Five Years After January 6: Who Was Pardoned and What Happens Now

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

On his first day back in office, Donald Trump signed a proclamation pardoning 1,583 people arrested in connection with the Capitol attack. It covered not only the misdemeanor trespassers who wandered through the building taking selfies, but also those convicted of assaulting police officers with bear spray and flagpoles, members of militia groups found guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government, and individuals who had pleaded guilty to some of the most serious charges the Justice Department had brought in its history.

The proclamation called the prior criminal proceedings a “grave national injustice” and positioned the pardons as the beginning of “a process of national reconciliation.”

Some of the freed individuals have been arrested again on new charges—kidnapping, sexual assault, child pornography, conspiracy to murder FBI agents. Civil lawsuits against pardoned rioters continue to move forward in federal courts, with one jury already awarding $500,000 to the widow of a police officer who took his own life after the trauma of the attack.

Courts have begun pushing back against the Justice Department’s attempts to expand the pardon’s scope beyond crimes directly related to the Capitol. The fourteen militia leaders whose sentences the president commuted rather than pardoned—including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio—are now free, with Rhodes reportedly attempting to rebuild his organization.

The constitutional authority for what the president did is clear. The legal and political consequences remain anything but.

Who Was Pardoned

By the time the president signed the proclamation, 1,583 people had been arrested in connection with the attack, and 1,270 had been convicted—an eighty percent conviction rate that the Justice Department noted was the highest in any major criminal investigation in the agency’s history. Of those convicted, 1,009 had pleaded guilty. That’s sixty-four percent of everyone arrested and seventy-nine percent of all convictions.

The charges ranged widely. About forty-five percent of those arrested faced felonies; fifty-five percent faced misdemeanors. More than 600 people had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to assaulting or obstructing law enforcement officers.

One hundred seventy were convicted or charged with using a deadly weapon. The government documented assaults on over 140 police officers and property damage exceeding $2.8 million to the building and grounds.

Daniel Joseph “DJ” Rodriguez shot Officer Michael Fanone twice with a stun gun held to his neck while Fanone lay face-down on the ground after being dragged into the mob. Fanone suffered a heart attack and traumatic brain injuries. Rodriguez received a pardon.

Eighteen had been charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government—a federal offense akin to treason carrying a maximum sentence of twenty years. Ten were convicted after trial. Four pleaded guilty.

The proclamation didn’t categorically exclude them. Only fourteen specific individuals received sentence commutations rather than full pardons. Even among those, Enrique Tarrio—who had been serving a twenty-two-year sentence for conspiracy to overthrow the government—received a full pardon rather than a commutation.

Traditional practice involves the Office of the Pardon Attorney reviewing applications over months or years, consulting with prosecutors, sentencing judges, and victims. The Justice Manual recommends that for serious violent crimes, “a suitable length of time should elapse before a pardon is even considered to avoid denigrating the seriousness of the offense.” The president signed his proclamation within hours of taking office. No consultation occurred. Some of the individuals pardoned had been sentenced mere weeks before.

Militia Leaders With Commutations Instead of Pardons

Stewart Rhodes didn’t enter the building on the day of the attack. He directed the operation from outside. Evidence at trial showed that the Oath Keepers had stockpiled weapons at a hotel near the site and organized the assault as part of a coordinated effort to stop the lawful transfer of power.

Rhodes was sentenced to eighteen years in federal prison in May 2023. He served less than two.

Federal Judge Amit Mehta, who sentenced Rhodes, had said that “the notion that Stewart Rhodes could be absolved is frightening—and ought to be frightening to anyone who cares about democracy.” The president commuted his sentence to time served on his first day back in office.

Enrique Tarrio wasn’t at the site either—he’d been arrested two days earlier on unrelated charges. But prosecutors demonstrated that he had organized the Proud Boys’ participation in the assault, directing members to breach restricted areas and engage with law enforcement.

Investigators found a nine-page strategic plan in his possession to “storm” government buildings in Washington on that day. He received the longest sentence of any participant: twenty-two years.

Unlike Rhodes, Tarrio got a full pardon, not a commutation. He was immediately eligible for release with no remaining federal consequences.

The other twelve individuals whose sentences were commuted included Oath Keepers leaders Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Thomas Caldwell, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Minuta, Edward Vallejo, David Moerschel, and Joseph Hackett, along with Proud Boys members Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Dominic Pezzola.

These were among the most heavily sentenced participants in the assault, with terms ranging from several years to more than a decade. Pezzola was the first rioter to physically breach the building. He received a commutation despite being convicted of assaulting law enforcement.

A commutation ends the prison sentence but leaves the conviction intact. A pardon wipes the slate clean. Why the president chose to commute rather than pardon these fourteen individuals—while fully pardoning nearly everyone else, including Tarrio—remains unexplained.

What the Pardon Covers and What Courts Say It Doesn’t

The proclamation’s language was vague: it covered “offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” That phrase has become the subject of significant judicial debate.

The Justice Department initially took a narrow position: the pardon covered only crimes directly connected to the assault itself. Then, within two months, the department reversed course and began arguing for a substantially broader interpretation.

It contended that the pardon extended to unrelated crimes that law enforcement had discovered during FBI searches stemming from the investigation—things like illegal firearms possession, domestic violence charges, even child pornography.

Federal judges rejected the expanded interpretation.

Judge Dabney Friedrich, appointed by the president during his first term, became the first to reject it. The case involved Dan Wilson, who had been charged with possessing illegal firearms discovered at his home during an FBI search related to the riot investigation but unconnected to the assault itself.

Friedrich ordered Wilson back to prison to serve the remainder of his five-year sentence for the firearm convictions. She found that “to interpret the Presidential Pardon to apply to any type of offense—no matter when or where that offense was committed—simply because evidence of that offense was uncovered incident to a January 6-related search warrant would ‘defy rationality.'”

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this narrow interpretation in a split decision. Other courts followed suit. In Tennessee, a federal judge declined to expand the pardon to cover Edward Kelley, who was convicted by a jury of conspiring to kill the law enforcement officials who had investigated him—a conspiracy planned after the riot and entirely unrelated to the assault.

Judge Friedrich expressed frustration at the Justice Department’s “shifting and inconsistent positions.” She noted that prosecutors had taken wildly different positions regarding which unrelated crimes were covered by the pardon without providing any coherent explanation. In some cases, the department argued a crime was covered; in others, involving similar facts, it argued the crime was not covered.

The president could clarify or expand his pardon at any time through a new proclamation. He hasn’t.

Arrested Again: Post-Pardon Crimes

Matthew Huttle was released after serving six months in federal prison for a misdemeanor riot charge. Less than a week after his pardon, he was pulled over for habitual speeding in Jasper County, Indiana.

Body camera footage showed Huttle telling the officer he had “stormed the Capitol” and was “waiting on my pardon,” expressing concern about violating parole. When arrested for being a habitual traffic violator, Huttle ran back to his vehicle, retrieved a firearm, and was shot after briefly struggling with the deputy. He died at the scene.

The House Democratic Caucus reported in 2026 that at least 33 pardoned participants have been convicted of, charged with, or arrested for additional crimes since the riot. The charges include child sexual assault, production of child pornography, rape, conspiracy to commit murder of FBI agents, kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated robbery, reckless homicide, illegal firearms possession, domestic violence by strangulation, and drug trafficking.

John Banuelos had bragged in court that he would never serve prison time because “President Trump’s going to be in office six months from now, so I’m not worried about it.” He was right about the pardon. In October 2025, he was arrested on charges of kidnapping and sexual assault related to a 2018 incident with a woman he had allegedly trapped in his home while beating, strangling, and sexually assaulting her.

William Colton was convicted in July 2025 of receiving child pornography after images were discovered on his device during a search related to his riot investigation. He argued that the pardon should extend to his child pornography charge. A federal judge rejected the argument. Colton was sentenced to eighty months in federal prison in December 2025.

Enrique Tarrio lasted less than a month before his next arrest. On February 21, 2025, officers arrested him on charges of simple assault after he allegedly struck a woman’s arm as she held her cell phone close to his face during a news conference he was hosting outside the building.

The arrest occurred during what appeared to be an organized event where Tarrio and other pardoned individuals sought to tell their version of events. Officers from the same force that had borne the brunt of the mob’s violence on that day made the arrest.

Civil Lawsuits Continue

Presidential pardons extend only to federal criminal charges. They don’t shield anyone from civil lawsuits.

In 2026, a federal jury awarded $500,000 to the widow and estate of Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Smith, who took his own life following the trauma he suffered on that day. The jury ordered David Walls-Kaufman, a 69-year-old chiropractor who had pleaded guilty to a riot-related misdemeanor, to pay $380,000 in punitive damages and $60,000 in compensatory damages to Erin Smith for assaulting her husband inside the building.

Despite Walls-Kaufman’s pardon in the federal criminal system, the civil judgment held that he remained liable for the assault. The jury’s verdict suggests that additional civil judgments against other pardoned rioters could follow.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights has pursued what it describes as “the most wide-ranging civil lawsuit” against the president, his campaign, and over twenty other individuals, including the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leadership. The suit asserts violations of a law that bars conspiracies to use force or intimidation to prevent federal officials from doing their jobs. These cases remain pending in U.S. District Court before Judge Amit P. Mehta—the same judge who sentenced Stewart Rhodes and who expressed alarm at the prospect of his pardon.

The Justice Department has attempted to have the president removed from these cases. They continue to proceed.

Capitol Police Officers’ Response

U.S. Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger told CBS News that the pardons “send the message that politics is more important than policing.” In an exclusive interview, Manger noted that more than 140 officers from his department and the Metropolitan Police Department had been assaulted during the riot.

“My concern is the message that it sends when people who are arrested for committing violence against police officers are not held to account,” he said.

Manger reported that many officers had expressed anger and upset about the pardons. “They believe that they were doing their job properly that day, and this sends a message to them that somehow it was OK for these folks to do the things that they did.”

The chief expressed concern that the message from the federal government—that violence against police officers could be pardoned—might make his officers less willing to put themselves in harm’s way in future circumstances.

When Tarrio appeared at a press conference with other pardoned individuals on the grounds in February 2025, officers arrested him.

Congressional reactions split sharply along partisan lines, though even some Republicans expressed concern. Several Republican senators who had voted to convict the president during his second impeachment trial—including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana—publicly criticized the pardons of individuals convicted of violent crimes.

Murkowski said she was “deeply disappointed” by the pardons “for those who assaulted law enforcement officers and for those who fought to stop the constitutional certification of the 2020 election.”

Thom Tillis of North Carolina, an ally of the president, went further: “Anybody who committed violence, like the violence in Kenosha and the violence in Portland before them, should be in prison—period, full stop.” He warned that the pardons send a dangerous message about law enforcement: “You make this place less safe if you send the signal that police officers could potentially be assaulted and there is no consequence.”

State Prosecution Options

Presidential pardons cover only federal crimes. States retain the authority to prosecute individuals for crimes committed within their jurisdiction, even if those individuals have received federal pardons.

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has publicly stated that he is considering state charges against pardoned rioters from Pennsylvania, citing the legal principle that both state and federal governments can prosecute the same crime. Progressive prosecutors in other states have explored similar options.

But legal experts have cautioned that such prosecutions face significant obstacles. The need to establish that crimes were committed within the state’s jurisdiction is one hurdle. Laws that prevent someone from being tried twice for the same crime present another. State conspiracy laws vary widely in their applicability to events that occurred in Washington, D.C.

As of early 2026, no state has filed charges against any pardoned individual.

Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers

Stewart Rhodes has announced plans to rebuild the Oath Keepers militia organization. Reporting indicates that he is attempting to recruit former members and relaunch the group’s activities.

Many former Oath Keepers members appear uninterested in rejoining. Experts question whether the group maintains meaningful support or capability. But a pardoned militia leader convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the government is now free and attempting to reorganize represents a concern for law enforcement and security officials.

Rhodes served less than two years of an eighteen-year sentence. He is 59 years old.

Presidential Power and Pardon Authority

The pardon power is constitutionally clear and historically broad. The Constitution grants the president the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The Supreme Court has consistently held that this power is nearly unchecked.

Legal expert Lee Kovarsky of the University of Texas has described the action as using pardons to reward political allies—a model that sends a clear message that the president will protect allies who break the law to advance his agenda. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the Supreme Court’s 2024 presidential immunity case specifically mentioned pardons as a potential vehicle for abuse. She noted that a president could “take a bribe in exchange for a pardon” or “organize a military coup to hold onto power” with constitutional impunity.

If individuals understand that supporting a president during a violent challenge to the constitutional order may be rewarded with a pardon, the incentive structure for law-abiding behavior changes fundamentally.

The Brennan Center has warned that the pardon will dampen the way criminal penalties discourage people from breaking the law against future assaults on democratic institutions. The pardon effectively declared that the Justice Department’s prosecution effort—which secured guilty pleas or convictions for more than 1,200 individuals—was a “grave national injustice.”

That characterization may influence how federal prosecutors approach future political violence cases. It has already affected the prosecutors and FBI agents who worked the cases: in June 2025, the Department of Justice fired two supervising attorneys and a line attorney who had overseen the prosecutions.

Current Status Five Years Later

The building remains secured with barriers and enhanced security measures. The legal and political aftermath of the riot continues to unfold.

The blanket pardon of those arrested represents one of the most significant exercises of presidential clemency in American history. It fundamentally altered the legal consequences for participants in a violent assault on the building during the certification of a presidential election.

The pardon did not erase the historical record of the violence, nor did it shield freed individuals from civil litigation or future state-level prosecution. But it did eliminate federal criminal accountability for those convicted of crimes ranging from misdemeanor trespass to conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Courts have begun to chip away at the Justice Department’s efforts to expand the pardon’s scope beyond crimes directly related to the assault. But the ultimate boundaries remain uncertain.

Some pardoned individuals have found themselves arrested and charged with new crimes. Others have returned to relative obscurity. Still others have emerged as political activists or attempted to reorganize extremist groups.

Law enforcement agencies continue to grapple with the message that the pardons send about the consequences—or lack thereof—for violence against police officers in pursuit of a political cause.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.