The final January 6 criminal case had been dismissed for only three days when twelve former defendants returned to court with an explosive new demand.

This time, they were not defending themselves against the federal government.

They were demanding that it pay them $1 million each.

In a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in Washington, the group alleged that the attack on the U.S. Capitol was a government-engineered “trap” designed to transform a peaceful conservative demonstration into the “appearance of a riot.”

Their total demand: $12 million in taxpayer money.

The complaint, filed by the Ticktin Law Group, relies on a statute allowing citizens to seek damages from the government for wrongful conduct by federal employees. The twelve plaintiffs’ prosecutions reportedly ended through pardons, acquittals or dismissals.

But the filing goes far beyond alleging wrongful prosecution.

It advances a sweeping conspiracy theory in which unnamed plotters allegedly prepared the Capitol breach months before January 6, 2021.

“Long before January 6th, in fact, going back at least to September of 2020,” the lawsuit claims, conspirators participated in Zoom meetings and planned to turn a peaceful protest by conservative demonstrators into something that looked like a violent uprising.

The plaintiffs allege that supposed operatives plotted to break windows, infiltrate the building and open doors from the inside. That, they claim, enabled people outside to be “herded” into the Capitol.

“The plan was a trap to identify and destroy the tip of the spear of opposition to the election rigging,” the complaint declares.

Then it delivers its most provocative assessment:

“The psy-op was genius.”

The supplied reporting does not indicate that the lawsuit provides independently verified evidence establishing a federal operation to manufacture the riot. Its allegations remain claims that the government will have an opportunity to dispute.

Extensive video footage, testimony and criminal proceedings have documented rioters assaulting police, breaking through barriers, smashing windows and forcing their way into the Capitol as Congress met to certify the 2020 presidential election.

The new complaint attempts to recast that history.

It identifies an allegedly suspicious man wearing a red “MAGA” cap with a price tag still attached. According to the lawsuit, that person—who has never been publicly identified—broke the first window on the Capitol’s west side and created an opening for infiltrators.

The filing reportedly labels him an instigator but does not publicly establish his identity or prove that he was acting for the government.

That gap is likely to become central to the case.

Suspicious clothing, an unidentified individual and unanswered questions do not, by themselves, establish a coordinated federal plot. To obtain damages, the plaintiffs would need to overcome substantial legal hurdles and connect their alleged injuries to actionable misconduct by government employees.

One of the plaintiffs is Roberto Minuta, a member of the Oath Keepers who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 54 months in prison.

Minuta spent more than four years behind bars before Trump commuted his sentence on January 20, 2025. His convictions were later wiped away when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed the final remaining January 6 case at the Justice Department’s request.

Mehta made clear that he did not regard the dismissal as vindication.

He said he ended the case “reluctantly” and issued a searing warning about the historical consequences.

“Today’s epilogue diminishes the gravity of that day, denigrates the work of the prosecutors and law enforcement officers who secured these convictions, and excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries-long pillar of our democracy—the peaceful transfer of presidential power—to buckle,” Mehta wrote.

A presidential pardon or commutation can eliminate punishment and its legal consequences. It does not automatically prove that the prosecution was fabricated or that the underlying conduct never occurred.

The lawsuit nevertheless repeatedly cites Trump’s sweeping clemency for January 6 defendants, apparently presenting it as support for the plaintiffs’ contention that they were wronged.

The complaint also disputes the government’s descriptions of injuries suffered by police officers.

“The most serious injury to any officer was a broken finger,” it claims, adding that the most commonly reported injury was “pain” and that no officer died as a direct result of injuries sustained that day.

That characterization is likely to face fierce challenges.

Official accounts and court proceedings have described numerous officers being struck, crushed, sprayed with chemicals and dragged into the crowd. The broader human toll also included lasting physical and psychological injuries.

Reducing that experience to a broken finger and “pain” represents the plaintiffs’ contested version of events—not an uncontested factual record.

The timing of the lawsuit could hardly be more symbolic.

On Tuesday, Mehta dismissed the last criminal case and wrote: “That book is now closed.”

For Trump and his allies, the dismissals and pardons were presented as the conclusion of a campaign to correct what they regarded as political persecution.

For prosecutors and judges who spent years handling the cases, the ending erased accountability for a violent assault on the peaceful transfer of power.

Then, three days later, twelve former defendants opened a new book.

They are no longer merely asking the government to clear their names or release them from punishment.

They want the country to accept an entirely different story about January 6—and pay them $1 million apiece for it.