Has DHS provided Sen Raskin employees arrested Jan 6

1. Raskin’s demand: what he asked for and why

In mid-January Raskin sent a detailed letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi seeking personnel records, hiring documents, memos, communications and information on pardons or pardoned individuals employed by DOJ or DHS who were charged or investigated in connection with January 6, as well as documents about the decision to permit face coverings for federal agents ^{[2] [1]}. Raskin framed the request as an accountability probe into whether individuals connected to the Capitol attack had been given “guns and badges” by the current administration and asked for production by January 26 ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Public evidence of a production: none in the reporting provided

Available reporting chronicles Raskin’s letter and the political clash that followed, but does not document DHS turning over the records Raskin requested. Multiple outlets reported the content of the demand and Raskin’s deadline, and cited DHS’s denouncement of his letter, but none of the supplied sources confirm that DHS complied or produced the documents by the requested date ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Therefore, based on the materials provided, there is no public proof in these reports that DHS has provided the specific records Raskin sought.

3. DHS’s public posture and pushback

DHS publicly dismissed Raskin’s demands; Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the letter “reckless, disgusting, and unhinged,” highlighting the sharp partisan tenor of the exchange in coverage ^{[3] [4]}. Other reporting captures Raskin’s broader allegation that the department is “courting” pardoned January 6 participants and expresses concern about rapid hiring, mask policies, and recruitment incentives within ICE and CBP — allegations DHS disputes even as they fuel congressional scrutiny ^{[6] [3]}.

4. What Raskin’s request seeks beyond simple names

Raskin’s probe is not merely a roster check; it requests internal decision-making documents about hiring practices, elimination of degree requirements, sign-on bonuses, vetting standards, and policies that allow officers to obscure their identities — all issues Raskin and Democrats say could ease entry for extremists ^[3]. The letter also asked for records related to any requests for or grants of presidential pardons involving DOJ or DHS employees tied to January 6 ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting underscores this expansive scope, which if complied with would disclose not only personnel lists but the processes and policies that govern recruitment ^[4].

5. Competing narratives and limits of current reporting

Two narratives emerge in the sources: Raskin and House Democrats frame this as a national-security and personnel-integrity investigation into the possible infusion of insurrectionists into federal law enforcement ^{[1] [2]}, while DHS officials characterize the inquiry as politically motivated and inflammatory ^{[3] [4]}. The reporting supplied details the request, the deadline, and DHS’s rebuttal but does not include follow-up confirming whether records were transmitted, redacted, declined, or litigated — a key evidentiary gap that leaves the central question unanswered in public reporting provided here ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Bottom line

Based on the documents and reporting provided, Raskin demanded that DHS produce records related to hiring of January 6 participants and policies on masked officers, and DHS publicly pushed back, but there is no evidence in these sources that DHS has actually provided the records Raskin requested by his deadline ^{[1] [3] [4]}. The available material makes clear the controversy and the request’s breadth but does not document compliance or production; further reporting or official disclosure would be necessary to confirm whether DHS ultimately complied.