In a striking turn, the U.S. Justice Department is now attempting to step between Donald Trump and a wave of civil lawsuits filed in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack—arguing that Trump was simply doing his job.
The request, quietly lodged late Thursday night in a Washington court, urges Judge Amit Mehta to swap out Trump as the defendant in several lawsuits brought by police officers and Democratic lawmakers. The department claims Trump was “acting within the scope” of his presidential duties before and during the Capitol siege, which would transfer liability to the federal government itself.
This move would effectively place Uncle Sam in the legal crosshairs instead of the former—and now current—commander-in-chief.
The lawsuits accuse Trump of inciting the crowd with inflammatory rhetoric that led directly to chaos, injuries, and trauma. They seek monetary damages for the physical and emotional toll of the attack, which unfolded as Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory.
Previously, during the Biden administration, the same Justice Department had taken a different position—arguing that Trump’s efforts to challenge the election were political in nature and not protected by the office of the presidency. That stance was adopted during a now-dismissed criminal case against him.
But since Trump’s return to power in January, his grip over the executive branch—and the Justice Department within it—has visibly tightened. Senior department officials aligned with Trump have since pushed for a reinterpretation of the law more favorable to the president.
At the heart of the legal maneuvering is a narrow provision of federal law: if a government employee is sued under local laws for actions taken as part of their official duties, the federal government steps in as the defendant. The Justice Department’s request applies only to claims made under Washington, D.C., statutes—but those claims represent a significant portion of the consolidated litigation.
Trump continues to deny all allegations, insisting he is immune from civil suits because he was acting in his official presidential capacity. His legal team has formally asked Judge Mehta to throw out the lawsuits on those grounds.
While the judge has yet to make a final decision, the plaintiffs maintain that Trump acted more like a political agitator than a president on January 6—and thus should remain personally liable. A federal appeals court previously ruled against Trump’s broad immunity claim but left the door open for him to make a narrower argument, supported by new evidence.
So far, the plaintiffs’ legal teams have not publicly responded to the Justice Department’s sudden pivot.
As the case barrels forward, one thing is clear: the line between personal conduct and presidential duty is once again being redrawn—this time by Trump’s own Justice Department.
