Five years have passed since the world watched a mob climb the walls of the U.S. Capitol. It’s 2026, and somehow, we are still arguing about what to call it. Honestly, it's exhausting. Depending on who you ask today, it was either the darkest day for American democracy since the Civil War or just a "patriotic protest" that got a little rowdy.
But words matter. Especially when those words carry the power to disqualify people from holding office or land them in federal prison for a decade. So, was Jan 6th an insurrection, or is that just a label pushed by one side of the aisle?
To get a real answer, we have to look past the cable news shouting matches. We need to look at the legal definitions, the court rulings that have come down since then, and the actual evidence that was presented in front of judges—not just what’s being posted on social media.
The Legal Tightrope: What Does "Insurrection" Actually Mean?
Basically, there isn't one single, neat sentence in the U.S. Code that defines "insurrection." It’s kinda messy. However, federal law under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 makes it a crime to incite, assist, or engage in "any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof."
If you get convicted of this, you’re done. You can't hold any federal office ever again.
Historically, courts have viewed an insurrection as a violent uprising by a group of people specifically intended to prevent the government from executing its laws. It’s more than a riot. A riot is just chaotic violence. An insurrection has a goal: stopping the government from doing its job.
💡 You might also like: China One Country Two Systems: What Actually Changed and Why It Matters Now
On January 6, 2021, the "job" was the certification of the 2020 Electoral College votes. That's the crux of the argument.
- The Pro-Insurrection Label Argument: They point to the fact that the crowd wasn't just there to protest; they were there to stop a specific constitutional process.
- The Anti-Insurrection Label Argument: Critics say the crowd lacked the organization, heavy weaponry, or unified command structure to be considered a true "rebellion." They often call it a "hoax" or a staged media event.
What the Courts and Experts Have Found
Here is where things get real. While many politicians use the word "insurrection" loosely, the legal system has been much more surgical.
In late 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court actually ruled that the events of January 6 did constitute an insurrection. They defined it as a "concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power." That’s a heavy legal weight to throw around.
But then you have the criminal side. Interestingly, while over 1,500 people have been charged with various crimes, very few were actually charged with "insurrection" under Section 2383. Instead, the Department of Justice went after the leaders of groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for "seditious conspiracy."
Seditious Conspiracy vs. Insurrection
You might think they're the same thing. They aren't. Seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to use force to overthrow the government or delay the execution of any law.
- Enrique Tarrio, the former chairman of the Proud Boys, was sentenced to 22 years.
- Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, got 18 years.
Both were convicted of seditious conspiracy. To many legal experts, if you’re conspiring to use force to stop a law from being executed, you’re basically doing the work of an insurrectionist, even if the specific "insurrection" charge isn't on the docket.
The 2026 Perspective: Pardons and Rewriting History
Everything changed recently. With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the narrative has shifted aggressively at the executive level. The official White House website now refers to the Jan 6th defendants as people who were "unfairly targeted" and "used as political examples."
As of early 2026, Trump has issued sweeping pardons for over 1,500 individuals involved in the Capitol breach. This has created a massive legal and social whiplash.
On one hand, you have Ranking Member Jamie Raskin and House Democrats releasing reports warning that these pardons undermine the rule of law. They point out that dozens of these pardoned individuals have already been re-arrested for other crimes. They argue that calling it anything other than an insurrection is "whitewashing" history.
✨ Don't miss: Las Vegas Wind Today: Why the Valley Is Getting So Much Dust and What to Do
On the other hand, Rep. Barry Loudermilk and the new House Republican leadership are investigating the "partisan nature" of the original January 6 Committee. They claim the "insurrection" label was a "scripted TV spectacle" designed to damage political opponents.
The Evidence That Doesn't Disappear
Politics aside, the facts of the day are recorded in thousands of hours of video. This isn't just about "he-said, she-said."
- Casualties: We know Ashli Babbitt was shot by Capitol Police while trying to climb through a broken window into the Speaker's Lobby. We know that roughly 174 police officers were injured.
- Weapons: While many claim the crowd was "unarmed," court records show participants carried knives, bear spray, brass knuckles, and even a tomahawk axe. One rioter was caught on camera firing a gun into the air outside.
- Intent: Radio logs and private messages recovered by the FBI show coordination. Members of the Oath Keepers discussed "quick reaction forces" and stashing weapons in nearby hotels.
Does this meet the "insurrection" bar? If the goal was to stop the transfer of power through violence—which the delay of the certification proves—then logically, it fits the definition used by many historians and the Colorado Supreme Court.
Actionable Insights: How to Evaluate the Debate
If you're trying to figure out where you stand on this, don't just follow the loudest voice on your feed. Here is how to actually look at the data:
Look at the Charges, Not the Rhetoric
Don't just search for "was Jan 6th an insurrection." Instead, look up the specific DOJ sentencing memos for "Seditious Conspiracy." These documents contain the text messages and logistical plans that show whether there was a "concerted effort" to stop the government.
Distinguish Between the "Mob" and the "Organizers"
Most people at the Capitol that day were likely just caught up in the moment—a "mob riot." However, the legal debate focuses on the 600–700 people who acted with military-style precision. An insurrection doesn't require 10,000 people; it just requires a group using force to stop a law.
🔗 Read more: When Are Senate Elections: Why the 2026 Cycle is Closer Than You Think
Check the Primary Sources
The original January 6 Select Committee Report is still a foundational document, but you should also read the 2026 Interim Reports from the current Republican-led subcommittees. Comparing these two will show you exactly where the "facts" diverge and where the "interpretation" begins.
Understand the 14th Amendment
The reason the word "insurrection" is so toxic is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. If it is officially settled as an insurrection, anyone who "engaged" in it is barred from office. This is why the fight over the word is actually a fight over power.
Ultimately, the question of whether Jan 6th was an insurrection depends on whether you prioritize the intent of the organizers (to stop the vote) or the capabilities of the crowd (which failed to actually overthrow the government). History books will likely grapple with this for another fifty years. For now, the legal records and the 2026 pardons remain the two most conflicting pieces of the American story.
To stay informed, track the ongoing "250 Pledge" initiatives and the new civics curriculum bills being introduced in states like New York, which aim to mandate specific ways this day is taught in schools. Knowledge of the legal distinction between a riot, sedition, and insurrection is your best defense against misinformation.