What records has DHS produced in response to Rep. Jamie Raskin’s January 2026 document request?

1. What Raskin asked for: scope and specificity of the document demand

Raskin’s letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi sought “all personal records (including pay and bonus information), documents, memos, and internal communications” for individuals charged or investigated in connection with Jan. 6, and asked for records about any pardons, hiring decisions, and policies allowing federal officers to obscure their identities with face coverings ^{[1] [2]}. The request grew out of a broader Democratic review alleging that participants in efforts to overturn the 2020 election have been placed in senior DOJ and DHS roles, and it asked for details on those career movements and disciplinary histories ^[1].

2. What DHS has said in public so far — statements, not document dumps

DHS has publicly rebuked the inquiry as political theater and has not been reported to have turned over the broad personnel files and internal communications Raskin demanded; DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the letter “reckless, disgusting, and unhinged” in media reporting and DHS statements have framed the request as endangering officers rather than as a basis for immediate transparency ^{[2] [4]}. Journalists who sought clarification reported that McLaughlin’s written response “did not answer the question” about whether pardoned Jan. 6 participants are working at ICE, signaling a refusal to produce or confirm the specific records on the public record ^[3].

3. What the public reporting documents — and what it does not

News outlets summarized the content of Raskin’s demand and DHS’s public posture: Axios and archived coverage laid out Raskin’s requests for personnel and internal records and contextualized the inquiry within ICE’s recruitment expansion and a reported doubling of ICE agents to 22,000 during the administration’s drive to hire more officers ^{[2] [5]}. Government Executive and other outlets documented Raskin’s broader effort to catalog how many Jan. 6 participants might now be employed across federal law enforcement ^[6]. None of the sources in this compilation, however, report that DHS has produced the requested documents, nor do they produce evidence of records being transmitted to Raskin’s office (p1_s1–p1_s9).

4. How DHS framed its interests and counterarguments

DHS and allies framed the letter as a partisan attack with operational risk; press statements cited in reporting argued that publicizing personnel details and protests over face coverings could put federal officers at risk and obstruct law enforcement functions — a commonly invoked counterargument when personnel anonymity or sensitive operational tactics are at issue ^{[4] [2]}. That framing coexists in the public record with Raskin’s argument that the American people deserve to know whether pardoned or charged Jan. 6 participants have been armed and placed in positions of authority ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Bottom line and limits of available reporting

Based on the reporting assembled, DHS has not publicly produced the personnel files, pay records, internal memos, or investigative records Raskin demanded; the department’s visible response has been to push back rhetorically and to provide statements that reporters describe as non-responsive rather than to release the documents sought ^{[3] [4]}. If records have been produced to Raskin privately, or if DHS intends to produce redacted or limited materials under legal constraints, that action is not documented in the sources provided and therefore cannot be confirmed here (p1_s1–p1_s9).