What records have DHS and DOJ produced in response to Rep. Jamie Raskin’s request about hiring January 6 participants?
Executive summary
Rep. Jamie Raskin sent a formal records demand on January 13, 2026, asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for broad personnel and internal documents about any DOJ or DHS hires tied to the January 6, 2021 attack, including lists of employees who sought or received presidential pardons, hiring files, pay and bonus records, internal communications, and documents about federal officers’ use of face coverings [1] [2]. As of the reporting reviewed here, outlets describe the letter and the scope of the request and note public pushback from DHS; none of the stories cite DHS or DOJ producing the requested records by the Jan. 26 deadline or afterward [2] [3] [4].
1. What Raskin asked for — expansive, personnel-level records and mask policies
The letter demanded a long list of materials: the identity and personnel files of DOJ and DHS employees who have sought or received Trump pardons related to January 6; records of the solicitation, recruitment, hiring, or employment of people charged or investigated in connection with January 6; all personal records including pay and bonus information; internal documents and communications about those hires; and documents explaining the decision to permit federal law enforcement to wear face coverings while on duty [1] [2] [5].
2. Why the request landed — pardons, recruitment ads and personnel concerns
Raskin framed the demand against a backdrop of Trump’s widespread January 6 pardons and concerns about recruitment messaging at DHS — citing reports that some recruitment materials echo language favored by far-right groups and the administration’s rapid expansion of ICE hiring — and argued Americans deserve to know whether pardoned or charged Jan. 6 participants are being brought into law enforcement with guns and badges [2] [3] [6].
3. Official responses reported so far — DHS pushback, DOJ silence
Coverage records a strong rebuttal from DHS spokespersons who called Raskin’s letter “reckless, disgusting and unhinged,” warning it endangered officers and accusing him of political posturing, while Government Executive noted DOJ did not respond to requests for comment for its story [3] [2]. Multiple outlets report Raskin’s demand and DHS’s public statements but do not document the departments turning over the materials Raskin requested [2] [3] [4].
4. What the press has documented — reporting on the request, not document production
News reports and advocacy outlets have traced the content of Raskin’s demand and amplified related reporting — for example, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein’s reporting on internal DHS struggles and leaked documents is referenced alongside the congressional request — but the articles uniformly focus on the inquiry’s existence, its scope, and political reaction rather than verifying production of records by DOJ or DHS [7] [4] [3].
5. Limits of the public record and competing narratives
Based on the reporting available here, there is no documented evidence in mainstream or specialty outlets that DOJ or DHS complied by producing the requested records by the Jan. 26 date; at minimum, the public record in these pieces shows a high-profile demand, a defensive DHS, and DOJ nonresponse to press inquiries [2] [3]. Observers should note potential agendas: Raskin and House Judiciary Democrats use the request to spotlight alleged institutional capture and pardoned rioters’ employment [1] [8], while DHS frames the inquiry as politically motivated and hazardous to officer safety [3] [2], and independent reporting about leaked internal documents complicates the transparency picture without proving formal compliance [7].