Which congressional investigations have been launched about Jan. 6 participants employed by federal law enforcement?
Executive summary
Congressional scrutiny of January 6 participants who are or became federal law‑enforcement employees has taken at least three visible forms: the broad House Select Committee inquiry that documented the “law enforcement experience” on Jan. 6, targeted follow‑up requests and letters from individual members seeking personnel records from DOJ and DHS, and newer Republican‑led reinvestigations and subcommittees reopening aspects of Jan. 6 — all of which have probed whether federal agencies employed or shielded participants in the attack [1] [2] [3].
1. The House Select Committee’s law‑enforcement probe — the foundational investigation
The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack conducted the most expansive congressional review of the events, explicitly examining the roles, preparations and failures of law enforcement on and before January 6, 2021, and holding a public hearing titled “The Law Enforcement Experience on January 6th” as early as July 27, 2021 [1] [4]. That committee amassed hundreds of interviews and hundreds of thousands of documents and included attention to how federal, state and local agencies shared intelligence and responded, which necessarily implicated questions about personnel and agency actions — though the Select Committee’s publicly available report and records document process and outcomes rather than offering a single catalogue of federal employees who later worked for government agencies [1] [5].
2. Congressional requests and letters focused on hiring and employment records — targeted follow‑ups
Individual lawmakers have pursued more targeted documentary answers about whether people tied to the attack were hired by or remained in federal agencies: Rep. Jamie Raskin sent a January 13, 2026 letter demanding DOJ and DHS produce records on hiring of individuals connected to Jan. 6, on federal agents’ use of face coverings to obscure identities, and on employees who sought or received presidential pardons or were charged or investigated in connection with the attack [2]. Coverage and analysis of that inquiry note Raskin’s specific concern about a small number of high‑profile cases — for example, Jared Wise, a former FBI supervisory special agent who assaulted the Capitol and later faced criminal charges and was part of related DOJ personnel questions — and Raskin accused DHS of “courting” Jan. 6 participants in some recruitment campaigns [2] [6].
3. Republican‑led reinvestigations and subcommittee hearings — reopening the record
Since 2025, House Republicans have launched their own Jan. 6 reinvestigations and subcommittee activity that revisit evidence and allege different narratives about law enforcement’s role and post‑event accountability; reporting describes Rep. Barry Loudermilk leading a GOP subcommittee reinvestigating Jan. 6 and Republican hearings that have shifted emphasis toward alleged missteps or purported cover‑ups by investigative agencies [3]. These Republican efforts overlap with and sometimes contest the Select Committee’s findings, and critics point to partisan motives in those reopenings even as supporters frame them as oversight of enforcement and accountability [3] [7].
4. Fact‑checking and the question of federal agent involvement — what congressional probes found and did not find
Congressional investigators — notably the Select Committee — and reporting have pushed back on claims that federal agents “orchestrated” the riot; the committee interviewed figures such as Ray Epps, whose involvement was subject to conspiracy theories, and reported he denied being an informant or acting at law‑enforcement direction [8]. That factual thread matters to congressional lines of inquiry because some post‑Jan. 6 narratives and political messaging (including a White House webpage recasting the events) have sought to reassign blame to law enforcement or to portray rioters as victims, giving new urgency to congressional requests for personnel records and agency explanations [8] [9] [7].
5. Limits of the public record and what remains unresolved
The public reporting assembled here shows clear lines of congressional activity — the Select Committee’s comprehensive probe, member letters like Raskin’s demanding DOJ/DHS records, and Republican reinvestigations and subcommittee hearings — but does not provide a single, exhaustive list of every congressional investigation ever opened specifically into Jan. 6 participants who later worked for federal law enforcement; the sources document major actors and letters but stop short of cataloguing every oversight inquiry or internal congressional request on personnel files [1] [2] [3]. That gap matters: assertions about scale or motive require digging into committee dockets, correspondence, and classified or personnel records that are not fully visible in the cited public sources.