What documents has Rep. Jamie Raskin requested from DHS and DOJ regarding Jan. 6 hires, and what are the deadlines for responses?
Executive summary
Rep. Jamie Raskin’s January 13, 2026 letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem seeks a broad set of personnel and recruiting records to determine whether people charged, investigated, or pardoned for participation in the January 6, 2021 attack have been hired into DOJ or DHS roles — and it asks agencies to produce the materials by 5 p.m. on January 26, 2026. The letter specifically demands hiring and solicitation records, lists of employees who sought or received Trump pardons or who were charged or investigated in connection with Jan. 6, and information about the use of face coverings to obscure officer identities [1] [2] [3].
1. What documents Raskin explicitly requested — hiring and solicitation files
The centerpiece of Raskin’s demand is “records related to the solicitation or hiring of anyone charged or investigated for participating in the January 6 attack,” which includes recruitment materials and hiring records from DHS components such as ICE and CBP that would reveal whether applicants or hires had been charged, investigated, or pardoned for Jan. 6-related offenses [3] [2]. The House Judiciary Committee Democrats’ press release frames the request as a probe into whether individuals connected to Jan. 6 have been brought into federal enforcement roles and asks for documentation that would show job offers, vetting outcomes, and application files tied to those individuals [1].
2. What personnel lists and pardon-related records Raskin demanded
Raskin’s letter asks DOJ and DHS to produce a list of any current employees who “have received or sought a presidential pardon from Donald Trump, or who have been charged or investigated in connection with the January 6, 2021 attack,” signaling an intent to map pardons onto federal hiring and employment rosters and to identify whether pardoned or charged individuals hold badges or guns inside the departments [4] [1]. Multiple outlets summarizing the letter pick up this concrete line-item request — a roster-style disclosure of employees with pardon-seeking or Jan. 6 adjudicatory histories [2] [5].
3. Records about identity-concealing practices and face coverings
Beyond personnel files, Raskin seeks documents concerning DHS and DOJ policies or practices permitting federal officers to wear face coverings or remove identifying name tapes — asking for materials that explain why, when, and under what authority agents are allowed to obscure their identities during enforcement operations [1] [2]. This strand of the request ties the hiring questions to operational practices — Raskin frames masked officers as a potential mechanism for anonymity should problematic hires be working in the field [1].
4. Deadline and timeline for agency responses
The letter sets an explicit, short timetable: agencies were asked to provide the requested records by 5 p.m. on January 26, 2026, according to reporting that quotes the letter and summarizes its demands [2]. Media summaries note the narrow window between the January 13 letter and the January 26 deadline and report Raskin’s instruction that DHS and DOJ “produce all requested information no later than Jan. 26” [6] [7].
5. Pushback, context, and limitations in public reporting
DHS publicly pushed back against the letter’s framing, calling Raskin’s approach “reckless, disgusting, and unhinged,” and warned that the request could endanger federal officers — a response quoted in multiple outlets summarizing the dispute [6] [5]. Reporting draws context from Raskin’s broader concerns — including a Democratic report cataloging officials with Jan. 6 ties now serving in DOJ/DHS and reporting on expanded DHS recruitment — but none of the sources supply the full text of the letter in every report, leaving some nuances of the requests (for example, exact document definitions, date ranges, custodians, or privilege assertions) dependent on the letter itself rather than secondary summaries [1] [3] [2]. Where reporting is silent, this account does not speculate beyond the items and deadline expressly cited in the available coverage [1] [2].