Social media platforms are witnessing a surge of misinterpretations surrounding a report released by the Justice Department’s inspector general. Some users are inaccurately claiming that the report is evidence of the FBI’s orchestration of the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.
The inspector general’s report investigated several aspects, focusing on whether there were significant intelligence gaps prior to the riot and if the FBI played any role in inciting the violence. Online discussions have highlighted a particular finding that indicated 26 FBI informants were present in Washington for election-themed protests on that day, with three of them reportedly sent to monitor potential attendees of the events. However, despite 17 informants entering the Capitol or restricted areas, the report clarifies that none had received authorization from the FBI to do so. They were also not permitted to break the law or incentivize other individuals to commit unlawful acts.
To review the situation in detail:
The claim posited by social media users suggests that a December 2024 report from the Department of Justice is clear proof that the events of January 6 were orchestrated by the FBI. However, this assertion is incorrect. The report made clear that no undercover FBI employees were present during the riot and that the informants who were there had not been authorized to participate in any illegal activities. Informants, often referred to as confidential human sources, collaborate with the FBI but are not on its payroll, distinguishing them from undercover agents, who are directly employed by the bureau.
As per the report’s findings, 26 informants were in Washington on January 6 concerning event-related activities. Only five of these informants were communicated by field offices to the Washington Field Office or FBI headquarters regarding their presence that day. Of the 26 total informants, four made their way into the Capitol during the riot, and another 13 entered restricted areas surrounding the building. Notably, none had received FBI permission to do so, nor were they empowered to engage in unlawful behavior. The remaining nine informants did not partake in any illegal actions.
The report also indicated that the 17 informants who entered either the Capitol or the restricted areas were not prosecuted, according to a footnote that mentioned the U.S. attorney’s office generally does not charge individuals whose sole transgression on January 6 was entering the restricted grounds of the Capitol. This policy led to hundreds of individuals not facing charges. The assistant special agent in charge of the Washington Field Office’s counterterrorism division emphasized to the inspector general’s office that he had declined a request from another FBI office to use an undercover employee for investigative purposes on that day. He, along with the then-acting director of the Washington Field Office, made it clear that FBI policy does not permit undercover work at events protected by the First Amendment without specific investigative authority.
Many users on social media seemed to draw misguided conclusions based on the report’s findings. One notable post on X claimed, “JANUARY 6th WAS A SETUP!” which received over 11,400 likes and shares. This post suggested a connection between the presence of 26 FBI informants at the events and FBI Director Christopher Wray’s resignation notice just the day before. Wray’s announcement indicated he would step down at the conclusion of President Biden’s term in January.
Several users highlighted the number of FBI informants present without accurately reflecting the complete details of the report. This narrative aligns with a fringe conspiracy theory promoted by certain Republican representatives, alleging the FBI’s involvement in inciting the January 6 events when rioters aimed to reverse Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The report counters this theory, with Wray previously calling such allegations “ludicrous” during a congressional hearing.
In response to queries about the incorrect claims circulating on social media, a spokesperson for the inspector general emphasized the findings through a press release related to the report.
The report highlighted not only aspects of the FBI’s activities on January 6 but also pointed out a lapse in the FBI’s procedural measures. The report indicated that the bureau did not canvass its informants from all 56 field offices for relevant intelligence before the event, a basic step that was acknowledged as missed, and potentially crucial for aiding preparations. Nonetheless, the report recognized the FBI for its efforts to prepare for possible violence and to identify known “domestic terrorism subjects” who intended to come to Washington on that day. In response, the FBI communicated its acceptance of the inspector general’s recommendations regarding potential improvements for future events.