What documents has DHS or DOJ produced in response to Rep. Raskin's records request about Jan. 6 hires?

1. The request in plain terms: what Raskin sought and why it matters

Raskin’s letter demands broad categories of records: lists of DOJ and DHS employees who were charged, investigated, or pardoned in connection with January 6; solicitation, hiring, and personnel files (including pay and bonus information); internal memos and communications related to recruitment decisions; documents tied to the policy allowing federal officers to wear face coverings while on duty; and records relating to any requests for or grants of presidential pardons for such employees ^{[1] [2]}. Raskin frames the request as oversight of whether pardoned or charged Jan. 6 participants were brought into federal law enforcement ranks and whether masking policies are being used to conceal identities, arguing the public has a right to know who now carries weapons and badges ^{[2] [1]}.

2. How the request landed in public reporting: scope, timing, and context

News organizations summarized Raskin’s demand alongside context that the Trump administration issued many pardons tied to January 6 and that DHS has been aggressively recruiting for ICE and other agencies, claiming rapid growth in force size and large applicant pools—details cited in coverage of the letter ^{[3] [5]}. Axios noted Raskin asked for information on roughly 1,500 pardoned individuals and set a production deadline in mid-to-late January; The Independent and other outlets reiterated the focus on whether pardoned Jan. 6 defendants ended up in masked DHS units ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Agency reactions reported so far — denial, pushback, and unanswered questions

DHS publicly pushed back through an assistant secretary quoted by Axios calling Raskin’s letter “reckless, disgusting, and unhinged,” indicating institutional resistance to the premise of the inquiry as reported ^[3]. Independent journalists and advocacy outlets tied the letter to contemporaneous reporting of internal DHS tensions and leaked documents about recruitment and deployments, but those reports describe internal debate and operational strain rather than confirmed hires of Jan. 6 participants ^[4]. The reporting therefore captures dispute and political framing but does not document a completed transfer of the records Raskin requested.

4. What has been produced — the public record and its limits

Among the sources reviewed, the only primary documents publicly available are Raskin’s own letter and the committee’s report flagging individuals of concern; none of the cited stories or archived documents show DOJ or DHS turning over the hiring files, personnel records, internal memos, or face-covering policy documents Raskin demanded ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Where journalists reference leaked internal material (as Ken Klippenstein reported), coverage characterizes internal debate and operational notes but does not point to an official production by DOJ or DHS fulfilling Raskin’s request ^[4]. The absence of reporting of produced documents in these sources is not proof they have not been provided to the committee, but the public reporting compiled here contains no confirmation of production.

5. What to watch next — deadlines, oversight tools, and transparency levers

Raskin set a short timeline for compliance, and congressional oversight tools include subpoenas if voluntary production is refused; media coverage highlights that political friction makes a negotiated release unlikely without pressure ^{[3] [2]}. Independent reporting and committee materials will be the first place any produced documents appear; absent that, formal committee correspondence, agency responses, or a subpoena notice would constitute publicly citable proof of production—none of which appears in the sources reviewed here ^{[1] [3]}. Given the charged politics and DHS pushback reported, the key immediate indicators will be official agency responses to the letter, any transmittal to the Judiciary Committee, or subsequent legal steps documented in public filings.