January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol

On January 6, 2021, as Congress met to certify the Electoral College results, a mob of Donald Trump’s supporters violently stormed the United States Capitol. The attack followed weeks of Trump publicly and repeatedly claiming that the election had been “rigged” and urging his supporters to come to Washington on the day Congress met.

At a rally just before the riot, Trump told the crowd they needed to “fight like hell” and urged them to march to the Capitol. Thousands of supporters moved toward the building, overwhelmed police lines, smashed windows, breached the Senate and House chambers, and forced lawmakers to evacuate.

Throughout the attack, Trump watched events unfold on television inside the White House, resisting urgent pleas from advisers, congressional allies, and family members to intervene. Rather than calling off the rioters, Trump tweeted criticism of Vice President Mike Pence while the Capitol was under assault, a message investigators later concluded escalated the danger to lawmakers.

For more than three hours, Trump failed to issue a forceful public statement instructing his supporters to leave the Capitol.

Multiple investigations concluded that Trump’s conduct on January 6 itself — his rhetoric, encouragement of the crowd, and prolonged refusal to act — may have violated several federal laws.

Potential Legal Violations Identified by Investigators

Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2))

Investigators examined whether Trump corruptly attempted to impede or halt Congress’s certification of the electoral vote through his actions before and during the attack on the Capitol.

Aiding or Assisting an Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383)

Trump’s speech urging supporters to march on the Capitol, combined with his refusal to act promptly to stop the violence, was evaluated as potentially providing “aid or comfort” to an insurrection. Although no prosecutor ultimately brought this charge, investigators treated the conduct as legally significant.

Incitement (Brandenburg v. Ohio Standard)

While incitement carries a high legal threshold requiring intent to produce imminent lawless action, investigators assessed whether Trump knowingly encouraged violent behavior by directing an agitated crowd toward the Capitol while Congress was in session.

Dereliction of Duty

Congressional committees concluded that Trump abdicated his constitutional responsibilities by failing to take timely action to stop the attack despite having the authority and obligation to do so. While not a criminal statute, this finding was central to investigative conclusions.

These findings were specific to Trump’s conduct on January 6 itself — including his statements to the crowd, his direction for supporters to march on the Capitol, and his refusal to intervene for hours as the attack unfolded.