The Trump administration is facing explosive backlash after the Justice Department openly defended its decision to erase online records tied to a January 6 rioter later convicted in a child solicitation case — and critics say the response may have made the scandal even worse.
At the center of the firestorm is Andrew Taake, a Texas man convicted for violently assaulting police officers during the Capitol attack while armed with bear spray and a metal whip.
But that was not the only controversy surrounding him.
At the time of his Jan. 6 sentencing, Taake was also facing a separate criminal case involving online solicitation of a minor — a detail previously included in a Department of Justice press release published during the Biden administration.
Now that record is gone.
The controversy exploded Friday after Washington Post reporter Maryl Kornfield revealed that the DOJ had quietly removed the press release from its website as part of a broader effort to scrub information connected to Capitol riot prosecutions.
And then came the response that stunned critics.
Instead of denying the move, the Trump administration’s DOJ openly defended it.
“Nothing ‘quiet’ about it,” the department’s official Rapid Response account posted on X.
“We are proud to reverse the DOJ’s weaponization under the Biden administration,” the statement continued. “This includes stripping DOJ’s website of partisan propaganda.”
The response instantly detonated online.
Critics accused the administration of effectively sanitizing the records of violent extremists and criminals tied to January 6 — including individuals later accused or convicted in unrelated serious offenses.
Former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan blasted the statement in disbelief.
“Open admission here from the DOJ that they’re doing PR for people who weren’t just convicted of assaulting police officers but some of whom turned out to be pedophiles and Nazis,” Hasan wrote online.
“That’s who they’re defending.”
The progressive outlet MeidasTouch also erupted after the DOJ’s statement.
“You are proud of being pedo protectors?” the outlet asked bluntly on social media.
The group accused the administration of defending the deletion of records involving “a man accused in a child solicitation case who assaulted police on January 6.”
The backlash intensified because the controversy comes at the same time the administration is reportedly preparing a massive $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” tied to claims from individuals who say they were unfairly targeted after January 6.
Critics argue the administration is attempting to rewrite the public history of the Capitol attack itself.
Supporters of Trump, however, argue the Biden-era DOJ used politically charged language and selectively publicized cases involving Trump supporters as part of a broader campaign against conservatives.
The administration insists it is simply removing partisan material from government websites.
But opponents say the latest incident crossed a dangerous line.
Rep. Ted Lieu of California mocked the administration’s efforts, warning that deleting webpages will not erase public memory of the Capitol riot.
“How quaint,” Lieu wrote online. “You think deleting stuff from a website makes it go away.”
“The stain of Jan. 6 is recorded and seared in American history.”
The scandal is now fueling broader fears about the administration’s growing efforts to recast January 6 defendants as political victims rather than criminals convicted through the judicial system.
That debate has become one of the most politically explosive fault lines in modern American politics.
For Trump’s supporters, many Jan. 6 prosecutions symbolize government overreach and political targeting.
For critics, the latest DOJ actions represent something much darker — a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate violent extremists and erase uncomfortable truths from the public record.
And because the administration chose not only to defend the move but proudly announce it, the controversy may now become even harder to contain.
What started as a deleted webpage has rapidly become a national argument over memory, accountability, and whether history itself is now being politically rewritten in real time.