USA v. COLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BRIAN J. COLE, JR.,
Defendant.
Criminal Action No. 26-00001 (AHA)
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The United States charges Brian J. Cole, Jr. with interstate transportation of explosives,
malicious attempt to use explosives, attempt to use weapons of mass destruction, and act of
terrorism while armed (attempted malicious burning, destruction, or injury of property). ECF No.
64. Cole moves to dismiss all the charges, arguing that the conduct he is accused of falls within
the President’s January 20, 2025, pardon. ECF No. 56. Because the pardon, by its terms, does not
apply to Cole, the court denies his motion.1
On January 20, 2025, the President issued a proclamation that commuted the sentences of
several named individuals who had been convicted for their participation in the January 6, 2021,
riot at the U.S. Capitol and “grant[ed] a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other
individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol
on January 6, 2021.” Proclamation No. 10887, 90 Fed. Reg. 8331, 8331 (Jan. 29, 2025). The
President also directed the Attorney General to “pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government
1 	The government initially charged Cole with two crimes. After Cole filed his motion to dismiss,
the government obtained a new indictment that charges Cole with two more crimes. See ECF No.
64. The court construes Cole’s motion as seeking dismissal of all charges, given that they all arise
from the same underlying conduct.
Case 1:26-cr-00001-AHA Document 82 Filed 07/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the
United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” Id.
According to Cole, the President’s pardon applies to him because he is accused of planting
two pipe bombs near the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee
headquarters on January 5, 2021, the day before the Capitol riot. ECF No. 1-1 at 1–2; ECF No. 64.
But the pardon does not apply to him.
When the President exercises his pardon power, a court’s sole responsibility is to interpret
and apply the pardon. See United States v. Wilson, No. 23-cr-427-1, 2025 WL 1009047, at *3
(D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2025) (observing that the pardon power “may not be exercised or altered by
either Congress or the Judiciary” but that courts “have long exercised their authority to interpret
and apply Presidential pardons” (collecting cases) (cleaned up)). Courts use the usual tools of
interpretation to determine the meaning of the pardon’s language, which controls. See id. at *3–4
(recognizing that courts apply “ordinary tools of statutory interpretation” to a pardon and “interpret
the pardon according to its plain and ordinary meaning”); United States v. Wilson, No. 25-3041,
2025 WL 999985, at *2 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2025) (explaining that the court’s interpretation of the
pardon at issue in this case “hinges on the text of the pardon”).
The pardon says that it applies to “individuals convicted of offenses related to events that
occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” 90 Fed. Reg. at 8331. Even
assuming that the conduct Cole is charged with is “related to events that occurred at or near the
United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” the pardon is expressly limited to people who had been
“convicted of offenses” related to those events. Cole had not been convicted of the conduct at issue
when the President issued the pardon; indeed, he was not charged until many months after the
President’s proclamation. See ECF No. 1.
Case 1:26-cr-00001-AHA Document 82 Filed 07/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Cole does not try to explain how a pardon for “individuals convicted of offenses” applies
to him, and he shifts to a new theory in his reply brief: that the President’s directive to the Attorney
General to “pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government of all pending indictments” requires
the Attorney General to dismiss the charges against him. 90 Fed. Reg. at 8331; see ECF No. 71.
But this argument does not work either. Cole was first charged in December 2025—months after
the President’s proclamation. See ECF No. 1. He therefore did not have “pending indictments” at
the time of the President’s directive.
For these reasons, the court denies Cole’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 56.
AMIR H. ALI
United States District Judge
Date: 	July 6, 2026
Case 1:26-cr-00001-AHA Document 82 Filed 07/06/26 Page 3 of 3