Written by Mark Danielson.
JD Vance, the Vice President-elect, recently stirred up some dust with his comments about potential pardons for January 6 defendants. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Vance stated that those involved in “violent assault” that day wouldn’t be pardoned. The backlash from his own supporters was swift and vocal. Many expected a blanket pardon from the incoming administration for all Jan. 6 defendants, but Vance made it clear his stance wasn’t that simple.
Taking to X (formerly Twitter) on Sunday, Vance reassured critics that he strongly supports the defendants, especially those who’ve been victims of what he calls unfair treatment by the Department of Justice (DOJ). “We care about people unjustly locked up,” he wrote, emphasizing his commitment to addressing cases where defendants were either provoked or subjected to biased trials.
This clarification came after the Hodgetwins, two conservative internet personalities, publicly criticized Vance, urging him to reconsider his position. They pointed to examples of excessive use of force during the Capitol protest, including an incident involving the death of Ashli Babbitt, a protestor fatally shot by a Capitol police officer.
Parsing the Numbers: Who Are the Jan. 6 Defendants?
The sheer number of individuals prosecuted following January 6 is staggering. According to the DOJ, over 1,583 people have faced charges related to the events at the Capitol. Most were accused of “entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds,” while others faced more serious allegations. At least 133 defendants were charged with carrying dangerous weapons or causing serious injury to officers.
Yet, many conservatives argue that these figures don’t tell the whole story. A significant portion of those arrested were nonviolent protestors who merely walked through open doors or stood in restricted areas. They’re being lumped in with individuals accused of more aggressive actions, creating a perception of indiscriminate prosecution.
Critics also point to the stark contrast between how the DOJ handled January 6 cases versus the leniency shown to Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors during the summer of 2020. While BLM demonstrators burned police precincts and federal courthouses, prosecutions were sporadic and often resulted in dropped charges. This disparity has become a rallying cry for conservatives who feel the justice system is being wielded as a political weapon.
The Role of Federal Informants
One of Vance’s more provocative comments involved federal informants. He questioned whether individuals working with the FBI or other agencies on January 6 would also receive pardons. “There were federal informants in the crowd,” Vance claimed, a statement that has gained traction among his supporters. They point to reports and investigations suggesting that undercover agents and informants may have played a role in inciting or escalating the day’s events.
If true, this raises a troubling question: Were some participants manipulated into actions that now have them facing severe legal consequences? For Vance and others in his camp, the idea that government actors might have provoked violence adds another layer of injustice to an already controversial situation.
A Legacy Media Narrative
Another key point of contention is how the events of January 6 have been framed by the media and political elites. Most major outlets have described the protest as an “insurrection,” a term that evokes images of organized rebellion and violent overthrow. But many conservatives argue this label is an overreach, designed to stigmatize those who believe the 2020 election was fraught with irregularities.
Yes, some individuals engaged in destructive or violent acts, but labeling the entire event an insurrection ignores the overwhelming majority of attendees who were peaceful. This selective framing has shaped public opinion and, by extension, the DOJ’s prosecutorial approach.
Our Take
The fallout from January 6 and the ongoing legal battles of its participants highlight deep divisions in American society. At the heart of the matter is a question of fairness: Are these defendants being treated as individuals, or are they political scapegoats for an administration intent on silencing dissent?
From a conservative standpoint, the selective prosecution of January 6 participants compared to the hands-off approach taken during the BLM riots is deeply troubling. Justice should be blind, not wielded as a weapon against political opponents. When government agencies and media outlets work in tandem to paint an entire group with the same broad brush, it undermines trust in our institutions.
By refusing to issue blanket pardons, Vance risks alienating his base. But his insistence on reviewing cases individually is, at its core, a conservative value: one that prioritizes personal accountability and the rule of law. The challenge will be ensuring that this process is truly fair and not just another chapter in the political theater that has come to define modern America.
