FBI official: Patel says hundreds of agents were present at Jan. 6 riot but deployed for crowd control after riot declaration; Wray accused of lying to Congress

Kash Patel, a former top adviser to President Trump, challenged FBI leadership over the agency’s involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, saying hundreds of bureau personnel were present but were deployed for crowd-control duties only after Capitol Police declared the scene a riot. Patel told Fox News Digital that the arrangement violated FBI standards and accused then-Director Christopher Wray of misleading Congress about what happened. He described the situation as a failure of leadership and said that agents who spoke up are helping uncover the truth.

Patel cited a report he said indicated 274 FBI agents in plain clothes were at the riot, and he said the number included those responding to pipe bombs found near the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee headquarters the night before Jan. 6. He asserted that the agents were sent into the Capitol after the riot declaration, a move he characterized as inappropriate for FBI personnel and against agency policy. Patel also said the disclosure shows that “agents coming forward” are bringing greater transparency and accountability to the FBI. There is no indication that any FBI agents were involved in events related to Trump’s speech at the Ellipse, an FBI official told Fox News Digital, even as lawmakers have sought clarity on any embedded personnel.

The blaze report that Patel cited has sparked a broader set of questions about whether the FBI had undercover or plainclothes personnel among the crowd. The Wall Street Journal, Politico, and other outlets have similarly noted the complexity of classifying individuals as “plainclothes” versus “undercover” in such chaotic settings. The inspector general’s December 2022 report, which Horowitz released last year, said the FBI did not have undercover employees in the protest crowds or at the Capitol on January 6, and it acknowledged 26 paid informants in connection with the events, but only three were assigned to be at the Capitol. The report also said informants were not allowed to incite or engage in criminal activity. The discrepancy around “plainclothes” versus “undercover” has fed questions about how FBI personnel are described in official reports and congressional testimony.

Patel’s criticism comes as Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 15, 2023, stating that violence at the Capitol was not part of any operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents, and that he did not want to suggest otherwise. Yet Patel argued that Wray’s answers were evasive, describing them as a “D.C. answer” that failed to confirm whether agents or sources were embedded in or around Jan. 6. Patel urged the director to be forthcoming with Congress and the American people about what happened and why. Fox News’ coverage noted that Wray had previously refused to disclose whether FBI personnel were embedded with the crowd, a stance Patel said he intended to challenge.

The broader political reaction followed a report by The Blaze, which cited the 274-agent figure. President Trump amplified the controversy on Truth Social, saying Wray has “some major explaining to do” and alleging that FBI agents were embedded in the crowd and acting as agitators rather than law enforcement officers. He called for the identities and actions of each agent to be disclosed. Trump also highlighted that he pardoned or commuted sentences for those charged in connection with Jan. 6 after taking office this year. The president’s posts reflect ongoing disputes over the level and nature of FBI involvement, even as other officials emphasize that the FBI’s public posture has focused on transparency and accountability.

In its official posture, the FBI has said that agents arrived at the Capitol after the riot was already underway and that their role was to support local law enforcement with crowd control, not to conduct an undercover operation. Officials also noted that the first agents arrived around 2:30 p.m., after the riot had been declared, and that there is no evidence they were present before that time. Some officials familiar with the matter cautioned that the line between “plainclothes” and “undercover” can be blurred in fast-moving incidents, complicating how observers interpret testimony and reports. The FBI’s response to questions about the January 6 conduct continues to be shaped by ongoing congressional inquiries and watchdog evaluations.

The story’s evolving details highlight the tension between transparency and classified operations in assessing the FBI’s actions on January 6. While some officials defend the bureau’s decisions as appropriate under crisis conditions, Patel’s allegations emphasize a demand for more complete disclosures about the agency’s role in that day’s events. As lawmakers press for more precise accounting, the FBI has reiterated its commitment to openness and accountability, while noting that sensitive information may remain subject to confidentiality considerations. In the public discourse, the Jan. 6 narrative continues to be shaped by competing accounts of whether FBI personnel operated within standard practice, and by the competing pressures of national security, oversight, and political accountability.

As the debate persists, observers caution against conflating different FBI roles at large events and stress the importance of precise language in official statements and testimony. The inspector general’s findings, while not addressing every assertion about the Jan. 6 crowd, have provided a framework for evaluating claims about undercover activity and the extent of FBI involvement. The FBI’s leadership has signaled a continued commitment to accountability, but critics like Patel say more aggressive disclosures are needed to restore public trust after a period of intense partisan scrutiny surrounding the investigation into January 6.

Kash Patel, appearing at public events and in media interviews, has framed his assertions as part of a broader demand for reform within the FBI’s leadership and its congressional outreach. Wray’s replies, he contends, must be direct and complete when lawmakers—under oath—seek to understand what happened at the Capitol on January 6. The evolving narrative reflects a broader national conversation about the balance between security operations and congressional transparency, a balance that continues to be tested as investigations and inquiries proceed.

On a related note, the discussion over roles and deployments at January 6 has underscored the importance of accurate, consistent terminology in public reporting. The terms “plainclothes,” “undercover,” and “crowd-control mission” carry distinct implications for how events are understood by policymakers and the public. As new documents and testimonies emerge, the public can anticipate further clarifications from the FBI, congressional committees, and independent watchdogs about the agency’s activities on that day and the reasoning behind its operational choices.