J6ers at CPAC 2025: From Ban to Backtrack in 24 Hours

Several prominent J6ers, including Jake Lang, Stewart Rhodes, Enrique Tarrio, and others who had been pardoned or had their sentences commuted by President Donald Trump, planned to attend CPAC 2025. These individuals had purchased tickets, and in Lang’s case, a booth to promote their cause. On Wednesday, February 19, 2025, they were informed upon arrival that their credentials had been revoked and were escorted out by security. Initial reports indicated that no specific reason was given beyond vague references to “legal” issues, as noted when Stewart Rhodes, an attorney, inquired further and was told by a staff member that she was in charge and offered no elaboration.

Speculation has swirled around the decision. Some, like Lang, suggested it might reflect internal conservative factionalism—possibly pressure from establishment figures wary of associating with the more controversial elements of the MAGA movement. Others on X and in commentary posited that CPAC leadership feared disruption or unwanted attention, though there’s no evidence these J6ers intended to cause trouble. CPAC’s history of barring individuals, such as white nationalist Nick Fuentes in 2023 for his extremist views, shows they’ve acted to control their event’s image before, but the J6ers’ situation differs as they were Trump-pardoned attendees, not fringe ideologues.

By Thursday, February 20, 2025, CPAC reversed course after public backlash. They issued a statement denying any blanket ban on J6ers, saying, “It is untrue that we are not allowing people to come to CPAC because of their involvement with J6. CPAC has been a constant supporter of this persecuted community and we support wholeheartedly President Trump’s pardons of the J6 victims.” Reports confirmed that some J6ers, like Enrique Tarrio, were told the decision would be overturned within hours, and others, such as Michael Curzio, were already inside the event, indicating inconsistent enforcement.

The initial kickouts may have stemmed from a miscommunication or a snap decision by CPAC’s legal team, as hinted in their reversal announcement. Without an official detailed explanation, it’s possible the move was a knee-jerk attempt to avoid controversy or liability, quickly undone when it backfired with Trump’s base. The lack of transparency leaves the “why” speculative—ranging from optics management to internal power plays—but the reversal suggests CPAC underestimated the grassroots support for these figures.