The case surrounding former President Donald Trump’s tweets from the January 6 Capitol riot remains a contentious topic in American politics. On February 14, 2023, Trump proclaimed that these tweets had been “fully restored” to his Twitter and Facebook accounts, asserting they prove his innocence regarding the events of that day. This declaration sparked renewed scrutiny about the nature of his responses during the riot and the subsequent investigations. While he insists the tweets “clearly and unquestionably” exonerate him, the January 6 Committee and various fact-checkers have pushed back against this narrative.
Trump’s two tweets, sent shortly after the Capitol was breached, called for peace and respect for law enforcement but notably failed to directly instruct rioters to leave the building. This omission is seen by many as a serious lapse in leadership, contributing to the chaos that unfolded. As the bipartisan House Select Committee noted, the urgency of the situation demanded a more forceful and immediate response from the president.
When Trump posted his messages at 2:38 p.m. and 3:13 p.m., the Capitol had already been under attack for over 25 minutes. His calls for peace arrived too late, lacking the definitive action required to quell the violence. The Committee emphasized that while Trump’s messages mentioned law enforcement, they did not issue an explicit condemnation of the riot or a call to disperse the throng of protestors. This failure led to claims that he had missed an opportunity to mitigate the crisis.
With the reinstatement of Trump’s accounts on social media, the debate around these tweets intensified. Criticism arose regarding their sufficiency and the timing of Trump’s intervention. Observers noted that while he called for peace, he did not intervene decisively when the situation escalated. Multiple individuals in Trump’s close circle, including family members and senior staff, reportedly urged him to take stronger action to quell the unfolding violence, but these pleas went largely unanswered until hours later.
“Those tweets did not adequately ask people to leave,” concluded the January 6 Committee, reflecting a widespread sentiment among witnesses who were frustrated by Trump’s vague responses during critical moments. They detailed how, as rioters stormed the Capitol, White House aides pushed for a clear and authoritative message to restore order, which Trump did not provide until after the immediate danger had passed.
Critics assert that Trump’s demeanor and delayed response highlight why his tweets cannot serve as proof of innocence. The timing and content of his messages—urging peace after the outbreak of violence—indicate more about damage control than leadership. As one analyst observed, “Saying ‘Stay peaceful’ after the violence has started isn’t leadership; it’s damage control at best.” This sentiment is echoed in the Committee’s findings, which emphasized that not only did Trump’s messages arrive late, but they also failed to directly address the violence occurring at the Capitol.
Trump’s first video message of that day came over two hours after the initial breach of the Capitol, reinforcing critics’ views of his inadequate response. When he finally spoke, he told rioters, “We love you,” while asking them to go home—words some interpret as lenient given the circumstances. The Committee pointed out that, by that time, unprecedented damage and chaos had already transpired within the Capitol walls.
Despite the stark evidence presented by the Committee, Trump has continued to frame his tweets as vindication. He claims the investigation suppressed his defense and asserts that the narratives crafted surrounding those events stem from bias. This raises pertinent questions about the implications of leadership and accountability during crises. Can vague expressions of peace, issued well after violence has begun, truly exonerate a leader from responsibility for their inaction?
The broader discourse on political speech also comes into play. Social media platforms faced heavy criticism for their initial decisions to suspend Trump’s accounts, which some argue obscured important records of presidential conduct necessary for understanding the Capitol events. Others insist the bans were essential to prevent further violence. Since being restored, Trump has posted infrequently, but his return sparks ongoing controversy.
Three years later, Trump’s restored tweets symbolize the ongoing disputes over that chaotic day. While he claims they exonerate him, the documented evidence presents a stark contrast. It illustrates the crucial gap between his perception of innocence and the accountability for actions taken—or not taken—as the nation faced one of its most tumultuous moments. As legal proceedings continue and more evidence emerges, the interpretations of Trump’s words during those pivotal hours will likely remain a significant point of contention in American history.
"*" indicates required fields
