The events of January 6, 2021, remain one of the most analyzed and debated moments in recent U.S. history. A new report from the Department of Justice’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz sheds significant light on the role—or lack thereof—of the FBI in the Capitol riots. The findings decisively counter claims that the FBI instigated or encouraged the violence that disrupted Congress’s certification of President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.
No Evidence of Undercover FBI Agents at the Capitol
Conspiracy theories alleging that undercover FBI agents orchestrated or incited the January 6 riots have gained traction among certain groups. However, Horowitz’s comprehensive review found no evidence to support these allegations. The report
confirms that FBI agents did not act undercover at the Capitol or nearby protests. Furthermore, it clarified that the bureau did not authorize or encourage any unlawful activities on the part of rioters.
These conclusions undermine persistent claims that law enforcement played a covert role in provoking the chaos. Instead, Horowitz’s findings reinforce that the violence stemmed from the mob itself rather than external manipulation by the FBI or other government entities.
The Role of FBI Informants
The report identifies 26 individuals at the January 6 events who had previously served as FBI informants, officially referred to as Confidential Human Sources (CHSs). Of these, only three were specifically tasked by the FBI to monitor individuals suspected of domestic terrorism. The remaining informants attended the events of their own volition, without any directives from the FBI.
Notably, four of these informants entered the Capitol building, while nine trespassed on Capitol grounds. However, the Inspector General emphasized that none of these informants were authorized to engage in illegal activities or incite others to do so.
FBI’s Missed Opportunities
While the report exonerates the FBI from allegations of incitement, it highlights shortcomings in the bureau’s intelligence-gathering efforts leading up to January 6. Horowitz criticized the FBI for failing to adequately canvass its sources for information about potential threats before the events unfolded.
Confidential informants had provided warnings about the escalating rhetoric and preparations among far-right groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. However, the FBI did not act decisively on this intelligence, leaving the agency ill-prepared for the violence that erupted.
False Statements to Congress
The report also addresses a false statement made by the FBI to Congress, claiming that all field offices had been queried about potential threats ahead of January 6. While the misstatement was found to be unintentional, it nevertheless highlights a lack of thoroughness in the FBI’s preparations.
Delays in the Report’s Release
Horowitz’s investigation was initially expected to conclude in 2022 but was delayed to avoid interfering with ongoing criminal investigations by the Department of Justice. The final report, released in December 2024, provides a clearer understanding of the events surrounding January 6 and addresses lingering questions about the FBI’s role.
Trump’s Influence on January 6
The report briefly touches on former President Donald Trump’s involvement in the events of January 6. It notes that the FBI grew increasingly concerned when it became evident that Trump would address the crowd that day. Officials within the Washington Field Office anticipated that Trump’s speech would likely increase the size and fervor of the crowd.
While Horowitz did not attribute direct responsibility to Trump for inciting the riot, the report acknowledges that his actions and rhetoric contributed to the volatile atmosphere.
The Bigger Picture: DOJ and the 2020 Election
The report also references a separate ongoing investigation into claims that some DOJ officials in Trump’s administration attempted to interfere with the 2020 election results. These efforts included initiating baseless investigations into alleged voter fraud and pressuring DOJ officials to support Trump’s claims of election irregularities.
One notable incident involved Trump’s consideration of replacing Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, a DOJ official willing to pursue Trump’s unfounded claims. While the so-called “DOJ coup” ultimately did not materialize, it underscores the tension within the department during that period.
Conclusion: A Clearer Picture of January 6
Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report serves as a definitive rebuttal to conspiracy theories about the FBI’s involvement in the January 6 Capitol riot. It underscores the absence of evidence to support claims of FBI incitement while critiquing the bureau’s lack of preparedness.
The findings reaffirm the accountability of the rioters and highlight the complexities of law enforcement’s role in managing domestic threats. As the nation continues to grapple with the aftermath of January 6, this report provides an essential perspective grounded in evidence and transparency.
FAQs About the Inspector General’s January 6 Report
1. Did the FBI have undercover agents at the Capitol on January 6?
No, the report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz found no evidence of undercover FBI agents at the Capitol or nearby protests during the January 6 riots.
2. Were FBI informants involved in the Capitol breach?
Of the 26 informants present at the events, only four entered the Capitol, and nine trespassed on Capitol grounds. None were authorized by the FBI to engage in illegal activities.
3. Did the FBI incite the January 6 riots?
The report conclusively debunks claims that the FBI incited the riots. It found no evidence that the bureau encouraged or directed unlawful actions.
4. What mistakes did the FBI make before January 6?
The FBI failed to fully utilize its informants to gather intelligence about potential threats. This oversight limited the agency’s ability to anticipate and prepare for the violence.
5. How does this report impact Donald Trump?
While the report notes Trump’s role in contributing to the volatile atmosphere on January 6, it does not directly attribute legal responsibility to him for the riot.
This detailed analysis reinforces the importance of factual reporting and transparent investigations in addressing misinformation and understanding complex events like January 6.