DOJ Scrubs Jan. 6 Defendant News Releases from Website

The U.S. Department of Justice has removed hundreds of news releases from its official website documenting criminal charges, convictions, and sentencings related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — and it is openly acknowledging the purge, according to AP News. The DOJ characterized the information as “partisan propaganda” and framed the removals as part of a broader effort to “reverse the DOJ’s weaponization under the Biden administration.”

Acknowledged and Defended

After a journalist on the social media platform X observed the “quiet” removal of releases — including one about a Texas man who pleaded guilty to assault and faced separate state charges of soliciting a minor — the DOJ Rapid Response account responded bluntly: “Nothing ‘quiet’ about it.”

“We are proud to reverse the DOJ’s weaponization under the Biden administration,” the account posted. “We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes. This includes stripping DOJ’s website of partisan propaganda.”

A review by NBC News found that the “vast majority” of press releases pertaining to Jan. 6 defendants had been removed from the DOJ website as of May 22. Among the releases taken down were those concerning seditious conspiracy cases against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, far-right extremist groups.

Part of a Broader Rewriting

The website scrubbing is the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration to systematically reframe the narrative of the Capitol assault. On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Trump pardoned, commuted the prison sentences of, or vowed to dismiss the cases of all 1,500-plus people charged in connection with the riot — including those convicted of attacking police officers with makeshift weapons.

Since then, the administration has fired DOJ and FBI officials who worked on the Jan. 6 investigations and moved to vacate seditious conspiracy convictions against Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders. A federal appeals court granted that request on May 21, and the department moved to dismiss the cases against group members the following day, as The Guardian reported.

The $1.776 Billion Controversy

On May 18, the DOJ announced the creation of a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund meant to compensate Trump allies who claim they were unjustly investigated and prosecuted. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not ruled out that rioters convicted of violence could be eligible for payouts — a stance that has drawn bipartisan anger in Congress.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the notion of compensating rioters “absurd and offensive,” while Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) described the fund as a “payout pot for punks,” according to NBC News.

Legal Challenges Mount

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the fund. A fired Jan. 6 prosecutor and a law professor filed suit arguing the fund creates a politically discriminatory exclusion process. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called it “a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption” and noted it was not approved by Congress. Two Capitol Police officers who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6 also filed suit, alleging the fund would “directly finance the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters.”

Implications for Public Record

The removal of press releases eliminates a significant public record of the largest criminal investigation in DOJ history. While underlying court records remain accessible through the federal judiciary’s PACER system, the DOJ’s curated case summaries are no longer available through the official government portal. Critics argue this sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations to remove official records deemed politically inconvenient.

What to Watch

Legal battles over the compensation fund are expected to test the boundaries of executive authority, particularly whether the president can create compensation mechanisms without congressional approval. Questions also remain about whether the removed press releases will be preserved in any government archive, such as the National Archives, and whether Congress will take legislative action to block or regulate the fund.