Attorney General Merrick Garland is under increasing scrutiny as questions arise over the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) potential interference with the release of a crucial Inspector General’s report on the DOJ’s activities during January 6, 2021. The concern was ignited by a letter spearheaded by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and signed by ten other members of the House Judiciary Committee, who are demanding answers.
The letter comes on the heels of a revealing testimony from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, which suggested that the FBI had confidential human sources (CHSs) on Capitol grounds during the January 6 events. The revelation has raised serious questions about the federal government’s role in the events of that day and whether the DOJ is deliberately delaying the release of this crucial report.
Joining Massie in calling for transparency are prominent Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee, including Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Reps. Ben Cline (R-VA), Chip Roy (R-TX), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Victoria Spartz (R-IN), Barry Moore (R-AL), Dan Bishop (R-NC), Harriet Hageman (R-WY), and Matt Gaetz (R-FL).
The existence of federal assets, particularly CHSs, on the Capitol grounds could fundamentally alter the narrative surrounding January 6. This directly counters the portrayal pushed by both mainstream media and the federal government, which have largely framed the events as an unprovoked insurrection. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump faces federal charges from special counsel Jack Smith, who alleges that Trump orchestrated the chaos that unfolded at the Capitol.
The letter from Massie and his colleagues serves as a pointed reminder to Garland of his own testimony from earlier this year. On June 4, 2024, Garland testified that Horowitz is “independent,” and the decision to release the Inspector General’s report lies with Horowitz, not the DOJ. The lawmakers are now holding Garland to his word, stressing in their letter, “We write to remind you of your commitment.”
This call for accountability was reignited following Horowitz’s testimony on September 25, 2024, before the House Weaponization Committee. In this testimony, Horowitz disclosed that the draft report on January 6, which includes information about CHSs, is being delayed by the DOJ. This revelation has only deepened suspicions that the DOJ may be slow-walking the report’s release for political reasons.
Horowitz’s investigation was previously delayed during the hearings held by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House Select Committee on January 6. It wasn’t until 2023 that Horowitz resumed his investigation into the FBI’s involvement that day. However, despite these delays, the DOJ continues to prosecute new cases related to January 6—even as the 2024 election draws closer.
During the September 25 hearing, Horowitz confirmed that his draft report would indeed address the presence of confidential human sources on Capitol grounds. When pressed by Massie for specifics on the number of CHSs involved, Horowitz remained vague, stating, “Our report will include information in that regard.” He explained that he couldn’t provide the exact number because the report was still in draft form and had not yet undergone classification review.
Massie, however, is not convinced that the delays are procedural. Following the hearing, he expressed his belief that politics are at play, posting on X (formerly Twitter): “Horowitz said the number won’t be known before the election. Biden-Harris doesn’t want the feds’ role on 1/6 known. Why?”
Massie’s skepticism is shared by other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. The letter to Garland includes a stark warning: “If you or any of your subordinates, associates, deputies, or agents within the Department act to delay or interfere with the release of this report, Congress will hold you accountable.”
If the report is ultimately released before the election, it could have a significant impact on the public’s understanding of what transpired on January 6. Should the DOJ be found to have deliberately delayed the release of this report until after the election, it could spark serious consequences for Garland and his department.
Horowitz’s testimony during the hearing strongly suggested that the report will contain explosive information. Massie pressed Horowitz on whether the FBI’s CHSs were authorized to enter the Capitol on January 6. According to FBI protocols, CHSs are prohibited from breaking the law unless they receive explicit written consent. Entering the Capitol on that day would certainly qualify as breaking the law, a point made clear by the numerous prosecutions brought by the DOJ in the aftermath of the events.
Horowitz assured Massie that the report would contain this information, but declined to provide specifics during the hearing. When Massie asked how many CHSs were reimbursed for travel related to January 6, Horowitz responded evasively, stating, “As I sit here, I don’t recall the number,” before quickly adding that even if he did know the number, he would not be able to disclose it due to classification concerns.
As the investigation continues and pressure mounts on Garland, the American public is left to wonder: Will the full truth about January 6 ever come to light? And, if it does, will it happen before the 2024 election, or will the DOJ continue to delay the report’s release?
The DOJ, which controls the classification of much of the information in the report, holds the key to these answers. Whether the report will be made public in time for voters to consider its findings remains to be seen. For now, Garland and the DOJ are facing increasing calls for transparency and accountability.
