Since President Donald Trump pardoned the men and women who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, lawsuits have flown around D.C. from those pardoned, seeking awards or restitution for their cases.
Legislators from both sides of the aisle have stepped in to discuss the issue, and the Trump administration has already approved at least one civil settlement related to the riot.
Last year, the Justice Department settled with rioter Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by Capitol Police as she broke through a smashed window in the House Speaker’s lobby.
The latest legislation
Now, Rep. Deborah Ross, D-N.C., is introducing legislation to block any additional taxpayer funds from being awarded to rioters. The new House bill would prohibit distributing taxpayer funds for any “January 6th compensation fund” and bar refunding any damage payments made by convicted rioters.
“We have got to make it very clear that Congress does not think these insurrectionists need to be rewarded for trying to overturn an election and for defacing property and for injuring Capitol police officers,” Ross told CBS News.
The legislation reads, in part: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall be disbursed from the United States Treasury to refund any court-ordered compensation, including restitution, fines, or special assessments, paid by any individual convicted for involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, including any individual so convicted and subsequently pardoned.”
The bill is not a new idea for Ross, who has advocated for Capitol victims, saying Trump’s pardons “have re-traumatized the victims.”
She previously noted that the president’s clemency has prevented the attackers from having to pay restitution for the damages they caused on Jan. 6. According to CBS, total damages surpassed $3 million, only about 15% of which was paid before Trump issued the pardons.
Ross’ office did not respond to Straight Arrow News’ request for comment.
Restitution and refunds
In recent months, several of the individuals at the Capitol on Jan. 6 have filed local and federal lawsuits seeking damages.
In August 2025, a federal judge authorized a $2,200 refund to a Jan. 6 rioter whose felony conviction was dropped as part of Trump’s blanket pardons. The judge in the case emphasized his reluctance, but said the law required repayment.
Late last year, another judge granted $570 refunds to two rioters. Another rioter sought $63,000 for filming the riot, but a judge said no.
In another lawsuit, the Proud Boys leaders sued the federal government over their prosecutions, seeking $100 million in damages. That case is still going through the legal system, as the U.S. seeks to dismiss it.
“We now have the Proud Boys trying to take people’s tax dollars and act like they were the victims on Jan. 6, which we know is patently false,” Ross told CBS.
Other lawsuits from Jan. 6 rioters are still pending.
What Trump’s administration is saying
The president has long maintained rioters’ innocence, saying many of their criminal cases were “excessive.”
“At least the cases we looked at, these were people that actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate,” Trump said in January, 2025.
He’s noted that the rioters have “spent years in jail, and they should not have served,” and minimized the violence, calling them “very minor incidents.”
Trump issued blanket pardons for more than 1,500 people tied to the 2021 Capitol riot on the very first day of his second term, Jan. 20, 2025. Justice Department clemency guidelines state that people seeking clemency are typically expected to wait at least 5 years after their conviction or the completion of their sentence before applying for a pardon. None of those involved in the insurrection met the timeline set forth through that guidance when the pardons were issued four years and 14 days after the date of the riot.
While the president has not plainly said Jan. 6 rioters deserve restitution, U.S. Attorney Ed Martin said last year that certain Jan. 6 rioters deserved “reparations.”
Others have noted that defendants are “entitled to reimbursement.”