Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What artworks and historical items were vandalized or removed during the January 6 2021 riot?
Executive Summary
The January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol resulted in documented vandalism, removal, and theft of artworks and historical items: House curators identified eight damaged objects outside the House chamber doors, while individual rioters were observed taking items such as a painting from the Rotunda. Damage ranged from chemical contamination and defacement to outright theft, and curators requested emergency conservation funds to treat affected pieces [1] [2] [3] [4]. Multiple reporting threads emphasize both institutional losses to the House Collection and ad hoc looting that fed subsequent criminal prosecutions, while museum efforts to collect material culture from the riot expanded the archival record of that day [5] [6] [7].
1. A Curator’s Tally: What the House Collection Lost and Why It Matters
House curatorial testimony cataloged eight objects with potential damage tied to aerosolized chemical residue and physical contact concentrated outside the House chamber doors; the list included marble and bronze busts, two paintings, and other statuary that are part of the 13,000-object House Collection. Curators reported discoloration from fire-extinguisher powder and bear spray, porous stone like marble being especially vulnerable, and recommended a $25,000 emergency conservation budget to begin treatments — an estimate framed as an initial, not comprehensive, restoration plan [5] [1] [3]. This institutional accounting frames the attack as an assault on curated national history, prompting preservationists to weigh restoration versus preserving riot scars as historical evidence.
2. Specific Items Reported Damaged or Taken: Names and Incidents
Reporting and testimony name several affected works: portraits of Presidents James Madison and John Quincy Adams, busts of Speakers Joseph Gurney Cannon and Thomas Reed, a bronze bust of Chippewa statesman Be sheekee, a statue of Thomas Jefferson, and a 19th-century marble bust of Zachary Taylor reportedly defaced; separate accounts record a framed photo of the Dalai Lama as stolen and a Chinese scroll destroyed. In addition to institutional damage, prosecutors produced images and filings showing individuals removing paintings from public areas — notably a case where Michael Fournier was captured on court documents taking a painting from the Rotunda — illustrating both targeted and opportunistic theft during the riot [1] [2] [3] [4].
3. Chemical Residue and Conservation Challenges: Why Some Damage Is Hard to Reverse
Curators emphasized that the primary immediate damage came not only from physical impact but from chemical residues — yellow-dyed powder from ABC fire extinguishers and inflammatory aerosols used by rioters or law enforcement — which can penetrate porous media and bind oils to stone and canvas. Treatment plans involved identifying dye-infused oils and delineating stepwise cleaning measures; curators portrayed the $25,000 request as a starter fund to stabilize pieces while longer conservation work is scoped. This technical framing highlights how vandalism’s visible effects understate long-term conservation complexity and expense, and why museum and House staff prioritized rapid assessment and chemical analysis to prevent irreversible staining [1] [3].
4. Museums, Memory, and the Decision to Preserve or Repair the Damage
Institutional responses split between restoring works to pre-attack condition and archiving the event’s material culture. The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History actively collected artifacts from January 6 — protest signs, a flak jacket, National Guard insignia — to document the event’s sociopolitical dimensions rather than focus on aesthetic losses; that collection choice underscores a curatorial impulse to interpret the riot as contemporary history [6]. At the same time, House curators sought restoration funds for damaged art, framing repair as preservation of the institutional narrative embedded in the collection. These diverging curatorial aims reflect different historical missions: conservation of art versus archiving protest ephemera.
5. Criminal Accountability and the Scope of Theft-Related Cases
Reporting shows that vandalism and theft at the Capitol produced both evidentiary leads and criminal charges: courts used surveillance and social-media images to identify individuals who removed items, and prosecutors included theft and property-damage allegations alongside assault and obstruction counts. While some coverage catalogues institutional damage, other records emphasize that many rioters were charged for violent acts and for taking objects; one criminal matter involves a defendant found with antiques unrelated to the Capitol, demonstrating that investigations uncovered broader theft behavior by some participants. The judicial thread situates damaged and removed objects within the larger law-enforcement effort to assign individual culpability and recover stolen property [4] [7] [8].
6. Divergent Reporting and What Remains Unsettled
Sources converge on the facts of damage and theft but differ in emphasis: House curators prioritized a finite list of damaged collection items and conservation needs, while museum collectors and some news outlets emphasized ephemera that documents political mobilization. Some reports did not catalogue art losses at all, focusing instead on prosecutions or legal ramifications of the riot, which can understate the cultural preservation angle. Open questions remain about the full inventory of damaged pieces, the total restoration cost beyond the initial emergency request, and whether any damage will be preserved as a historical marker — matters that curators, conservators, and policymakers continue to reconcile [5] [6] [9].