On the first day of his new administration, President Donald Trump granted clemency to the nearly 1,600 people convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. They included individuals convicted of violence against Capitol police officers and extremist leaders such as Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio. Rhodes and Tarrio were sentenced to a combined forty years in prison after their convictions for seditious conspiracy and other crimes.
Trump has long cast those convicted and imprisoned for crimes related to the January 6 attack as victims. As a presidential candidate, he made clemency and securing their freedom a campaign promise. But Trump’s decision to release even the most violent figures, including those associated with organized militias, is also consistent with his history of providing support and legitimacy to armed right-wing extremists. Subsequent events, including the firing of Department of Justice prosecutors and a possible purge of Federal Bureau of Investigations agents who handled January 6 investigations, raise questions as to the extent Trump is willing to go to punish his perceived opponents.
Chillingly, The Washington Post has reported that FBI agents in the Washington field office were told “to prepare for the White House to publicly release the names of the agents who worked on the two Trump criminal cases,” which could set the stage for harassment or even violent reprisals against rank-and-file agents.
Beyond the immediate implications of these actions, there is reason for substantial concern about the longer-term effects on the rule of law, political violence, and extremism in the U.S. We asked nine experts to respond to a set of questions on what the clemencies might herald for the future:
- How might these pardons and commutations influence future acts of political violence?
- What are the risks that these pardons and commutations will embolden violent right-wing extremist militias or other organized groups to expand their activities?
- How do these pardons and commutations affect the likelihood of future disruptions to democratic processes or other forms of political violence?
- What individuals, communities, events, or other potential targets of violence are of most immediate concern due to Trump’s act of presidential clemency?
We received responses from the following experts:
- Susan Benesch is the executive director of the Dangerous Speech Project, a faculty associate of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, and an adjunct associate professor at American University’s School of International Service.
- Cody Buntain is an assistant professor in the College of Information at the University of Maryland with an affiliate appointment at the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies.
- Ryan Greer is president of Bedrock and a Security Fellow at the Truman National Security Project.
- Shannon Hiller is the executive director of the Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University and a Security Fellow at the Truman National Security Project.
- Jared Holt is a senior research analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab).
- Tom Joscelyn is a senior fellow at Just Security and a senior fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security. He was most recently a senior professional staff member on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.
- Nathan Kalmoe is the executive director of the Center for Communication and Civic Renewal (CCCR) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
- Rachel Kleinfeld is a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Cynthia Miller-Idriss is a professor in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Education at American University, where she runs the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL).
Susan Benesch
Because of the pardons and commutations, we can expect the far right to push further and harder against the law. By excusing and even celebrating past illegal attacks, President Trump has given a tacit but clear endorsement of future violence. And in pardoning everyone, he declined to draw any line between acceptable and unacceptable or even unlawful conduct, so extremists will see no reason to abide by norms. On the contrary, they’ll see lawbreaking as virtuous or even heroic. They are grateful to Trump for rescuing them and want to return the favor, for example, by taking revenge on his real or perceived enemies. More than ever, some will do anything to keep Trump in power.
Therefore, I won’t be surprised by vigilante attacks on Trump’s opponents or anyone perceived by his loyalists as foreign, non-MAGA, or traitorous, from journalists and federal government employees to Jackson Reffitt, who turned in his father Guy for attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and went on to receive “death threats by the minute.”
Finally, a new tranche of people will embrace and even commit political violence in the United States – those who feared the law and its enforcement but are now disinhibited by the pardons and commutations.
Cody Buntain
President Trump’s recent large-scale pardons for those involved in the January 6 insurrection and its planning will, I think, increase the potential for future acts of political violence, both by lone wolf actors and by organized groups. Primarily, this clemency signals to future actors that if their chosen candidate wins, violence or law-breaking in service of that candidate will be forgiven.
This clemency is particularly concerning as it coincides with moves by tech companies and social media platforms to lower barriers against hate speech and discussion of the kinds of plans and actions we saw around January 6. Given Meta’s recent moves to weaken its internal fact-checking processes, coupled with X’s increasingly overt support of conservative voices, it seems likely to me that we will see more people, particularly vulnerable young men, exposed to the kinds of violent rhetoric we saw on fringe platforms in the lead up to January 6. This increased exposure is likely to lead to more radicalization among these audiences, leading to more isolated incidents of political violence and hate crimes.
As online social spaces become safer places to openly discuss violence and sedition, however, not only are we likely to see more isolated violence, but I see a potential for more organized political violence as well, as semi-radicalized individuals will have more opportunities to come together in mainstream online spaces and have their grievances weaponized and directed at supposed political foes. More concerningly, these spaces are global in nature. As we saw with the international spread of QAnon messaging, it seems likely that the violent and hateful rhetoric we will see more online has more opportunity to spill over as the platforms governing these spaces move into ideological alignment with President Trump and his tolerance for political violence.
Ryan Greer
The pardons of the January 6th insurrectionists send a dangerous signal, normalizing violence and reducing the fear of consequences. This action deepens the normalization of ideological violence. As it feels more normal, strong responses to counter violence—and the movements that inspire it—are less likely.
Individuals with an unfortunate cocktail of psychological, social, and ideological maladies may be more likely to take violent actions. That future violence will not only be tragic in itself but will also inspire vicarious trauma—the very real trauma of seeing traumatic acts perpetrated against someone with whom you identify—and increase Americans’ fear of “the other”—deepening polarization—thereby continuing this cycle of the normalization of hate and violence. And, of course, it makes it less likely that those in a position to stand up to hate and violence will do so for fear of being targeted themselves.
As such, lone actors and violent movements will likely take cues from the perceived social permission and feel emboldened. Marginalized communities already targeted by hate are likely to be targeted even more than they are now. All Americans will suffer an absence of safety and belonging and increased suspicion and fear.
My organization issued a statement noting that the pardons were a threat to democracy. A colleague at a partner organization called it “brave.” That condemning violence used to be normal but now is brave is a signal that democratic norms are fraying and more violence is likely. Returning to an era of accountability for ideological violence is not just a laudable idea, it is a necessity – before it is too late.
Shannon Hiller
Taking this blanket approach to pardons for individuals who attempted to forcefully overturn the results of a fair election sets a dangerous precedent that raises the risk of future political violence.
Legal accountability played an important role in the decrease in offline mobilization by organized groups with a proven track record of using threats, intimidation, and physical force against political opponents over the last few years. These pardons have the potential to re-energize groups like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers, who may again feel emboldened to use violence to close off civic space.
Pardoning or commuting the sentences of the most violent offenders also missed an opportunity, however slim it may have been, for the incoming President to move on from January 6 in the context of his re-election. Prior to these pardons, Vice President JD Vance himself pointed to a potential area of consensus — that protestors who use violence against others or against police should be held accountable. Pardons for non-violent offenders — especially those who expressed remorse or those who were already back in their communities — may have had a chance of moving the country slowly toward reconciliation in the long term. Instead, these blanket pardons continue to push divisive and factually inaccurate narratives of the attack, setting us even further back in any meaningful attempts to build a more unifying narrative.
Jared Holt
The decision to award pardons and commuted sentences to people jailed for the Capitol riot could be internalized by many extremist movements as permission to attempt openly organizing on a larger national scale again. Many movement groups had all but abandoned these aspirations after the Capitol riot, often citing a variety of reasons that included increased scrutiny from federal law enforcement. In the week since the pardons were issued, we’ve already seen extremist movement groups like the Proud Boys try to capitalize on the moment to recruit new members. The effects of these shifts largely remain to be seen, but I worry it will embolden groups with violent track records and work to help sanitize their image in the eyes of the public.
One big thing I’m watching for in the coming months is whether extremist movement groups will latch on to official efforts taken by the Trump administration—particularly those surrounding immigration. For example, I’m curious to see whether militia movement groups try to organize on larger scales at the US-Mexico border or rally to assist law enforcement in carrying out Trump’s promised “mass deportations.” Anti-Trump protests seem to be in short supply this time around, so I imagine we’ll likely see fewer instances where groups show up to antagonize those sorts of events. In the absence of that, some groups might seek other ways to negatively agitate the political environment.
Tom Joscelyn
President Trump’s pardons and commutations were based on his claim that the January 6th defendants were “hostages.” Of course, they were not “hostages” at all. Instead, they were defendants and convicts whose crimes were and remain, in many cases, well-documented. But Trump and his movement have turned this reality on its head, portraying the January 6th aggressors as victims of a supposedly corrupt and partisan criminal justice system. This is a very extreme idea — a fictional grievance that has now been normalized with the presidential seal of approval. And it is likely to embolden right-wing extremists, including both so-called long wolves and groups.
Lone wolves are often motivated by a mix of personal and political grievances. For lone right-wing extremists, the pardons could be viewed as a vindication of the belief that government officials are bad actors deserving of retribution. Similar grievances have already served as motivation for a series of threats against law enforcement and others.
Right-wing extremist groups such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters planned for violence on January 6th. In particular, the Proud Boys instigated the attack on the U.S. Capitol. In the months that followed, these groups lost many of their key leaders as they were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, serious crimes. Trump’s decision has now returned these same leaders, including some with charisma and organizational skills, back into the fold. They are not only free to rejoin their comrades but can also do so with a presidential endorsement. Dozens of lower-level figures, if not more, could also rejoin their former groups as well. Trump has effectively said they were in the right and those who jailed them were in the wrong.
Not all these extremist leaders will seamlessly reintegrate with their former groups. But those who do will be perceived as heroes – martyrs for their cause. That can only help them grow their ranks and, ultimately, expand their footprint and activities.
Nathan Kalmoe
The pardons for violent insurrectionists make January 6th a dangerous template for future disruptive violence at the federal, state, and local levels. We’ve already seen extremist groups attempt to influence political outcomes through armed takeovers of state capitol buildings, armed demonstrations outside the offices of public officials, and violent threats. Following these recent pardons, political violence is more likely to manifest against wavering Republicans at the federal level rather than Democrats, who hold little power now. But Democratic officials at the state and local levels who resist federal overreach and participants in movements organizing against Trump’s policies might be targeted. Down the road, I’m especially concerned about actions against Democratic governors, Democratic Congressional candidates in competitive elections, and convenings of Electoral College voters in the state capitals in 2028.
But since violence is instrumental, we’ll mostly just see it deployed when government action (whether legal or not) is insufficient to accomplish Trump’s goals. It need not always involve physical violence. Violent threats against officials and other public-facing people are orders of magnitude higher than they were before Trump took office in 2017—many tens of thousands of threats per year. And many more people are made fearful by hearing about those threats and the few acts of violence. We saw this happen during Trump’s second impeachment trial, where Republican Senators who were considering voting to convict him (thus barring him from the presidency) were convinced not to with the reminder that their families would be threatened by enraged Trump supporters. In the future, a weaponized Department of Justice, Internal Revenue Service, or pro-Trump judiciary could persecute political enemies without the threat of physical violence, and that could be a more appealing and effective route to achieve the same goals.
Elected and appointed leaders changing their political and administrative decisions from fear of harm is antithetical to democracy—it’s rule by violence, not by the people. It was through political violence that white supremacists effectively ended fair elections in the South and condemned Black Southerners to segregation, a loss of civic rights, vulnerability to white violence, and many other harms during the Jim Crow era. That is an important lens through which to view these pardons.
Rachel Kleinfeld
On January 6, 2021, violent individuals harmed 140 police officers and caused millions in property damage. The legal consequences they and others in the mob faced were hugely effective in reducing political violence. After their convictions, rallies and violent behavior from the Proud Boys decreased sharply, and the Oath Keepers largely ceased to exist. Between 2015 and 2021, threats had been skyrocketing against Members of Congress, federal judges, and state and local officials. After the convictions, this growth leveled off, while violent chatter on far-right websites slowed down due to fear of FBI infiltration and feelings of betrayal over Trump’s refusal to financially help the January 6 rioters.
So, the pardons and commutations of these sentences will likely lead to an expansion of political violence. Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio may have trouble reconstituting the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys—at least under their leadership—but there are hundreds of other extremist groups to join, and new ones will form. Moreover, most political violence in America is not committed by people who formally belong to a group. While they act individually, they are usually inspired by online communities and are highly influenced by whether those communities and political leaders view violence as laudable or appalling.
Research in Israel, Germany, and the U.S. shows that when political extremists think the government is on their side and they will not be held accountable for violence, they commit more violence. We are likely to see more vigilante action in communities facing immigrant round-ups, more militias along the border trying to “assist” law enforcement, and greater threats inspired by the words of politicians and influencers. Hate crimes, which started to rise in 2015 and did not decline, are likely to continue their catastrophic rise as violence against minorities is normalized.
But political violence that becomes this pervasive rarely stays political. When hundreds of violent individuals are allowed to go free because of political connections, it sends a broader message to law enforcement, which does not like to waste scant resources on cases they are less likely to win. As the rule of law is applied more politically, the country can also expect to see greater violence from disturbed individuals mixing personal and political motives – such as the recent school shooter in Tennessee—and more criminal violence.
Cynthia Miller-Idriss
The pardons will have long-term effects on U.S. democratic stability and an immediate impact on Americans’ (already record-low) trust in the judiciary and courts. They reinforce a false narrative that the January 6 attackers did nothing wrong and are an insult to the scores of Capitol police who were injured or died as a result of that day. And they ensure there will never be a commonly accepted historical account of what happened on January 6 (or in the 2020 election more broadly).
The pardons are also a dangerous move for our national security, especially because among those pardoned or granted clemency were more than dozens of members of far-right militant groups, some of which our allies overseas (such as Canada and New Zealand) consider terrorists. A dozen members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were convicted on the rare and serious charge of seditious conspiracy, which is one step shy of treason. These clemencies send a clear message that some kinds of political violence are acceptable and won’t be prosecuted—undoubtedly emboldening violent actors in ways that put us all at risk.
Extremist actors have celebrated the pardons and pledged revenge. The Proud Boys marched through Washington on Inauguration Day in celebratory anticipation of the pardons, cheered along by Trump supporters as they chanted, “Whose streets? Our streets!” Stewart Rhodes, former leader of the Oath Keepers, and Enrique Tarrio, former leader of the Proud Boys, who were released from decades-long sentences, have called for revenge or retribution against those responsible for their imprisonment—a not-so-subtle threat against prosecutors, judges, jury members, and investigators, among others.
It’s hard to imagine a more combustible moment than the one we are in. The pardons are another layer of kindling that sends a message that violence is not only an acceptable solution to political problems but a preferable one.
Editor’s note: Readers may also be interested in Tom Josecelyn‘s, What Just Happened: Trump’s January 6 Pardons and Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers By The Numbers, Just Security (January 22, 2025)