Which January 6 defendants were charged with seditious conspiracy and what evidence supported those charges?
Executive summary
Federal prosecutors pursued seditious-conspiracy charges against leaders and members of two organized extremist groups tied to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack: key leaders and lieutenants of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers; juries ultimately convicted multiple defendants after trials that relied heavily on pre‑January 6 communications, coordinated plans and contemporaneous video and physical evidence showing coordinated use of force to disrupt certification of the Electoral College vote [1] [2] [3].
1. Who was charged: the Proud Boys’ core defendants and outcomes
The Justice Department indicted five Proud Boys leaders—Enrique Tarrio, Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola—on seditious conspiracy; at trial juries convicted four of those leaders of seditious conspiracy while Dominic Pezzola was acquitted of that particular count though convicted of other felonies tied to the breach [4] [1] [5] [6].
2. Who was charged: the Oath Keepers’ core defendants and outcomes
The Oath Keepers’ prosecutions included an early high‑profile conviction of founder Stewart Rhodes and Florida chapter leader Kelly Meggs for seditious conspiracy, followed by trials that produced convictions of additional Oath Keepers members—federal prosecutors pursued a conspiracy theory that encompassed multiple members indicted together for coordinating in the months leading up to Jan. 6 [3] [2] [7].
3. Evidence presented against the Proud Boys: coordination, leadership and violent breach
Prosecutors relied on a combination of contemporaneous communications, witness testimony and video showing Proud Boys leaders organizing, directing and participating in the assault—highlighting leadership roles, coded coordination and the moment a stolen police riot shield was used to smash a Capitol window that precipitated a mass rush into the building—as proof that the group conspired to use force to stop the transfer of presidential power [8] [1] [9] [6].
4. Evidence presented against the Oath Keepers: paramilitary planning, QRF and weapons‑style logistics
The Oath Keepers’ convictions rested on evidence of months‑long planning including organizing into tactical teams, conducting trainings, assembling paramilitary gear and radio communications, and arranging a so‑called “quick reaction force” outside Washington D.C.; prosecutors introduced testimony and seized materials showing combat uniforms, tactical vests, helmets, radio equipment and coordinated movements that supported the allegation they conspired to oppose by force the lawful transfer of power [7] [2] [3].
5. Legal theory and what prosecutors had to prove
Seditious conspiracy is a rare, Civil War‑era statute that requires proof the defendants agreed to use force to oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power; in these cases prosecutors paired documentary and digital evidence of pre‑event planning and contemporaneous violent acts to show intent and agreement, a strategy that overcame the historical difficulty of proving sedition where earlier prosecutions faltered over free‑speech defenses and lack of concrete plans [10] [11].
6. What the convictions say—and what they do not
The convictions of leaders from both groups signaled the Justice Department’s view that organized, premeditated coordination and the use of force on Jan. 6 met the statutory threshold for seditious conspiracy; reporting and DOJ statements underline that these were not isolated street fights but alleged conspiracies tied to leadership direction, logistics and paramilitary preparations, though critics and legal observers note the charge remains legally fraught and was rarely used before these prosecutions [1] [7] [10].