Written by Daniel Peterson.
On February 20, 2025, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) issued a firm rebuttal to accusations that it was barring participants tied to the January 6, 2021, Capitol protest from its annual gathering, held this week. The denial, posted on Twitter/X, countered claims sparked by Jan. 6 figure Jake Lang, who alleged political exclusion. For attendees and observers of the conservative movement, this dispute underscores lingering tensions within the GOP over the legacy of that day—a rift CPAC insists it’s not fueling.
CPAC’s Official Stance and Response
CPAC moved quickly to quash the narrative. “It is untrue that we are not allowing people to come to CPAC because of their involvement with J6,” the organization stated online. It emphasized unwavering support, adding, “CPAC has been a constant supporter of this persecuted community and we support wholeheartedly President Trump’s pardons of the J6 victims.” The statement doubled as a sales pitch—registration remains open, tickets are dwindling—pushing back against exclusion claims with a call to join the sold-out event.
The timing matters. Lang’s accusation dropped Wednesday, alleging a shadowy “cabal” of establishment Republicans had sidelined him for political gain—a charge lacking proof but echoed by others tied to January 6. CPAC’s Thursday reply aimed to douse the fire, framing itself as a defender, not a gatekeeper, of this group. For a retiree in Georgia planning to attend, this might signal business as usual; for skeptics, it’s a dodge worth watching.
Jan. 6 Figures and Their Allegations
Jake Lang wasn’t alone in his grievance. Other prominent January 6 participants—Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, and Richard Barnett, known for propping his feet on Nancy Pelosi’s desk—reported similar bans. Lang, a vocal provocateur, claimed CPAC targeted him politically, though he offered no substantiation beyond his word. Rhodes, Tarrio, and Barnett followed suit, amplifying a narrative of exclusion that spread fast among their circles.
Barnett, however, pivoted by Thursday. He confirmed he’s now allowed to attend but contested CPAC’s blanket denial. “This is a lie. They are targeting pre registered J6,” he posted on Twitter/X, sharing a pre-approval email and QR code as evidence. His case suggests a reversal—or glitch—after initial rejection. Lang’s status remains murkier; his Thursday posts still decried being “kicked out,” with no hint of reinstatement.
For a small business owner in Texas who recalls January 6’s chaos, these names stir memory—Rhodes convicted of seditious conspiracy, Tarrio an FBI informant, Barnett a symbol of defiance. Their claims, true or not, tug at a fault line: Are they victims of a purge or leveraging martyr status? CPAC’s stance holds firm, but the discord lingers.
Implications for CPAC and the GOP
The spat exposes broader stakes. CPAC, a conservative powerhouse since 1974, thrives as a stage for GOP unity—drawing thousands annually, from grassroots activists to Trump himself. Its 2025 lineup, bolstered by Trump’s pardon push for January 6 defendants, aims to rally that base. Denying bans aligns with this; any hint of shunning “J6ers” risks alienating a vocal faction Trump has embraced—think his 2024 campaign nods to their “persecution.”
Yet, the controversy tests CPAC’s balancing act. Embracing January 6 figures courts MAGA loyalty but irks moderates wary of that day’s violence—over 140 officers injured, five deaths tied to the riot. Barnett’s QR code proof suggests a snafu—pre-registered attendees blocked then cleared—hinting at logistical hiccups, not a conspiracy. Lang’s silence on returning leaves room for doubt; either way, CPAC’s “open door” claim holds unless hard evidence flips it.
For a teacher in Ohio tracking GOP trends, this dustup reflects a party wrestling with its soul—Trump’s populism versus establishment roots. CPAC’s rebuttal doubles down on unity, but the J6ers’ outcry could ripple, shaping how the event—and the GOP—navigate this divide.
Our Take
CPAC’s swift denial of banning January 6 protesters from its 2025 conference aims to squash a divisive narrative, and it largely holds water—Barnett’s reversal suggests errors, not exclusion, were at play. Backing Trump’s pardons and keeping registration open bolsters their case; they’re not shunning a group they’ve long championed. For conservatives craving solidarity, this stance steadies the ship—Lang’s unbacked “cabal” talk feels more like noise than signal.
Still, the mess reveals cracks. If pre-registered J6ers faced hurdles, even briefly, CPAC’s process needs tightening—optics matter, and this stumble fuels distrust among a base already prickly about loyalty. The GOP’s Trump-J6 wing won’t fade quietly; CPAC risks losing them if it wavers. The event can weather this, but clarity—not just tweets—will keep the faithful on board.
