Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stated in a federal court hearing that they could not guarantee a list identifying FBI employees involved in investigating the January 6 Capitol attack would not be shared with other federal entities. While the DOJ confirmed that the information had not been officially disseminated outside the department meaning it had not been given to the White House, the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), or other agencies officials could not assure the court that the list would not eventually be shared elsewhere in the federal government.
The issue arose in response to lawsuits alleging that the administration was preparing to release identifying details of agents involved in January 6 investigations, potentially exposing them to professional retaliation or personal harm. The lawsuits also suggested the administration was planning a “purge” of these agents based on their past assignments. These concerns were heightened by the president’s decision to pardon approximately 1,500 individuals convicted in connection with the attack.
Before the hearing, the DOJ filed a memorandum opposing the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order. The department argued that it was merely conducting a “review process” under an executive order aimed at ending what was described as the “weaponization of the federal government.” Despite this, attorneys representing the agents continued to insist that even the possibility of the information being shared outside the DOJ posed significant risks.
During the proceedings, the DOJ agreed to a temporary consent agreement stating that it would not disseminate the information to the public. However, it was unable to offer the same assurance for the rest of the federal government. This left attorneys for the agents deeply concerned, as they sought stronger protections against the potential exposure of the list.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys cited past instances in which officials and other public servants had been targeted after their names were publicly released. They also pointed to instances where the administration had either ousted or sought to remove individuals it viewed as adversarial. One attorney specifically mentioned that at least one pardoned individual had already issued threats against the agents who worked on their case.
Concerns also arose regarding whether DOGE or other entities had access to DOJ systems. One attorney expressed worry that “nongovernment persons operating within DOJ” could release the names, even if the department itself refrained from doing so. Another attorney warned that it would be a “big problem” if the list made its way to external individuals before the court could act to prevent it.
The presiding judge, appearing frustrated by the DOJ’s inability to offer broader assurances, questioned the department’s representative, asking, “If not you, then who do I have to get in here?” The DOJ’s attorney responded that they could not “make representations for the government as a whole” regarding the dissemination of the information.
The government argued that the plaintiffs’ fears of imminent harm were “speculative” and therefore could not justify a broad restraining order against the entire federal government. However, plaintiffs’ attorneys countered that since the DOJ had already stated on record that it had no intention of releasing the information, there would be no harm in agreeing to a more restrictive order.
Throughout the hearing, proceedings were paused multiple times as DOJ officials sought input from higher-level decision-makers who might authorize stronger safeguards for the agents’ information. Ultimately, the two sides agreed to reconvene the following day to continue discussions, leaving the fate of the agents’ identities uncertain.
