The Lawfare Podcast

Episode: Lawfare Daily: Jan. 6, 2025: Five Years of Congressional Action and Inaction
Date: January 6, 2026
Host: Natalie Orput (with Quinta Jurecic, Molly Reynolds, Eric Columbus)

Episode Overview

On the five-year anniversary of January 6th, 2021, Lawfare’s editorial team reflects on Congress’s response to the attack on the Capitol—both its actions and notable inactions. The roundtable explores how legislative changes, security reforms, and investigations changed or failed to change the trajectory of congressional governance and American democracy. Personal recollections, legal nuance, and political analysis shape an insightful look at how January 6th’s memory is evolving, and what it bodes for the health of U.S. institutions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Events and Aftermath of January 6th

• Personal Recollections and Context (02:31–06:50)

  • Quinta Jurecic recalls the day as “violent and frightening,” emphasizing that it wasn’t just chaos but a moment of profound uncertainty and trauma within Congress.
    • “I think it’s really hard to communicate… just how violent and frightening it really was and how much uncertainty there was about what was happening, whether people were going to be safe...”—Quinta Jurecic (02:36)
  • The attack’s connection to Trump’s tweeted rally and the certification process is highlighted as the direct impetus.

• Immediate Security Response

  • Focus shifted almost instantly to why law enforcement struggled to respond rapidly and what Congress could do about it.

2. Congressional Legislative Actions

a. Capitol Police Emergency Assistance Act (08:41–12:01)

• Molly Reynolds explains:

  • Congress passed this law in December 2021 to empower the Capitol Police Chief to request help from executive agencies during emergencies.
  • Required joint congressional oversight hearings for accountability.
  • Notable cultural shift toward more transparency from the Capitol Police since the attack.

• Cultural Change Example: Recruitment ads and increased public engagement by the Capitol Police.

b. Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) (13:33–24:59)

• Eric Columbus recalls prepping for Jan 6 as House General Counsel, expecting Trump to resist a peaceful transition.

  • “We identified January 6 as a date that mattered significantly because of…the Electoral Count Act of 1887, a pretty dry, boring statute...” (13:41)

• Molly Reynolds outlines ECRA’s Key Features:

  • Clarifies who submits elector slates and provides for expedited judicial review (19:33).
  • Codifies the VP's role as purely ministerial when counting electoral votes, closing “quasi-loopholes.”
  • Raises threshold to object to state slates from just two members to one-fifth of each chamber.
  • Addresses how state legislatures could, in theory, invalidate a state’s popular vote (19:33–21:45).

• Quinta Jurecic: The act’s passage was a “huge step” and somewhat successful because it bypassed major media or partisan conflict (22:37–24:59).

  • “Honestly, I wonder if part of that is simply because the Electoral Count Act is so boring and complicated... so if you tried to explain it to people, they would simply fall asleep.”

• Caveat: Electoral reforms can’t solve a fundamental refusal to accept electoral defeat.

  • “You can’t process or procedure your way out of what are fundamentally political process problems.”—Molly Reynolds (27:17)

c. Failures and Inaction: D.C. National Guard Reform (29:36–33:25)

• Quinta Jurecic: Despite clear problems on Jan 6, Congress did not transfer authority to deploy DC’s National Guard to the mayor.
  • “Everyone was kind of waiting for Trump himself to give the go-ahead, which he did not do... and this…created a four hour delay...” (29:36)
  • D.C. statehood, which would fix this, also amounted to little legislative progress.

d. Other Legislative Tail Effects

• Architect of the Capitol Appointment Reform (35:48)
  • Past architect’s absence and scandals led to changes in appointment policy for legislative branch officials.
• 'Senator Subpoena Windfall' (37:33)
  • A legislative rider allowed Senators to sue (and collect large damages) if their phone data was subpoenaed, a direct but little-noticed outgrowth of Jan 6 investigations.

3. Congressional Investigation: The January 6th Committee (40:21–53:49)

• Origins and Unusual Unity

  • Born after a 9/11-style commission was deemed unworkable; intended to be bipartisan but ended up so only due to two anti-Trump Republicans (Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger).
  • Pelosi’s blocking of McCarthy’s more partisan picks created a committee “marching in lockstep.” (40:21)
    • “Perhaps precisely because of that, it’s a little hard to imagine how it might be reproduced in another setting, because I would hope…that no other House minority leader will be so stupid as to repeat Kevin McCarthy’s error, although you never know.”—Quinta Jurecic (44:14)

• Investigative & Presentation Innovations

  • Hired outside media professionals to make hearings more accessible and compelling—even “exciting.”
  • “They literally hired like a guy from Hollywood to work with them on it.”—Eric Columbus (45:10)
  • Key testimony included Cassidy Hutchinson, persuaded by Cheney, revealing Trump’s personal involvement at key moments.

• Lasting Impact

  • The 1/6 Committee set a new standard for investigative budgets and seriousness, now cited by lawmakers as a benchmark when demanding resources for other probes.
  • The “long arm” of the committee includes continued intra-party disputes among Republicans and ongoing “investigations of the investigation.”

4. Legal Aftershocks: Congressional Powers Tested

a. Trump v. Thompson (Executive Privilege Case) (55:01–59:28)

• Decision: D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court sided with the committee and current President’s waiver of privilege over Trump’s objections as former President.
  • “The incumbent president’s determination should control over, in the general run of events over a former president...” —Eric Columbus (55:01)
  • The Supreme Court left open the crucial question of resolving privilege disputes between current and former presidents.
  • Congressional interests may outweigh privilege in ‘sufficiently powerful’ scenarios, but much remains unsettled.

b. Contempt of Congress & Enforcement Limits (60:19–63:09)

• Committee’s criminal contempt referrals for Bannon, Navarro, Meadows, Scavino yielded mixed results:
  • DOJ prosecuted Bannon and Navarro, but not Meadows or Scavino, reflecting executive hesitation on compelling top aides.
  • “Basically Meadows, even though you had united control of government…unable to compel testimony from Meadows and Scavino or force them to pay any consequences.”—Eric Columbus (62:24)
• Demonstrates ongoing weaknesses for congressional enforcement power.

5. Lasting Institutional and Cultural Impacts on Congress (63:27–66:23)

• Immediate penalties for members who objected to certifying the election did occur (loss of bipartisan collaboration, fundraising hits), but have faded over time.
• Congress as an institution continues to grapple with memory, commemoration, and historical clarity about the attack:
  • Ongoing disputes about whether to display a commemorative plaque for officers who died.
  • “There are these real big questions about the long term consequences and how the institution remembers and commemorates what happened.”—Molly Reynolds (65:53)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I think it’s really hard to communicate to people who were not in D.C. on that day just how violent and frightening it really was…”
  —Quinta Jurecic (02:36)

• “You can’t process or procedure your way out of what are fundamentally political process problems.”
  —Molly Reynolds (27:17)

• “Honestly, I wonder if part of that is simply because the Electoral Count Act is so boring and complicated…if you tried to explain it to people, they would simply fall asleep.”
  —Quinta Jurecic (23:46)

• “Perhaps precisely because of that, it’s a little hard to imagine how it might be reproduced in another setting, because I would hope…that no other House minority leader will be so stupid as to repeat Kevin McCarthy’s error, although you never know.”
  —Quinta Jurecic (44:14)

• “They literally hired like a guy from Hollywood to work with them on it.”
  —Eric Columbus (45:10)

• “The Supreme Court left for another day the question of what happens where there is a dispute between the incumbent and the former president.”
  —Eric Columbus (59:28)

Timestamps for Major Sections

• Recap of January 6th and Its Immediate Impact: 02:31–06:50
• Capitol Police Emergency Assistance Act: 08:41–12:01
• Electoral Count Reform Act: 13:33–24:59
• Limits of Reform—National Guard Inaction: 29:36–33:25
• Additional Legislative Ripples: 35:48–39:43
• The January 6th Committee’s Formation & Methods: 40:21–49:42
• House Legal Battles and Subpoena Power: 53:49–63:09
• Long-Term Institutional Impacts: 63:27–66:23

Tone and Style

The conversation is serious, analytical, occasionally wry or darkly humorous, but always grounded in expertise and concern for institutional integrity. The speakers balance legal, political, and personal perspectives, blending vivid firsthand memory with in-depth policy commentary.

Conclusion

Five years on, January 6th’s legacy is both legislative and cultural—a series of successful yet incomplete reforms, a reminder of procedural and political limits, and an uncertain path for congressional memory and accountability. Congress’s response showcases both its capacity and its constraints when facing threats to American democracy.