More than 270 plainclothes FBI agents were confirmed to be at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but new leadership within the bureau says they were deployed only after the riot began—a move that is now being scrutinized as irregular and inconsistent with prior agency policy.
According to Fox News, FBI Director Kash Patel and other officials have criticized former Director Christopher Wray for withholding the scope and timing of agent deployments on Jan. 6 in congressional hearings, as new reports clarify the agency’s role at the Capitol.
The FBI has now stated that 274 of its agents, not wearing uniforms, were at the Capitol on Jan. 6, but were called in for crowd control long after the unrest had already started. According to Patel, the mission was initiated at the request of local Capitol Police authorities.
However, Patel explained that this decision deviated from usual bureau practices. "Agents were sent into a crowd control mission after the riot was declared by Metro Police – something that goes against FBI standards," he said. He added that internal resistance existed among personnel being assigned to that duty, pointing to the agency's usual policy of avoiding direct engagement in such events unless necessary. Despite speculation, there is no evidence that those FBI agents played a role in organizing or inciting demonstrators. The Department of Justice’s inspector general confirmed this in a December 2024 report, which found no FBI agents embedded in the protest crowds before or during the breach.
Initial Disclosure Brings New Pressure
The timing of the deployments is central to the public debate around the FBI’s role. According to reports, most of the plainclothes personnel did not arrive until approximately 2:30 p.m., well after the U.S. Capitol had already been breached and the riot was in full swing. During testimony before Congress on Nov. 15, 2023, then-FBI Director Wray stated that no agents or operatives had organized violence at the Capitol. However, he did not answer whether agents or confidential sources had been dispatched in advance, a point that has since been a focal concern for leaders across the political spectrum.
“Why it took a ton of time and questioning in Congress for the director to get that point is what I'm trying to eliminate from the FBI,” Patel said, criticizing what he described as deliberate ambiguity in testimony. He emphasized that leaders must be prepared to provide complete and transparent information under oath.
Inspector General Report Sheds Light
A December 2024 report issued by DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz brought further clarity. Horowitz wrote that the FBI had no undercover employees at the Capitol or among the protestors that day. However, the report noted that 26 paid informants from different agencies were present, with only three actually assigned by the FBI for Jan. 6-specific intelligence gathering.
These informants were strictly barred from engaging in any illegal conduct, according to the watchdog report. Confusion over language may have contributed to public uncertainty, as terms like "plainclothes" and "undercover" were used inconsistently across official statements and reports. The 274 agents on site apparently included personnel who responded to threats of live explosives. Two pipe bombs were discovered around the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters on the night before the Capitol riot, and responding to these threats was part of some agents' assignments.
Trump And Patel Revive Accountability Demands
President Donald Trump has voiced strong reactions to the new disclosures. “It was just revealed that the FBI had secretly placed, against all Rules, Regulations, Protocols, and Standards, 274 FBI Agents into the Crowd just before, and during, the January 6th Hoax,” he said in a recent statement, calling into question earlier claims made by Wray. Trump maintains that many demonstrators were unfairly targeted in the aftermath and has used the latest developments to defend his 2025 decision to pardon or commute the sentences of individuals charged for Jan. 6-related crimes. He also claimed that the agents could have behaved more like provocateurs than law enforcement personnel, offering no evidence but calling for further investigation.
Patel, now heading the bureau, has also been sharply critical of his predecessor Wray’s failure to accurately detail the nature and scale of the FBI's presence. “This was the failure of a corrupt leadership that lied to Congress and to the American people,” Patel said. He praised agents who came forward with additional information, adding, “We are fully committed to transparency, and justice and accountability continue with this FBI.”
Legacy Officials Face Legal Scrutiny
As the debate over agent conduct continues, past leadership has also come under legal pressure. James Comey, the FBI director before Wray, was recently indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly providing false statements to Congress. Details of his indictment are not directly tied to January 6, but the development has reignited scrutiny of the bureau's overall conduct across recent administrations.
Wray, who was appointed by Trump in 2017 following Comey’s firing, served during the Capitol riot and the highly politicized investigations that followed. His replacement by Patel came as part of broader leadership changes within the bureau under the current administration. Though Patel reaffirmed that the agents deployed on Jan. 6 had arrived only after the Capitol Police declared the riot, he acknowledged widespread internal disagreement over the planning and communication surrounding the deployment. Identifying and correcting these gaps, he said, is now a top priority.
Calls For Transparency And Reform Continue
In his effort to restore institutional trust, Patel emphasized that the FBI must prioritize timely and accurate communication with lawmakers when called to testify. "If Congress asks you a question under oath… You have to be prepared for that," he said, noting that evasive or incomplete responses risk undermining public confidence.
While public interpretations of the FBI’s activities on Jan. 6 remain deeply divided, officials on all sides acknowledged that the use of agents in roles inconsistent with typical procedures commands greater scrutiny and oversight in the future. The precise timeline, permissions, and mission scope continue to be examined as part of internal reviews. With newly disclosed facts and a change in leadership, the bureau is now reckoning with its role not only during the Capitol breach but in how the aftermath was communicated to the public and Congress. Investigations into past conduct and promises for future reform have placed the FBI squarely in the spotlight once again.
