Federal prosecutors across the country typically stay above the political fray, so when one speaks out plainly about January 6, it carries weight. “The sky is blue, the Earth is round, and Jan. 6 was a historically violent day that will forever be a stain on this country’s history,” a federal prosecutor who worked on January 6 cases told NBC News this week. “Political convenience does not change the facts.”

Yet the White House is now attempting to rewrite these facts. According to reporting by Julianne McShane, the White House has launched a new webpage that dramatically reframes the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, casting former President Donald Trump as a hero while blaming Democrats and Capitol Police for the violence that erupted after Trump urged his supporters to “fight like hell.”

Fact-checkers have quickly identified numerous falsehoods throughout the site. Philip Bump, in a detailed analysis for MS NOW, described the White House’s January 6 website as “disgraceful,” while CNN’s Daniel Dale characterized it as “a truly bananas up-is-down fake-history” account of both the Capitol attack and the 2020 election.

What makes this particularly troubling isn’t just the content itself, but that it appears on an official government website funded by taxpayers—a platform the public should be able to trust for accurate information. This represents a significant escalation from posts on personal social media accounts to using official government resources to promote a fundamentally altered version of documented historical events.

The White House’s revisionist narrative contradicts mountains of evidence, including thousands of hours of video footage, court documents from hundreds of criminal cases, congressional testimony, and the accounts of police officers who defended the Capitol that day. Many officers suffered serious injuries, and several people died in connection with the events.

This attempt at historical revision comes at a particularly sensitive moment—the fifth anniversary of an event that shook American democracy to its core. While political disagreements over policy are normal in Washington, attempting to fundamentally rewrite recent, well-documented events represents something different entirely.

Media observers note this is part of a broader pattern of efforts to reframe January 6. What began as scattered claims on fringe websites has gradually moved into mainstream conservative discourse, and now appears on official government platforms. The progression demonstrates how alternative narratives about major events can gain institutional support over time.

The website’s timing also coincides with ongoing legal proceedings related to January 6. Hundreds of participants in the Capitol riot have been convicted of various crimes, with sentences ranging from probation to significant prison terms. Several key figures have faced conspiracy charges, and investigations continue into planning and coordination aspects of the event.

For historians and political scientists, this official attempt to recast January 6 raises serious concerns about institutional memory and the shared understanding of significant national events. When government resources are deployed to contradict established facts, it challenges the foundation of informed democratic discourse.

Legal experts point out that while political spin is common in Washington, using government resources to promote demonstrable falsehoods raises ethical questions about the proper use of taxpayer funds and the responsibility of public officials to provide accurate information.

The situation highlights the increasing fragility of shared facts in American political discourse. When basic agreement about documented events breaks down, the ability to address national challenges through democratic processes becomes increasingly difficult.

As the country approaches another presidential election, the battle over how January 6 will be remembered has significant implications for how Americans understand their recent history and the state of their democracy. Whether the official record will reflect documented reality or a politically convenient alternative narrative remains an open—and consequential—question.