules-Clerk-U1.pdf
[32] Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. (2021, June 30). H. Res. 503, Section 2(a). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/503/text
[33] House Report 117-663 (2022), p. 130.
[34] See, e.g., Republican National Committee v. Pelosi, Case No. 22-659, Memorandum Opinion, pp. 30-33 (D.D.C. May 1, 2022). https://www.levin-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-5-1-DC-district-court-opinion-dismissing-RNC-lawsuit-to-block-Jan.-6-subpoena.pdf
[35] House Report 117-663 (2022), pp. iii-iv.
[36] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation: Hearings before the January 6 Committee, House of Representatives, 117th Cong. (2021, July 27). https://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG-117hhrg50139/CHRG-117hhrg50139.pdf
[37] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, pp. 1-2 (2021, July 27).
[38] Jalonick, M. (2023, January 2). Jan. 6 panel shutting down after concluding 18-month investigation. Associated Press. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/jan-6-panel-shutting-down-after-concluding-18-month-investigation
[39] Jalonick, M. (2022, June 9). Jan. 6 panel’s 1,000 witnesses: From Trump aides to rioters. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-hearing-targets-interviews-029d6a76146b4735b9e05bb70f41916f
[40] Jalonick, M. (2022).
[41] Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy. January 6 Committee court cases. Viewed October 28, 2024. https://levin-center.org/congressional-lawmakers/congressional-oversight-resources/oversight-case-law/case-list/ For example, John Eastman, who provided legal advice to the Trump campaign while employed as a law professor at Chapman University in California, filed a lawsuit to prevent the committee from subpoenaing his emails at the university. The court generally upheld the congressional subpoena, but did block access to a number of emails protected by the attorney-client privilege. At the same time, the court ruled that eight emails protected by the attorney-client privilege still had to be produced under the “crime-fraud exception,” because they contained evidence indicating that Prof. Eastman and former President Trump were “more likely than not” to have participated in obstruction or conspiracy crimes related to the Capitol attack. Eastman v. Thompson, Case No. 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM, Order re Privilege of Remaining Documents (C.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2022), p. 14. https://levin-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-10-19-CDCA-District-Court-opinion-ordering-release-of-certain-documents.pdf
[42] Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy. (2023, January 30). How the January 6 Committee broke the mold: what it means for future oversight. [Video of panel discussion]. https://www.c-span.org/video/?525652-1/discussion-january-6-committee-investigation-government-oversight
[43] House Report 117-663 (2022), pp. 131-134.
[44] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 67 (2022, June 9).
[45] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 71 (2022, June 9).
[46] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 95 (2022, June 13).
[47] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 615 (2022, June 16).
[48] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 622-647 (2022, June 16).
[49] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 620-626, 628-630, 648 (2022, June 16).
[50] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 618, 641-643 (2022, June 16).
[51] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 661 (2022, June 21).
[52] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, pp. 664-667 (2022, June 21).
[53] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, pp. 676-678, 681, 689-690 (2022, June 21).
[54] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, pp. 668-675, 678 (2022, June 21).
[55] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, pp. 681-690 (2022, June 21).
[56] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, pp. 692-695 (2022, June 21). Ms. Moss and Ms. Freeman later won a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Giuliani. Whitehurst, L. and Durkin Richer, A. (2023, December 15). Jury awards $148 million in damages to Georgia Election workers over Rudy Giuliani’s 2020 vote lies. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/giuliani-2020-election-georgia-defamation-moss-freeman-6f6446c4f5224f521db8ff7763fb12d1
[57] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 705 (2022, June 23).
[58] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, pp. 712, 714-717, 722, 727-730 (2022, June 23).
[59] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 717 (2022, June 23). Mr. Donohue testified that he had been taking notes of the telephone conversation and wrote down that statement by President Trump.
[60] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 710, 728-738 (2022, June 23).
[61] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 765 (2022, June 28).
[62] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 793 (2022, July 12).
[63] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, pp. 814-815 (2022, July 12).
[64] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 823 (2022, July 12).
[65] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 825 (2022, July 12).
[66] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 837 (2022, July 21).
[67] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, p. 851-854 (2022, July 21).
[68] Compilation of Hearings on the January 6th Investigation, pp. 844-845 (2022, July 21).
[69] Business meeting on the January 6th investigation: Hearing before the January 6 Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong. (2022, October 13). https://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG-117hhrg50118/CHRG-117hhrg50118.pdf
[70] Business meeting on the January 6th investigation, pp. 3 (2022, October 13).
[71] Business meeting on the January 6th investigation, pp. 20-23, 26, 31-32 (2022, October 13).
[72] Business meeting on the January 6th investigation, pp. 35, 37 (2022, October 13).
[73] Trump v. Select Committee, Case No. 9:22-cv-81758 (S.D. Fla. 2022). https://levin-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-11-11-Trump-complaint-against-January-6-Committee.pdf
[74] (2022, December 29). Jan. 6 committee drops Donald Trump subpoena as it wraps up work. Associated Press. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/jan-6-committee-drops-donald-trump-subpoena-as-it-wraps-up-work#:~:text=6%20committee%20has%20dropped%20its,is%20formally%20withdrawing%20the%20subpoena.
[75] Macagnone, M. (2023, March 24). Jan. 6 committee shows Congress can’t enforce subpoenas alone. Roll Call. https://rollcall.com/2023/03/24/jan-6-committee-shows-congress-cant-enforce-subpoenas-alone/
[76] Business meeting to consider the Select Committee’s final report: Hearing before the January 6 Committee, House of Representatives, 117th Cong. (2022, December 22). https://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG-117hhrg50119/CHRG-117hhrg50119.pdf
[77] House Report 117-663 (2022), p. 689.
[78] Pub. L. No. 117-328 136 Stat. 5233 (2022) (signed into law as Division P of H.R. 2617, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ328/pdf/PLAW-117publ328.pdf
[79] Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy, Oversight Caselaw, Bannon and Navarro Contempt of Congress cases. (Viewed November 29, 2024). https://levin-center.org/congressional-lawmakers/congressional-oversight-resources/oversight-case-law/case-list/
[80] House Report 117-663 (2022), pp. 103-113.
[81] House Report 117-663 (2022), pp. 114-118. The Ethics Committee has yet to resolve the issue.
[82] U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia. (2024, November 6). 46 Months Since the Jan. 6 Attack on U.S. Capitol. [Press Release]. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/44-months-jan-6-attack-us-capitol
[83] United States v. Trump. [Federal indictment] (2023, August 1). https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
[84] United States v. Trump, 603 U.S. __ (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
[85] United States v. Trump. (2024, August 27). [Superseding Indictment]. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.226.0.pdf
[86] Georgia v. Trump. (2023, August 14). [Georgia Fulton Superior Court Indictment]. https://www.scribd.com/document/665036274/Trump-Indictment-Georgia-081423
[87] Republican National Committee. (2022, February 4). Resolution to formally censure Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and to no longer support them as members of the Republican Party. [Resolution]. https://prod-static.gop.com/media/2-RESOLUTION-TO-FORMALLY-CENSURE-LIZ-CHENEY-AND-ADAM-KINZINGER.pdf
[88] Fortinsky, S. (2024, January 2). “One-third of adults in new poll say Biden’s election was illegitimate.” The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4384619-one-third-of-americans-say-biden-election-illegitimate/