Trump Rages at Bombshell Report Alleging FBI Had 274 Plainclothes Agents in Capitol Crowd

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Saturday blasted a bombshell report alleging the FBI placed 274 plainclothes agents in the crowd at the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, saying that FBI Director Christopher Wray “has some major explaining to do.” Trump’s post on Truth Social escalates a dispute over how federal agents were deployed that day and how it has been described by officials since.

The Blaze, a conservative outlet, published a report on Thursday asserting that the FBI privately acknowledged the presence of those agents in the crowd, despite a Justice Department inspector general (IG) report denying that any such large undercover operation took place. The article cites what it says are internal documents and communications. Trump amplified the claim in a series of posts, arguing that what Wray has said publicly differs from the agency’s privately acknowledged actions and demanding to know the identities and purposes of the alleged agents.

This latest flare comes as the former president continues to insist on new investigations and disclosures related to January 6, including the balance between security measures and civil liberties. Trump wrote that the FBI’s actions on that day constitute a major departure from standard procedures and regulatory guidance, and he cast Wray’s prior statements as inadequate or misleading. He also invoked his predecessor as a benchmark for accountability, stating that “that’s two in a row, Comey and Wray.”

The Blaze report, published this week, says the FBI placed tens of agents in plain clothes in the Capitol crowd just before and during the riot, a claim that would imply a level of undercover activity not reflected in contemporaneous public summaries. The outlet’s account contrasts with the DOJ inspector general’s earlier finding that there was no evidence supporting the presence of such a large, covert FBI operation in the crowd. The Blaze describes a separate line of documents that it says show internal acknowledgment by FBI leadership, though it does not provide public confirmation from the FBI in its report.

The inspector general’s review, conducted in the years after the riot, centered on a range of FBI actions related to the investigation and the handling of evidence. Officials have long cautioned that the IG’s scope was limited to documented practices and that it did not determine broader questions about undercover operations outside the records it examined. The new Blaze piece challenges that narrative by asserting the existence of privately acknowledged agents, a claim that would require independent corroboration beyond the outlet’s reporting.

The government’s response to the allegations has remained cautious publicly. FBI spokespeople have not publicly confirmed or denied the specific figure cited by The Blaze, and the agency has continued to emphasize its ongoing investigations and internal reviews related to January 6. The IG’s conclusions, issued in earlier years, have been cited by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle as part of broader debates about oversight, transparency, and the balance between security and civil liberties.

Analysts said the dispute underscores ongoing tensions over how much information federal agencies disclose about operational details tied to politically charged events. If the underlying claims were substantiated, they could complicate existing narratives about the level of federal involvement on January 6 and fuel further scrutiny of how undercover efforts are deployed and reported. Critics of broad surveillance powers say the situation highlights the risk of eroding trust when major institutions are perceived as withholding or altering key facts.

As the investigation ecosystem around January 6 continues to evolve, officials and watchdogs expect more disclosures and, potentially, further inquiry into how information about undercover activity is compiled, reviewed, and released. The current episode serves as a reminder that the line between public reporting and internal agency practice remains a contentious terrain in American politics, with implications for accountability, oversight, and public confidence in federal law enforcement.

In the near term, lawmakers and political observers will weigh the competing narratives as new documents and statements emerge. The outcome could influence ongoing debates about the scope of investigations, congressional oversight, and the public’s understanding of what occurred on and around that day.