Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Five Years After January 6, Dozens of Pardoned Insurrectionists Have Been Arrested Again

The charges range from possession of child pornography to sexual assault, child molestation and aggravated kidnapping.

News

Five Years After January 6, Dozens of Pardoned Insurrectionists Have Been Arrested Again

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

Brent Stirton/Getty Images

When President Donald Trump on the first day of his second term granted clemency to nearly 1,600 people convicted in connection with the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel immediately set up a Google Alert to track these individuals and see if they’d end up back in the criminal justice system. Honl-Stuenkel, who works at a government watchdog nonprofit, said she didn’t want people to forget the horror of that day — despite the president’s insistence that it was a nonviolent event, a “day of love.”

Honl-Stuenkel, the digital director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington, D.C., said the Google Alerts came quickly.


The list eventually became a more formal report, published in December, that identified at least 33 insurrectionists who have been rearrested, charged or sentenced for other crimes since January 6, 2021. The charges range from possession of child pornography to sexual assault, child molestation and aggravated kidnapping. Many incidents occurred before the pardons; only four insurrectionists allegedly reoffended since receiving their pardons.

“I found it really disturbing that the pardons put people on the street again who had been held to account,” Honl-Stuenkel said. “All that was swept away with the stroke of a pen. And that has consequences mostly for the women and children in the orbit of these insurrectionists.”

At least six of the pardoned insurrectionists are charged with committing child sex crimes; five were charged with illegal possession of weapons, including two who had previous domestic violence convictions; and two were charged with rape. Among them were John Daniel Andries, a man in Maryland who was sentenced to 60 days in jail in June 2025 after repeatedly violating a peace order, similar to a restraining order, submitted by the mother of his child.

“I was surprised honestly by how fast it all added up,” Honl-Stuenkel said. “I would have thought that people might take this as a chance to reform, but it was demoralizing to get deep in the weeds and see a level of seriousness to these crimes. It really hit home how dangerous the pardons are and the overlap of those committing serious crimes and being at January 6 — it is pretty staggering to me.”

Honl-Stuenkel said it’s likely the number is bigger than 33. The small team of researchers at CREW relied heavily on local news coverage that mentioned defendants who were tied to January 6.

Honl-Stuenkel said she worries that the pardons embolden people to commit more crimes or make people believe they won’t face any consequences as “long as what they do is in service of Trump’s aims."

There are two versions of January 6: one pushed by the president, in which peaceful patriots and heroes were wrongfully treated, and a more violent one, portrayed by thousands of videos taken that day by insurrectionists themselves. Witnesses that day, including women serving in Congress, recall the terror, running for their lives and calling their loved ones to say goodbye.

On the campaign trail, Trump referred to those involved with the Capitol riot as “unbelievable patriots” and promised to help them. Shortly after granting them clemency, Trump told reporters on Air Force Once: “What I did was a great thing for humanity. They were treated very, very unfairly.”

Trump’s pardons and commutations largely undo the results of one of the largest criminal probes in U.S. history. The Department of Justice also conducted an investigation that involved over 5,000 federal agents and led to thousands of charges.

The blanket clemency for the Capitol attack and the president’s unwillingness to hold violent actors accountable set a precedent that increases the risk of future political violence — felt most acutely by women. According to a recent survey conducted by the Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University, women in local offices reported large increases in hostility in the third quarter of 2025. About 83 percent of women officials — up from 71 percent in the previous quarter — said they were less likely to engage in political or civic activity due to insults, harassment and physical threats.

Shannon Hiller, the executive director of the Bridging Divides Initiative, said she spent the first half of her career working with other countries on how to emerge from conflict. She learned that to build a durable peace and move forward from violence, there has to be an agreement on the basic details of what happened.

“The president’s continued insistence on spreading false narratives about January 6 over the past year — including about very real violence and threats that day — suggest that we are moving even further away from that shared understanding,” said Hiller, who is also a security fellow at the Truman National Security Project.

On the fifth anniversary of the Capitol riot, Trump supporters held a memorial march in Washington, D.C., to honor Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old veteran who was the sole rioter killed by police that day. She was shot as she tried to enter the area outside the House chamber, where many members of Congress were, and has since been portrayed as a martyr among Trump supporters. The former leader of the Proud Boys and other pardoned insurrectionists were in attendance at Tuesday’s march.

Susan Benesch, a faculty associate of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, said that many of Trump’s supporters — beyond just those who were pardoned — saw the pardons as a victory. It’s important for democracy that Americans work to get back to a shared version of reality, which involves continued communication between the two sides.

“The president depicts himself as politically persecuted,” Benesch said. “And for many people who voted for him, his second term is a marvelous triumph because he was persecuted by his political opponents and now he has managed to overcome that and be restored.”


Five Years After January 6, Dozens of Pardoned Insurrectionists Have Been Arrested Again was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.


Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th
black and white labeled bottle
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th

The Trump administration has already moved to erase evidence of enslavement and abuse from public records. It has promoted racially charged imagery attacking Michelle and Barack Obama. But the anti-DEI campaign does not stop at symbolic politics or culture-war spectacle. It now threatens one of the United States’ most important accountability tools: the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Quiet regulatory changes have begun to hollow out this vital instrument, undermining America’s ability to document abuse, support victims, and hold perpetrators to account. The next reports are due February 25, 2026. Whether they appear on time—and what may be scrubbed or withheld—remains an open question.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child's hand holding an adult's hand.
"Names have meanings and shape our destinies. Research shows that they open doors and get your resume to the right eyes and you to the corner office—or not," writes Professor F. Tazeena Husain.
Getty Images, LaylaBird

Who Are the Trespassers?

Explaining cruelty to a child is difficult, especially when it comes from policy, not chance. My youngest son, just old enough to notice, asks why a boy with a backpack is crying on TV. He wonders why the police grip his father’s hand so tightly, and why the woman behind them is crying so hard she can barely walk.

Unfortunately, I tell him that sometimes people are taken away, even if they have done nothing wrong. Sometimes, rules are enforced in ways that hurt families. He seemingly nods, but I can see he’s unsure. In a child’s world, grown-ups are supposed to keep you safe, and rules are meant to protect you if you follow them. I wish I had always believed that, too.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

Protestors block traffic on Broadway as they protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Columbia University on February 05, 2026 in New York City.

Getty Images, Michael M. Santiago

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

In a perfect world, Democrats would be pushing to defund ICE – the position supported by 76% of their constituents and a plurality of all U.S. adults. But this world is far from perfect.

On February 3, 21 House Democrats voted with Republicans to reopen the government and keep the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funded for two weeks. Democrats allege that unless there are “dramatic changes” at DHS and “real accountability” for immigration enforcement agents, they will block funding when it expires.

Keep ReadingShow less