Since the January 6th insurrection and storming of the U.S. Capitol, federal judges have repeatedly and pointedly laid the blame on former President Donald Trump for inciting the attack. Other judges may soon face similar questions as they consider Trump’s legal culpability for the insurrection, including whether he is constitutionally disqualified to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. 

In fifteen cases overseen by nine different judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents, courts have not minced words in declaring that Trump was the central cause of the January 6, 2021 insurrection, echoing the findings of the bipartisan January 6th Select Committee. Time and again judges have found that Trump inflamed his supporters with the lie of a “stolen” election, urged them to “fight” to take back their country, and sent them to the Capitol to “stop the steal.” Trump used violent rhetoric to whip his supporters into a frenzy and do illegally what he had tried and failed to do legally: stop certification of the election for Joe Biden. Although Trump has not yet faced criminal charges for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, federal judges hearing cases relating to the January 6th insurrection have repeatedly recognized the immense power and influence of Trump’s actions and words over his supporters, as well as Trump’s ultimate responsibility for the attack carried out by his supporters on his behalf and at his behest. 

Click here to jump to table 

In a civil lawsuit brought by members of Congress and police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6th, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta wrote that Trump’s statements at his January 6th “Stop the Steal” rally were “plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment.” The speech “was akin to telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer’s home. He invited his supporters to Washington, D.C., after telling them for months that corrupt and spineless politicians were to blame for stealing an election from them; retold that narrative when thousands of them assembled on the Ellipse; and directed them to march on the Capitol building—the metaphorical corn-dealer’s house—where those very politicians were at work to certify an election that he had lost.” 

In another case, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly highlighted Trump’s responsibility in finding criminal defendant Danean MacAndrew guilty of several crimes for her participation in what the judge described as an “insurrection” on January 6, 2021. The judge found: “[A]t the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally, then-President Trump eponymously exhorted his supporters to, in fact, stop the steal by marching to the Capitol. Defendant marched to the Capitol where, she testified, she understood that only Congress had the power to fix the election’s outcome and that Congress was likely in session while she was around and in the Capitol. Having followed then-President Trump’s instructions, which were in line with her stated desires, the Court therefore finds that Defendant intended her presence to be disruptive to Congressional business.”

During the sentencing of January 6th defendant John Lolos, Judge Mehta noted that Lolos was heavily swayed by Trump’s rhetoric, and Lolos only left the Capitol building after being confronted by police officers who ordered him to leave. Judge Mehta pointed out that Lolos flew from Seattle to Washington, D.C. to protest what he called “voter fraud.” After Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally, where Trump directed his followers to “fight like hell,” Lolos joined others in marching to the Capitol building, breached police barriers and the building, and spent nearly 45 minutes inside, taking photos, waving his flag, taking selfies and other photos. He joined the mob in chanting at police officers trying to clear insurrectionists out of the building.

“The fact remains that he and others were called to Washington, D.C. by an elected official; he was prompted to walk to the Capitol by an elected official. People like Mr. Lolos were told lies, fed falsehoods, and told that our election was stolen when it clearly was not.”
Judge Amit Mehta

At Lolos’ sentencing, Judge Mehta said, “The fact remains that he and others were called to Washington, D.C. by an elected official; he was prompted to walk to the Capitol by an elected official. People like Mr. Lolos were told lies, fed falsehoods, and told that our election was stolen when it clearly was not.” Judge Mehta recognized that Lolos, like many others that day, were “pawns” in Trump’s scheme to overturn the 2020 election results.

Or take January 6th defendant Nicole Prado. She told the FBI that she anticipated violence on January 6th and willingly went into the Capitol building, despite her understanding that she was not supposed to enter the grounds. Prado eventually made her way into the office of the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. In her sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras said, “The events of January 6th involved the rather unprecedented confluence of events spurred by then President Trump and a number of his prominent allies who bear much responsibility for what occurred on that day.”

Perhaps the most direct attribution pinning January 6th on Donald Trump came from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in a lawsuit between the January 6th Select Committee and Trump lawyer John Eastman. In ruling that certain communications were not protected by the attorney-client privilege, Judge Carter concluded it was “more likely than not that President Trump” committed a felony by “corruptly attempt[ing] to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” Judge Carter remarked: 

“The illegality of the plan was obvious. Our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections. Ignoring this history, President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. As Vice President Pence stated, ‘no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority.’ Every American—and certainly the President of the United States—knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this ‘BOLD,’ President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle. Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”

In these instances and more, federal judges have drawn a direct connection between what happened at the Capitol on January 6th and former President Trump’s actions. Judges are assigning blame where it is rightly due. Instead of accepting his defeat in 2020, Donald Trump violated his oath to the Constitution by sending a violent mob of his supporters to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history. His abuse of power threatened to undermine our democratic institutions. The evidence could not be clearer that Trump is responsible for what happened on January 6, 2021, and judges recognize that reality. 

wdt_ID Judge Court Date Statement Citation Link Additional statements
1 Judge Rudolph Contreras U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2022-02-07 “The events of January 6th involved the rather unprecedented confluence of events spurred by then President Trump and a number of his prominent allies who bear much responsibility for what occurred on that day.”
Transcript of Sentencing at 38, United States of America v. Nicole Prado (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2022) (No. 1:21-cr-00403-RC). Source
2 Judge Rudolph Contreras U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2022-02-04 “The events of January 6th involved a rather unprecedented confluence of events spurred by then President Trump and a number of his prominent allies who bear much responsibility for what occurred on that day.”
Transcript of Sentencing at 28, United States of America v. Richard Franklin Barnard and Jeffery Shane Witcher (D.D.C. Feb 4, 2022) (No. 1:21-cr-00235-RC). Source
3 Judge Rudolph Contreras U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2022-01-20 "The events of January 6th involved a rather unprecedented confluence of events spread by
then President Trump and a number of his prominent allies who bear much responsibility for what occurred on that day."
Transcript of Sentencing at 68, United States v Stepakoff (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2022) (No. 1:21-cr-00096-RC) Source
4 Judge Rudolph Contreras U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2022-02-07 “The events of January 6th involved a rather unprecedented confluence of events spurred by then-President Trump and a number of his prominent allies who bear much responsibility for what occurred on that day.”
Transcript of Sentencing at 28, United States v. Vic Williams (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2022) (No. 1:21-cr-00388-RC-1). Source
5 Judge Amit Mehta U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2022-02-18 “President Trump’s January 6 Rally Speech was akin to telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer’s home. He invited his supporters to Washington, D.C., after telling them for months that corrupt and spineless politicians were to blame for stealing an election from them; retold that narrative when thousands of them assembled on the Ellipse; and directed them to march on the Capitol building—the metaphorical corn-dealer’s house—where those very politicians were at work to certify an election that he had lost.”

Additional Statements: “The President argues that, at most, Plaintiffs have pleaded that the President ‘made political statements . . . at a rally meant to persuade political officials.’ But that contention misses the forest for the trees. It ignores the larger context of the Rally Speech. For months, the President led his supporters to believe the election was stolen. When some of his supporters threatened state election officials, he refused to condemn them. Rallies in Washington, D.C., in November and December 2020 had turned violent, yet he invited his supporters to Washington, D.C., on the day of the Certification. They came by the thousands. And, following a 75-minute speech in which he blamed corrupt and weak politicians for the election loss, he called on them to march on the very place where Certification was taking place.”; Plaintiffs’ allegations show a call-and-response quality to the President’s communications, of which the President would have been aware. The Complaints contain numerous examples of the President’s communications being understood by supporters as direct messages to them and, in the case of the January 6 Rally, as a call to action.; [T]he President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action. The President’s regular use of the word “we” is notable. To name just a few examples: “We will not take it anymore”; “We will ‘stop the steal’”; “We will never give up”; “We will never concede”; “We will not take it anymore”; “All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president”; “[W]e’re going to have to fight much harder”; “We can’t let that happen”; “We’re going to walk down . . .”; “We fight like hell”; “We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Mem. Op. & Order at 97, Thompson v Trump, 590 F. Supp. 3d 46 (D.D.C. 2022) (No. 21-cv-00400). Source “The President argues that, at most, Plaintiffs have pleaded that the President ‘made political statements . . . at a rally meant to persuade political officials.’ But that contention misses the forest for the trees. It ignores the larger context of the Rally Speech. For months, the President led his supporters to believe the election was stolen. When some of his supporters threatened state election officials, he refused to condemn them. Rallies in Washington, D.C., in November and December 2020 had turned violent, yet he invited his supporters to Washington, D.C., on the day of the Certification. They came by the thousands. And, following a 75-minute speech in which he blamed corrupt and weak politicians for the election loss, he called on them to march on the very place where Certification was taking place.”; Plaintiffs’ allegations show a call-and-response quality to the President’s communications, of which the President would have been aware. The Complaints contain numerous examples of the President’s communications being understood by supporters as direct messages to them and, in the case of the January 6 Rally, as a call to action.; [T]he President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action. The President’s regular use of the word “we” is notable. To name just a few examples: “We will not take it anymore”; “We will ‘stop the steal’”; “We will never give up”; “We will never concede”; “We will not take it anymore”; “All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president”; “[W]e’re going to have to fight much harder”; “We can’t let that happen”; “We’re going to walk down . . .”; “We fight like hell”; “We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
6 Judge Amit Mehta U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2021-11-19 “The fact remains that he and others were called to Washington, D.C. by an elected official; he was prompted to walk to the Capitol by an elected official. People like Mr. Lolos were told lies, fed falsehoods, and told that our election was stolen when it clearly was not.” Transcript of Sentencing at 55, United States v. Lolos (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2021) (No. CR 21-243). Source
7 Judge Amy Berman Jackson U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2021-05-26 “[t]he steady drumbeat that inspired defendant to take up arms has not faded away; six months later, the canard that the election was stolen is being repeated daily on major news outlets and from the corridors of power in state and federal government, not to mention the near-daily fulminations of the former President.” Mem. Op. at 24, United States v. Meredith (D.D.C. May 26, 2021) (No. 21-0159 (SBJ)). Source
8 Judge Amy Berman Jackson U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2021-05-27 “Defendant's promise to take action in the future cannot be dismissed as an unlikely occurrence given that his singular source of information, see Reply ¶ 8 (“Trump's the only big shot I trust right now”), continues to propagate the lie that inspired the attack on a near daily basis.” United States Of America, v. Karl Dresch, 2021 WL 2453166 at *8 (D.D.C. May 27, 2021) (No. CR 21-0071 (ABJ)). Source
9 Judge Amy Berman Jackson U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2021-08-04 He may very well have sincerely believed that the election had been unfair and tainted. I don't doubt that. But that belief was misguided. By that time even the Republican election officials in the challenged states had said over and over, when more than 60 judges across the country had said – including Republican judges, including judges appointed by President Trump himself -- had said over and over, there is no evidence behind these claims. At the end of the day the fact is that the defendant came to the Capitol because he placed his trust in someone who repaid that trust by lying to him. Transcript of Plea and Sentence at 30, United States of America v. Karl Dresch (D.D.C. Aug 4, 2021) (No. 21-cr-71). Source
10 Judge Amy Berman Jackson U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2021-12-01 “And as for the incendiary statements at the rally detailed in the sentencing memo, which absolutely, quite clearly and deliberately, stoked the flames of fear and discontent and explicitly encouraged those at the rally to go to the Capitol and fight for one reason and one reason only, to make sure the certification did not happen, those may be a reason for what happened, they may have inspired what happened, but they are not an excuse or justification.” Transcript of Sentencing at 22, United States v Russell Peterson, (D.D.C December 1, 2021) (No. 21-cr-309). Source
11 Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia 2021-03-22 “Everyone in our country knows what happened on January 6th. We also generally know -- although, I don't know why Mr. Tanios was there and Mr. Khater was there -- but we know, looking at it now, that they were supporting the president who would not accept that he was defeated in an election. And it was on that day when Congress, under their oath, the Constitution was to certify the electoral college. That's not happenstance that they picked January 6th.”
United States v George Tanios, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:21-mj-27 (N.D. W. Va. March 22, 2021) Source
12 Judge David O. Carter U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 2022-03-28 “The illegality of the plan was obvious. Our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections.239 Ignoring this history, President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. As Vice President Pence stated, “no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority.” Every American—and certainly the President of the United States—knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this “BOLD,” President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle. Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” Eastman v. Thompson, 594 F. Supp. 3d 1156, 6-7 (C.D. Cal. 2022) Source
13 Judge John D. Bates U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2022-12-28 “These words [Trump’s J6 Speech] only encourage those at the rally to march to the Capitol—nothing more— and do not address legality at all. But, although his express words only mention walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, one might conclude that the context implies that he was urging protestors to do something more—perhaps to enter the Capitol building and stop the certification. But even if so, there is simply no indication that Trump informed the protestors that doing so would be legal, as required to make out either defense. His speech simply suggests that it would be an act of ‘boldness’ to ‘stop the steal.’” Mem. Op. at 19, United States v. Alexander Sheppard (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2022) (Criminal Action No. 21-203 (JDB)). Source
14 Judge Beryl Howell U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2021-10-29 “You admit you should have known better, but somehow that day you didn't. And you say that you headed to the Capitol Building not with any intent to obstruct and impede congressional proceedings; but because the then-President, Trump, told protesters at the "stop the steal" rally -- and I quote: After this, we're going to walk down; and I will be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. And you say that you wanted to show your support for and join then-President Trump as he said he would be marching to the Capitol; but, of course, didn't.”
Transcript of Sentencing at 36, United States v. Leonard Gruppo (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2021) (No. 21-391). Source
15 Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2023-01-17 “ [A]t the “Stop the Steal” rally, then-President Trump eponymously exhorted his supporters to, in fact, stop the steal by marching to the Capitol. Defendant marched to the Capitol where, she testified, she understood that only Congress had the power to fix the election’s outcome and that Congress was likely in session while she was around and in the Capitol. Having followed then-President Trump’s instructions, which were in line with her stated desires, the Court therefore finds that Defendant intended her presence to be disruptive to Congressional business.” United States v. MacAndrew, 2022 WL 17983533 at 15 (D.D.C. Jan. 17, 2023) (No. CR 21-730 (CKK)). Source
16 Judge Reggie B. Walton U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2022-04-14 "You know, I think our democracy is in trouble. Because unfortunately, we have charlatans like our former president, who doesn't in my view really care about democracy, but only about power. And as a result of that, it's tearing this country apart. I have a concern that we have, unfortunately, American citizens who were so gullible that they were willing to accept what was being said without any proof that the allegations about the election had any merit whatsoever. People are just outraged at how they feel our system is not taking seriously what happened on that day because of their fear of the future of this country." United States v. Thompson, 21-cr-161 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2022) Source
Judge Court Date Statement Citation Link Additional statements

Read More in Investigations