The White House Can’t Rewrite January 6 With Your Money. Here’s the Legal Line They Crossed with Its New Misleading Website.
Today, of all days, the Trump administration launched a new January 6 website. Not to inform. Not to clarify. To rewrite history.
It pushes false facts, partisan propaganda, and shifts blame to the Democrats and Capitol Police for what happened on January 6. This is being presented as official government information, and that should stop you in your tracks. You can view it here.
If this site was paid for with taxpayer dollars, that matters. A lot. Because there are rules about how public money can be used, and propaganda is not one of them. That is why this is an initial draft of the lawsuit I would file, if I practiced in Washington, DC, to have the site taken down. The strategy is intentional. The cause of action is narrow. The defendants are carefully chosen. All of it is designed to survive dismissal and force accountability.1
The draft lawsuit is below but first…
DISCLAIMER AND WAIVER: THIS LAWSUIT, LEGAL STRATEGY, AND CAUSE OF ACTION ARE PURELY HYPOTHETICAL. THEY ARE SHARED FOR EDUCATIONAL, INFORMATIONAL, AND DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. NOTHING PRESENTED IS INTENDED TO BE, OR SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS, LEGAL ADVICE, LEGAL COUNSEL, OR A RECOMMENDATION TO FILE ANY LAWSUIT OR TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION. LAWS CHANGE. FACTS MATTER. EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. WHAT MAY BE DISCUSSED HERE MAY NOT APPLY TO YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES OR BE APPROPRIATE IN ANY JURISDICTION.
NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS CREATED OR IMPLIED BY THIS CONTENT. THIS MATERIAL IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR CONSULTING WITH A LICENSED ATTORNEY WHO CAN EVALUATE YOUR SPECIFIC FACTS, LOCATION, AND LEGAL OPTIONS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION IS TO INFORM, EDUCATE, AND SPARK CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THE LAW CAN INTERSECT WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY. IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING ANY LEGAL ACTION, YOU SHOULD SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE FROM QUALIFIED COUNSEL IN YOUR JURISDICTION BEFORE TAKING ANY STEPS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NAME,
Plaintiff,
v.
NAME, in his official capacity as Director of the White House Office of Digital Strategy; and
NAME, in his official capacity as Director of the White House Office of Administration,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. __________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
I. INTRODUCTION
This action challenges the unlawful expenditure of appropriated federal funds by senior officials of the Executive Office of the President to create, maintain, and disseminate a partisan and misleading narrative website hosted on the official White House domain at https://www.whitehouse.gov/j6/ (the “J6 Site”).
The J6 Site is presented as an official White House resource and purports to provide factual information concerning the events of January 6, 2021 and related proceedings. Instead, it advances political advocacy and narrative revisionism, using language and framing that are overtly partisan and materially misleading, while being funded, hosted, and promoted as official government information.
This case does not seek judicial policing of political speech or viewpoint. It challenges the use of taxpayer-funded appropriations for an unauthorized purpose, in violation of Article I of the Constitution and federal appropriations law.
Congress has not authorized the use of public funds for partisan propaganda, self-exculpatory narrative construction, or political advocacy presented as official historical or factual government information.
When executive officials expend funds for purposes not authorized by Congress, they act ultra vires, and sovereign immunity does not bar declaratory or injunctive relief.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202. Equitable relief is authorized under federal common law governing unconstitutional and ultra vires executive action.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because defendants reside in this District, perform their official duties here, and the challenged conduct occurred here.
III. PARTIES
Plaintiff
Plaintiff Name, is a United States citizen, (describe status such as attorney, journalist, and public commentator) who regularly relies on official federal government publications and websites in the course of his professional, journalistic, and civic work.
Plaintiff consults official White House and executive-branch websites as authoritative sources when analyzing public policy, constitutional issues, and historical events for publication and public education.
Plaintiff has reviewed and relied upon the J6 Site in connection with his professional activities and has been forced to expend significant time, effort, and resources to identify, contextualize, and correct misleading statements presented as official government fact.
Defendants
Defendant NAME is the Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Digital Strategy. In that role, he exercises supervisory authority over digital content published on WhiteHouse.gov, including the J6 Site. He is sued in his official capacity.
Defendant NAME is the Director of the White House Office of Administration is the executive official responsible for administrative operations and execution of appropriated funds for WhiteHouse.gov and related Executive Office of the President activities. This defendant is sued in an official capacity.
Each defendant acted under color of federal law and within the scope of asserted official authority.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The J6 Site
The J6 Site is hosted on the official whitehouse.gov domain and is presented as a formal White House publication.
The J6 Site uses authoritative government framing and does not identify itself as opinion, campaign material, or partisan commentary.
The J6 Site includes assertions and characterizations that:
Describe January 6 prosecutions as politically motivated persecution;
Attribute responsibility for January 6 to political opponents;
Characterize certified election results and congressional investigations using partisan and inflammatory language.
These assertions are presented as factual or historical claims and are materially misleading in light of judicial findings, congressional records, and publicly available official documentation.
B. Funding and Authority
WhiteHouse.gov operations, including staffing, hosting, development, and content production, are funded through appropriations to the Executive Office of the President.
Congressional appropriations to the Executive Office of the President are limited to lawful governmental purposes such as administration, public information, record-keeping, and transparency.
Federal appropriations law prohibits the use of appropriated funds for purposes not authorized by Congress, including partisan propaganda, political advocacy, and misleading publicity presented as official government information.
Defendants authorized and continue to authorize the expenditure of appropriated funds to maintain and disseminate the J6 Site for partisan narrative purposes.
C. Plaintiff’s Injury
Plaintiff relied on the J6 Site as an official government publication in connection with his or her professional and journalistic work (include all details).
Plaintiff was forced to divert professional time and resources to analyze, verify, and counteract misleading assertions presented as official government fact.
This diversion constitutes a concrete, particularized, and ongoing informational and resource-diversion injury, distinct from a generalized grievance.
Plaintiff continues to face recurring injury so long as the J6 Site remains publicly accessible and funded as an official government resource.
V. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Ultra Vires Expenditure of Appropriated Funds)
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–26.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution vests exclusive authority over public expenditures in Congress.
The Purpose Statute, 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a), requires that appropriated funds be used only for the purposes for which Congress appropriated them.
The Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, prohibits federal officials from obligating or expending funds for unauthorized purposes.
Annual appropriations acts governing the Executive Office of the President include long-standing prohibitions on the use of funds for publicity, propaganda, and partisan political purposes not authorized by Congress.
Defendants’ authorization and maintenance of the J6 Site constitutes expenditure of appropriated funds for an unauthorized and unlawful purpose.
Defendants therefore acted ultra vires and contrary to constitutional and statutory limits.
Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
Defendants’ unlawful conduct is ongoing and will continue absent judicial intervention.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
A. Declare that defendants’ expenditure of appropriated funds to create, maintain, and disseminate the J6 Site is unlawful and ultra vires;
B. Enjoin defendants from using appropriated funds to maintain, operate, or disseminate the J6 Site in its current form as an official White House publication;
C. Enjoin defendants from expending appropriated funds for similar partisan or propagandistic digital publications presented as official government information;
D. Retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the Court’s orders; and
E. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
VII. NO JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff seeks equitable relief only and therefore does not demand a jury trial.
Respectfully submitted,
Name of Plaintiff
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Phone]
[Email]
FILING CHECKLIST
Before filing, do the following:
Attach Exhibit A – PDF printout or screenshots of the J6 Site (date-stamped).
Prepare Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44).
Prepare Summons for each defendant (official-capacity service).
File in D.D.C. via CM/ECF or clerk’s office.
Serve U.S. Attorney for D.C. and Attorney General per Rule 4(i).
Pleading Strategy: This cause of action and litigation strategy were chosen because they focus on the one area where federal courts are both competent and willing to act quickly: enforcing constitutional and statutory limits on how the Executive Branch spends public money. Rather than asking a court to decide what is true or false, political or apolitical, this approach treats the challenged website as evidence of a deeper legal violation, the use of appropriated funds for a purpose Congress did not authorize.
By grounding the claim in Article I’s Spending Clause, the Purpose Statute, the Anti-Deficiency Act, and long-standing prohibitions on taxpayer-funded propaganda, the lawsuit fits squarely within established judicial doctrine. Courts regularly adjudicate ultra vires spending cases because they implicate separation of powers, not political judgment. This framing avoids First Amendment entanglements, political-question defenses, and sovereign-immunity barriers, making it the most efficient and durable path to obtaining declaratory and injunctive relief within a single litigation cycle this year.
The defendants were selected deliberately to strengthen, not weaken, the case. The lawsuit names the officials who have direct operational and budgetary control over WhiteHouse.gov, such as the Director of the White House Office of Digital Strategy and the Director of the White House Office of Administration, because they are the actors who authorize, fund, and maintain the challenged publication using appropriated funds. They are subject to equitable relief without triggering separation-of-powers conflicts.
Donald Trump and other senior political figures are not named because courts are deeply reluctant to enjoin a President’s official conduct, and doing so would invite immediate dismissal under long-standing precedent. This strategy isolates the unlawful expenditure itself, not the identity or politics of the speaker, and directs the court’s attention to the precise officials who can lawfully be ordered to stop the misuse of funds. In doing so, it maximizes the likelihood of prompt judicial intervention and a practical, enforceable remedy.
I appreciate this post being shared at the Raw Story. See https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2674854542/
I hope someone with legal standing uses this approach to get this content removed.