The FBI should have done more to collect intelligence before the Capitol riot even though the bureau did prepare for the possibility of violence on Jan. 6, 2021, according to a watchdog report
Independent Premium
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
The FBI should have done more to gather intelligence before the Capitol riot, according to a watchdog report Thursday that also said no undercover FBI employees were on the scene Jan. 6, 2021, and none of the bureau's informants was authorized to participate.
The report from the Justice Department inspector general's office knocks down a fringe conspiracy theory advanced by some Republicans in Congress that the FBI played a role in instigating the events that day, when rioters determined to overturn Republican Donald Trump's 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden stormed the building in a violent clash with police.
The review, released nearly four years after a dark chapter in history that shook the bedrock of American democracy, was narrow in scope, but aimed to shed light on gnawing questions that have dominated public discourse, including whether major intelligence failures preceded the riot and whether the FBI in some way provoked the violence. It's the latest major investigation about a day unlike any other in U.S. history, one that has already yielded congressional inquiries and federal and state indictments.
The report offers a mixed assessment of the FBI's performance in the run-up to the riot, crediting the bureau for preparing for the possibility of violence and for trying to identify known “domestic terrorism subjects” who planned to come to Washington that day.
But it said the FBI, in an action the now-deputy director described as a “basic step that was missed,” failed to canvas informants across all 56 of its field offices for any relevant intelligence. That was a step, the report concluded, “that could have helped the FBI and its law enforcement partners with their preparations in advance of January 6.”
In addition, the watchdog found that 26 FBI informants were in Washington for election-related protests on Jan. 6, and though three entered either the Capitol or a restricted area outside, none had been authorized to do so by the bureau or to break the law or encourage others to do so. Many of the 26 informants did provide the FBI with information before the riot, but it “was no more specific than, and was consistent with, other sources of information” that the FBI had acquired from other sources.
The FBI said in a letter responding to the report that it accepts the inspection general’s recommendation “regarding potential process improvements for future events.”
The lengthy review was launched days after the riot as the FBI faced questions over whether it had missed warnings signs or had adequately disseminated intelligence it had received, including a Jan. 5, 2021, bulletin prepared by the FBI’s Norfolk, Virginia, field office that warned of the potential for “war” at the Capitol. The inspector general found that the information in that bulletin was broadly shared.
Separately, the report said the FBI’s New Orleans field office was told by a source between November 2020 and early January 2021 that protesters were planning to station a “quick reaction force” in northern Virginia “in order to be armed and prepared to respond to violence that day in DC, if necessary."
That information was shared with the FBI's Washington Field Office, members of intelligence agencies and some federal law enforcement agencies the day before the riot, the inspector general found. But there was no indication the FBI told northern Virginia police about the information, the report said. An FBI official told the inspector general there was “nothing actionable or immediately concerning about it."
An cache of weapons at a Virginia hotel as part of a “quick reaction force” was a central piece of the Justice Department’s seditious conspiracy case against Oath Keeper leader Stewart Rhodes and other members of the far-right extremist group
FBI Director Chris Wray, who announced this week his plans to resign at the end President Joe Biden’s term in January, has defended his agency's handing of the intelligence report. He told lawmakers in 2021 that the report was disseminated though the joint terrorism task force, discussed at a command post in Washington and posted on an internet portal available to other law enforcement agencies.
“We did communicate that information in a timely fashion to the Capitol Police and (Metropolitan Police Department) in not one, not two, but three different ways,” Wray said at the time.
The conspiracy theory that federal law enforcement officers entrapped members of the mob has been spread in conservative circles, including by some Republican lawmakers. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., recently suggested on a podcast that agents pretending to be Trump supporters were responsible for instigating the violence.
And former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who withdrew as Trump’s pick as attorney general amid scrutiny over sex trafficking allegations, sent a letter to Wray in 2021 asking how many informants were at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and if they were “merely passive informants or active instigators.”
