After years of concealment and obstruction, the truth is finally emerging regarding the deep state. A recently published report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz validates what conservatives have long believed: the FBI was not only aware of the January 6 protest — it had personnel on the ground, including confidential human sources (CHSs) who accessed restricted areas and even the Capitol building itself.
For years, the narrative promoted by Democrats and their media allies claimed that January 6 was an “insurrection” solely orchestrated by MAGA supporters — with no mention of federal agents, informants, or prior knowledge of potential unrest. Now, that narrative is beginning to fall apart.
In a press release dated December 12, 2024, Inspector General Horowitz disclosed that *26 FBI confidential human sources* were present in Washington, D.C., on January 6 in relation to the day’s events. Moreover, in a remarkable admission, he confirmed that at least one of those sources entered the Capitol itself, while others ventured into restricted areas.
Consider this: FBI assets were present in restricted areas of the Capitol on January 6.
Horowitz’s report directly contradicts previous statements made by the FBI. The agency had earlier asserted that it had canvassed its field offices for intelligence and had alerted local law enforcement. This assertion has proven to be false. According to the IG, the FBI submitted “inaccurate reports to Congress,” citing “confusion and lack of coordination.” However, even if these inaccuracies were not considered “intentional,” the outcome remained the same: Congress and the American public were misled — once again.
And what of the denials regarding FBI involvement in the crowd? The Inspector General acknowledges that they found *no evidence* that undercover FBI personnel were “in the various protest crowds or at the Capitol,” but that does not equate to a lack of FBI involvement. In fact, the report confirms that there was involvement — and it was significant.
On that day, there were 26 FBI CHSs present in D.C.:
One of them entered the Capitol amidst the riot.
* Two others accessed restricted areas outside the building.
* Additionally, 11 CHSs also entered restricted zones.
* Many were not even assigned to be there — they arrived of their own accord.
In simpler terms: a considerable number of informants affiliated with the FBI were present at the Capitol, and several participated in unlawful activities — all while ordinary Americans continue to be pursued and imprisoned for merely stepping into the same locations.
The repercussions were immediate. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY), a long-time critic of the FBI’s management of January 6, took to X (formerly Twitter) to express:
“It’s no coincidence that FBI Director Wray announced his resignation just before the release of the IG report revealing the actions of FBI confidential human sources at the Capitol on January 6.”
“For four years, I have sought answers on this matter. Now the misconduct is finally brought to light.”
Massie is justified in raising the alarm. Director Wray’s timely resignation appears less like a career decision and more like a tactical withdrawal — a desperate effort to evade accountability as the truth begins to emerge.
The Critical Inquiry: Who Was Truly Provoking What?
This report raises a question that mainstream media avoids addressing: **To what degree was the FBI involved in influencing the events of January 6?** Were these confidential sources merely bystanders — or did some of them act as instigators? And if they engaged in criminal acts, why have they not faced the same legal consequences as Trump supporters?
For years, conservatives who questioned the FBI’s involvement in January 6 were labeled as conspiracy theorists. Now it is evident that those concerns were completely warranted. The American populace deserves transparency — and accountability — from the federal agencies that are meant to serve *them*, rather than manipulate public opinion or conceal their own shortcomings.
This issue extends beyond January 6. It concerns the trust we place in our institutions and raises the question of whether the FBI has transformed into a political tool used against the very citizens it is committed to safeguarding.