WASHINGTON, D.C., January 2026 — As the United States approaches the fifth anniversary of the January 6th Capitol riot, the White House has not chosen a path of solemn remembrance or national healing. Instead, President Donald J. Trump has launched a full-scale, digitized assault on history itself.
In a move that has sent shockwaves through the halls of Congress and across the global diplomatic stage, the administration has unveiled an official White House website dedicated to a “corrected” narrative of the events of January 6, 2021. It is a document that doesn’t just spin the facts—it attempts to incinerate them, replacing a documented insurrection with a story of patriotic victimhood and state-sponsored betrayal.
The New “Official” History
The launch of the January 6th portal on WhiteHouse.gov represents a watershed moment in American governance. For the first time, a sitting administration is using the official apparatus of the federal government to directly dispute the findings of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and a bipartisan Congressional select committee.
The website’s claims are as bold as they are controversial:
-
Police Provocation: The administration officially asserts that the Capitol Police “deliberately escalated” a peaceful protest into a riot by using tear gas and flashbangs without provocation.
-
The “Murder” of Ashli Babbitt: The site describes the death of Ashli Babbitt—who was shot while attempting to breach the Speaker’s Lobby—as “cold-blooded murder” by the state.
-
The Cowardice of Mike Pence: In perhaps the most personal attack ever hosted on a government domain, the site labels former Vice President Mike Pence a “coward” for failing to “de-certify” the 2020 election results—a power he legally never possessed.
By encoding these claims into the official government record, the Trump administration isn’t just talking to its base; it is creating an “alternative truth” that will be cited by future generations and foreign adversaries alike.
Foreign Spoils and Arctic Ambitions
While the White House domestic team rewrites the past, the foreign policy team is aggressively reshaping the future. The video reveals a presidency fueled by “Resource Realism.”
Following the dramatic deprival and capture of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces in early January, President Trump announced that Venezuela’s interim authorities would turn over up to 50 million barrels of high-quality oil to the United States. In a move that redefines executive overreach, Trump declared on Truth Social that the billions of dollars in proceeds from this oil would be “controlled by me, as President,” to benefit both nations.
But the administration’s gaze has also shifted North. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the acquisition of Greenland is now a “national security priority.” Stating that “the deployment of the United States military is not off the table,” the administration has signaled to NATO and its Danish allies that the era of traditional diplomacy has been replaced by a doctrine of strategic annexation.
The Political Fallout — A House Divided
The reaction on Capitol Hill has been nothing short of explosive. Democrats, led by figures like Jamie Raskin, have denounced the new website as a “dangerous distortion of history” and a “brazen attempt to troll the American people.” They are demanding immediate investigations into the funding and authorship of the site, arguing that it violates the basic principles of government transparency.
Republicans, however, find themselves in a familiar but tightening vise. While MAGA loyalists celebrate the website as a long-overdue “vindication,” moderate Republicans in swing districts are reportedly “terrified.” With the 2026 midterms looming, GOP candidates are now being forced to answer impossible questions: Was the Capitol riot a peaceful protest? Was Ashli Babbitt murdered? In red states, this revisionist narrative is “red meat” for a base that feels historically persecuted. In purple states, it may be the anchor that drags the party down.
The End of Shared Reality?
The most profound implication of the “January 6th Website” is what it means for the future of American democracy. When the executive branch can simply “delete” a national tragedy and replace it with a curated fiction, the concept of a shared reality disappears.
Historians warn that this is a classic tactic of authoritarian regimes: if you can control the record of the past, you can justify any action in the present. By branding the rioters as “hostages” and “patriots” on an official government platform, Trump is effectively pardoning them in the court of public opinion before he even picks up his pen to sign a formal clemency order.
Conclusion: The Stakes of 2026
As we move deeper into January 2026, the fires on Capitol Hill are not physical, but ideological. The White House stands firm, Venezuela’s oil is flowing toward American ports, and the map of the Arctic is being redrawn in the Oval Office.
The Trump administration has made its opening move for the midterms. It isn’t campaigning on policy or the economy; it is campaigning on the “Truth.” But in a country where two halves of the population can no longer agree on what they saw with their own eyes five years ago, the very survival of the democratic experiment is being put to its most grueling test yet.
The 2026 midterms will not just be about who controls Congress. They will be a referendum on whether facts still have a place in the American government—or if the “Strongman” narrative has finally replaced the historical record.
🚨 1 MIN AGO! Anthony Albanese IMPLODES as Coalition BLASTS Decision to EXCLUDE Intelligence Chief 🇦🇺🔥 0002
In the volatile world of politics, where national security is the “lifeblood” of any state, Australia has just witnessed a scandal that has left even the most seasoned observers reeling. A shocking revelation has surfaced: for the first two years of the Labor Government’s term, the heads of Australia’s domestic and foreign intelligence agencies were no longer permanent fixtures in the nation’s most critical security meetings. This was not a mere procedural oversight; it was a high-stakes political gamble that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is now answering for under fierce questioning.
Imagine running a high-stakes meeting on the fate of the nation—making life-and-death decisions regarding counter-terrorism and foreign threats—but deciding that the “spy chiefs” do not need to be permanently present. That is exactly what transpired within Australia’s National Security Committee (NSC).
For the past two years, Mike Burgess, Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and his intelligence counterparts were treated like “casual staff” at the NSC—appearing only when invited on a case-by-case basis. It was not until 2024, when the pressures of reality became too great, that their permanent membership was finally restored.
This absence raises a stinging question: How can a government make the most informed decisions on national security when the individuals holding the most sensitive intelligence are not at the round table from the start? Security decisions cannot be made in an environment lacking input from actual experts.
The storm of criticism intensified following the heartbreaking incident at Bondi on December 14. The Australian public was shocked to learn about suspects with troubling histories who nonetheless slipped through the security net. One suspect had accumulated six firearms since 2013; another had been on the intelligence radar in 2019 for ties to extremist groups but was subsequently “overlooked” despite appearing at sensitive locations.
When a journalist questioned whether removing intelligence chiefs from NSC meetings was a fatal mistake, PM Albanese reacted sharply: “The premise of the question is wrong”. He argued that Mr. Burgess was always present for meetings relevant to intelligence, even if he might have been absent from technical discussions regarding AUKUS nuclear submarines.
However, this explanation failed to quell public outcry. In national security, the line between “technical discussion” and “intelligence threat” is often razor-thin. Leaving intelligence experts to determine their own relevance rather than excluding them at the door is a golden rule that the Albanese government apparently ignored.
Facing immense pressure from the community, advocacy groups, and victims’ families, the Albanese Government finally relented, agreeing to establish a Royal Commission for a comprehensive investigation. Previously, several ministers had vehemently opposed the idea, citing it as time-consuming and ineffective.
Deputy Liberal Leader Sussan Ley used scathing language to describe this shift: “Albanese has been dragged kicking and screaming to this decision”. The government’s sudden change of heart is viewed by the opposition as a political “U-turn” for survival rather than a sincere act of listening.
While Deputy PM Richard Marles and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland attempted to project the image of a government listening to families and the community on New Year’s Eve, the truth remains that they only moved when no other path was left. “Fast-tracking” the Royal Commission instead of following the usual multi-year timeline is seen as a desperate attempt at damage control.
Amidst the storm, the Richardson Review, led by former civil servant Dennis Richardson, is underway to examine how information flows between intelligence agencies and police forces. This is crucial because Australians want to know how dangerous individuals were able to stay “under the radar” for so long.
The lack of coordination is not limited to the federal level. NSW Premier Chris Minns is also leaving the door open for a state-level inquiry to address specific issues within the state, particularly the security of vulnerable communities. The separation of these inquiries indicates a rift in trust not only between the public and the government but also between various levels of the administration itself.
The political developments in Canberra over recent days serve as a costly lesson in national governance. The National Security Committee is not a typical Monday morning staff meeting; it is where decisions that change the fate of a nation are made. Sidelining top experts from the round table was a piece of political hubris that led to visible consequences.
The current debate is not just about who sits in which chair. It is about transparency, accountability, and a government’s ability to react to obvious security loopholes. The fact that the Albanese administration changed its stance after public pressure is a sign of a functioning democracy, but it also exposes a government struggling to defend its core values.
National security leaves no room for experimental errors. The way Australia’s intelligence and security agencies work together—who sits at the table and how information flows—can be the difference between preventing a tragedy or merely conducting a post-mortem.
Australia stands at a crossroads. The Royal Commission and upcoming investigations will not only shed light on what happened but will also reshape public trust in the national security system. For Anthony Albanese, this is the greatest challenge since taking office: proving that he is not just a politician who knows when to “pivot,” but a leader with the courage to place national security above partisan calculations.
