Enrique Tarrio is raging online about President Joe Biden’s election victory. It’s November 2020, a couple of months before the January 6 insurrection.
But Tarrio isn’t just an angry Donald Trump supporter posting on the internet. He’s the leader of the right-wing Proud Boys group with perhaps thousands of members ultimately reporting to him.
He wanted Mr Trump to remain in office, warning of a second civil war. So he and others hatched a plan, one that culminated in the storming of the Capitol on 6 January 2021.
A series of documents and messages, revealed by prosecutors at trial, shows the lengths they went to: from secret text chains to planning 50-man teams to occupy buildings in the capital.
Tarrio and his associate Ethan Nordean, another senior Proud Boy, will now be sentenced today after being found guilty of seditious conspiracy, a rare charge carrying up to 20 years in prison.
Two others – Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl – will be sentenced tomorrow for the same charge.
Sky News reveals below exactly how the four men planned to overthrow democracy and asks a key question: are the Proud Boys still a threat?
Advertisement
Image: Rioters outside the US Capitol on January 6. Pic: AP
Trump: ‘Proud Boys, stand back, and stand by’
Formed during the alt-right explosion of 2016, the exclusively-male Proud Boys regard themselves as “Western chauvinists” who “refuse to apologise for creating the modern world”.
Variously described as a street gang, a hate group or “kids who were picked last at kickball”, the Proud Boys have been designated as a terror group in two countries – Canada and New Zealand.
The group’s roots are as a “boys drinking club”, Katherine Keneally, an expert on political violence at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, tells Sky News.
“But what we saw, especially with the emergence of Trump, is this shifted from it being a drinking club to them going out on the streets, particularly at COVID-related protests, racial justice protests, and engaging in violence with protesters.”
As the movement grew, dozens of chapters of the Proud Boys sprang up in the majority of US states.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:59
Trump to Proud Boys: ‘Stand back, and stand by’
The watershed moment came in September 2020, and the infamous line from Trump live on television: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.”
This caused an immediate shift in their behaviour, Ms Keneally says, with the group emboldened by the belief that they had support from the President.
“They had already been garnering public support leading up to January 6, and that helped them translate to them actually directing people unaffiliated with the Proud Boys during the insurrection.”
“They viewed themselves as the president’s own military in some respects,” she added.
Image: A Proud Boys jacket at a demonstration near Freedom Plaza in DC. Pic: AP
The plan for January 6
“Fill the buildings with patriots and communicate our demands,” the plan says.
This is the incendiary ‘1776 Returns’ document, a secret Proud Boys internal plan prosecutors say was sent to Tarrio.
Its stated goals include maintaining control “over a select few, but crucial buildings in the DC area for a set period of time” and getting as “many people as possible inside these buildings”.
“These are OUR buildings, they are just renting space,” the document reads. “We must show our politicians We the People are in charge.”
Image: Zachary Rehl (left) and Ethan Nordean (right) on January 6. Pic: AP
The document set out plans in detail for how Proud Boys would occupy buildings, with specialist roles given to leads (“covert sleeper”), “hypeman” and “recruiter”.
“Have leads and seconds open the doors for the crowd to enter,” it says. “This might include causing trouble near the front doors to distract guards who may be holding the doors off.”
Readers are instructed to use COVID-19 to their advantage by wearing face coverings to protect their identities.
Prosecutors say that Tarrio was sent the 1776 Returns document by an unnamed individual, who told him: “The revolution is more important than anything.”
Tarrio responded: “That’s what every waking moment consists of… I’m not playing games.”
Image: Proud Boys members Joseph Biggs (left) and Ethan Nordean (right) walk toward the Capitol. Pic: AP
What happened at the Proud Boys trial?
Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs and Rehl along with a fifth defendant, Dominic Pezzola, were put on trial charged with conspiring to oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force (seditious conspiracy) and a number of other charges in relation to January 6.
In his 80-minute opening statement, assistant US attorney Jason McCullough said in the days after the 2020 election the defendants had started “calling for action, calling for war, if their favoured candidate was not elected.”
Alluding to Mr Trump’s remark, the prosecutor added: “They did not stand back. They did not stand by. Instead, they mobilised.”
The indictment laid out how Tarrio, enraged at President Biden’s victory, posted on social media in November 2020: “F*** unity. No quarter. Raise the black flag.”
Associated with military conflict, the phrase ‘no quarter’ suggests that enemy combatants should be killed rather than taken prisoner.
Image: Enrique Tarrio at a rally in Portland, Oregon in 2019. Pic: AP
The jury heard how after the election Tarrio posted on social media that the presidency was being stolen and vowed his group wouldn’t “go quietly”.
Mr McCullough also cited messages from Tarrio on January 6, including: “Make no mistake… We did this.”
“Those are his words, his thoughts, just minutes after Congress had been forced to stop its work,” McCullough said. “They did what they’d set out to do.”
And while Tarrio himself wasn’t at the Capitol on the day of the insurrection, he messaged with members throughout the riot, prosecutors said.
‘Their commander-in-chief sold them a lie’
Defence lawyers denied their clients planned or led an attack on the Capitol and suggested they were being targeted for their political beliefs.
Tarrio’s attorney, Sabino Jauregui, told jurors his client was being made a scapegoat because he “wrote and sent a lot of offensive things”.
“Speaking what you think is not illegal in this country yet,” he continued, before he closed with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Rehl’s lawyer, Carmen Hernandez, said her client came to the nation’s capital simply to protest. “I submit to you that Mr Rehl came to DC to exercise his First Amendment rights,” she told the jury.
Nick Smith, a lawyer for Nordean, who led a Proud Boys chapter in Washington state, told jurors they would see no evidence of a “complicated, long-running plot”.
“What you will see in the Telegram chats is a bunch of text messages that are tempting you to find guilt based on your dislike of these people,” he said. “Do not take the bait.”
Image: Proud Boys members Ethan Nordean (left), Zachary Rehl and Joseph Biggs walk toward the US Capitol on January 6. Pic: AP
Norm Pattis, a lawyer for Joe Biggs, said the defendants came to Washington because their “commander-in-chief” told them it would “be wild”, referring to Mr Trump’s infamous tweet that called on supporters to come to Washington on January 6.
“Their commander-in-chief sold them a lie,” he said.
Pezzola’s lawyer, Roger Roots, downplayed the attack on the Capitol, which temporarily halted the counting of Electoral College ballots.
“Believe it or not, this entire case is about a six-hour delay of Congress,” Roots told the jury. “The government makes a big deal out of this six-hour recess.”
Guilty of seditious conspiracy
Tarrio, Biggs, Nordean and Rehl were found guilty of seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
Pezzola was cleared of seditious conspiracy and a jury could not reach an agreement on the charge of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
Pezzola, who was caught on video smashing in a window with a Capitol Police shield during the riot, was separately charged with stealing the police shield and found guilty.
He was also convicted of assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers, while the four other defendants were acquitted on that charge.
The judge declared a mistrial in respect of various other counts in the trial upon which the jury did not reach conclusions.
Image: Rioters, including Dominic Pezzola (centre) with police shield, inside the Capitol. Pic: AP
How big are the Proud Boys now?
With the next US presidential election barely a year away some are asking if we are likely to see a repeat of the violent scenes of January 6… or another attempt to overturn the result if Mr Trump is not the victor.
Are the Proud Boys still a threat to American democracy?
Their numbers have grown dramatically since 2020, reaching 78 chapters in 2022, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center organisation.
But that may not tell the whole story, as it does not necessarily mean that the number of Proud Boys members has increased, experts say.
“I think many would have expected the Proud Boys to kind of fade away by now,” Colin P Clarke, director of research and an expert on domestic terrorism at the Soufan Group, tells Sky News.
“But there seems to be a real sense of pride in pushing forward with all their different activities, and they’ve positioned themselves as a player in the culture wars more broadly.”
However Colin Beck, a professor at Pomona College and an expert in social movements, said that while the Proud Boys brand may have continued to spread, the amount of support may have decreased.
“There’s now a real cost,” he tells Sky News. “If you go to a Proud Boys event you might end up in jail.
“The US federal government is very good at suppressing protests when it chooses to do so.”
Trump ‘abandoned’ the Proud Boys
Another factor, Katherine Keneally says, is the Proud Boys have in many ways distanced themselves from Mr Trump and feel “betrayed” by him.
She pointed to fears of Proud Boys protests over the indictment of the former president which did not come to pass.
“He wasn’t helping fund their legal efforts. He just sort of abandoned them,” she said. “So there has been this distrust that’s been happening with Trump.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:39
Watch US Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s statement here.
Asked about the future, she doubts there will be a repeat of January 6 as Proud Boys are now focussing much more on local action and running for local office.
“I’m not actually worried about the Proud Boys,” Ms Beck says. “In some ways they’re like the has-beens.”
“It’s who the Proud Boys become next…what is the group that emerges?
“Because all the people who are adherents or sympathetic, they don’t go away. They just move on to something else.”
Mr Clarke raised the idea the Proud Boys could act as a “feeder” or “preparatory school” for more extreme groups.
Asked how likely a repeat of the Capitol insurrection is if a Democrat wins in 2024, Mr Clarke said: “We have to learn from January 6 that when these guys say that they’re going to do something, we have to take them seriously and prepare for it.”
The US has intercepted and seized a sanctioned oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, Donald Trump has said.
President Trump confirmed the operation at a meeting with business leaders at the White House on Wednesday.
“We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually,” he said at the start of the meeting.
It marks the latest escalation from the Trump administration, which has in recent months ramped up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
The US accuses Mr Maduro of presiding over a narcotrafficking operation in Venezuela, which he denies
Image: Pics: X/@AGPamBondi
Tanker ‘used to transport sanctioned’ oil, US claims
Later, Attorney General Pam Bondi shared a video of the operation, confirming that the FBI, Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, and Department of Defence were involved.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
She said on X that the US forces “executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran”.
“For multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organisations,” she added.
“This seizure, completed off the coast of Venezuela, was conducted safely and securely-and our investigation alongside the Department of Homeland Security to prevent the transport of sanctioned oil continues.”
She did not name the vessel, what flag the vessel sailed under, or exactly where the incident took place.
UK maritime risk management group Vanguard said that the tanker Skipper – which the US sanctioned for alleged involvement in Iranian oil trading under the name Adisa – was believed to have been seized.
US interception of oil tanker raises more questions about international law
The seizing of an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela is a significant escalation in US tactics.
By targeting an oil shipment, rather than a suspected drug boat, Washington has signalled its willingness to disrupt exports.
President Trump seems determined to shut down one of the last major sources of funding for Nicholas Maduro’s embattled government.
Nine months ago, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on all goods imported into the US from any country buying oil or gas from Venezuela.
This is even more aggressive and will be viewed in Caracas as a direct threat to the country’s economy and sovereignty.
The interception of the tanker raises more questions about international maritime law and the reach of US enforcement powers.
In the space of four months, the US has bombed 23 boats, killing 87 people, accusing the occupants of being “narco-terrorists”.
It will also fuel speculation that airstrikes are imminent, President Trump having posted two weeks ago that he had closed the airspace.
Trump on seized oil: ‘We keep it’
Without giving additional information on the operation, Mr Trump added during the White House meeting with business leaders that “other things are happening”.
Later, Mr Trump said that the tanker was “seized for a very good reason,” and when asked what will happen to the oil on board the vessel, he added: “Well, we keep it, I suppose”.
He also suggested that Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who angered the Trump administration by speaking at a pro-Palestinian demonstration outside the UN in September, could “be next” if his country doesn’t “wise up” on alleged drug trafficking.
The US has escalated military deployments against the Latin American country over the last few months, with Mr Trump suggesting that American forces could launch a land attack on Venezuela.
Sky’s Data & Forensics unit has verified that in the past four months since strikes began, 23 boats have been targeted in 22 strikes, killing 87 people.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:30
Are US strikes on Venezuela about drugs or oil?
Geoffrey Corn, director of the Centre for Military Law at Texas Tech University, told Sky News’s Mark Austin on The World that Mr Trump’s remarks on land strikes “ostensibly” refer to drug cartel members.
Formerly a senior adviser to the US army on warfare law, Mr Corn added: “That could very easily provide the pretext for some confrontation between Venezuelan armed forces and US armed forces.
“And then that would open the door to a broader campaign to basically negate the power of the Venezuelan military.”
Speaking to Politico on Tuesday, Mr Trump declined to comment on whether US troops would enter Venezuela, but said that Mr Maduro’s “days are numbered”.
According to Bloomberg, the Maduro government describes US actions as a grab for Venezuela’s oil reserves – among the biggest in the world.
Meanwhile, at a rally before a ruling-party-organised demonstration in Caracas, Mr Maduro did not address the seizure, but told supporters that Venezuela is “prepared to break the teeth of the North American empire if necessary”.
Flanked by senior officials, he said that only the ruling party can “guarantee peace, stability, and the harmonious development of Venezuela, South America and the Caribbean”.
All tourists – including those from Britain – will have to undergo a social media screening before being allowed entry into the US under new plans being considered by the country’s border force.
At the moment, Britons are among those who can visit for up to 90 days without a visa. They just have to obtain an electronic travel authorisation, known as an ESTA, for $40 (£30).
The potential social media mandate being proposed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would apply to anyone visiting, whether they require a visa or not.
According to a notice published in America’s federal register on Tuesday, foreign tourists would need to provide their social media from the last five years.
Image: Pic: iStock
It will be “mandatory” to hand over the information, and other details – including email addresses and telephone numbers used in the last five years, as well as the names, addresses, numbers, and birthdays of family members – will also be required.
Currently, as part of the ESTA application process, a tourist from Britain would have to provide an email address, home address, phone number, and emergency contact details. If approved, the ESTA lasts for two years.
CBP is proposing that moving forward, ESTA applications would require a selfie.
It further wants to collect biometrics – face, fingerprints DNA and iris – as part of the ESTA application. It currently only records face and fingerprints upon arrival at the US border.
The proposed changes are open for public consultation for 60 days.
Image: An ESTA application form. Pic: iStock
So much for free speech?
There have been several reports of travellers already having been denied entry into the US over social media posts and messages found on their personal devices after President Donald Trump took office in January.
This includes a French scientist who was turned away at the US border in March after messages “that reflect hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism” were found on his phone.
Despite Mr Trump vowing to “restore freedom of speech” on online platforms and end “federal censorship” when he took office, he has found himself at the centre of various free speech rows since.
In September, talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was taken off-air by Disney-owned ABC over comments he made about the assassination of the right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk.
And in April, Harvard University sued the Trump administration for seeking “unprecedented and improper” control of the school, after it froze $2.6bn (£1.9bn) of its federal funding.
Harvard’s lawsuit accused the government of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a list of 10 demands from a federal antisemitism task force, which included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions.
A judge ruled in September that the Trump administration’s freeze of billions in research funding to Harvard was unconstitutional and retaliatory, a decision the US government vowed to appeal.
An agreement has not yet been reached, so the fight between the Ivy League university and Mr Trump rages on.
Iran and Egypt have complained after FIFA scheduled a World Cup match between the two nations in Seattle to coincide with the city’s LGBTQ+ Pride festival.
Seattle’s PrideFest 2026, which organisers say regularly sees more than 200,000 participants, takes place on 27 and 28 June – immediately following the match.
Local organisers have said the 26 June game at the Seattle Stadium will include a “once-in-a-lifetime moment to showcase and celebrate LGBTQIA+ communities in Washington”.
Image: Iran players pose for a team group photo before a match against North Korea in June 2025. Pic: Reuters
In Iran, where gay couples can face the death penalty, the president of Iran’s Football Federation, Mehdi Taj, condemned the decision to use Seattle as a venue and the timing of the match.
Mr Taj told Iranian state TV: “Both Egypt and we have objected, because this is an unreasonable and illogical move that essentially signals support for a particular group, and we must definitely address this point.”
He said Iran would bring up the issue at a FIFA Council meeting in Qatar next week.
Image: The Egypt players line up during the national anthems before the match against Jordan. Pic: Reuters
The football federation in Egypt, where Human Rights Watch says people from LGBTQ+ communities face persecution, said in a statement that it had written to FIFA “categorically rejecting any activities related to supporting homosexuality during the match between the Egyptian national team and Iran.”
More from World
The letter also stated: “Information had circulated indicating the local organising committee’s decision and plans to hold some activities related to supporting homosexuality during that match” and the federation “completely rejects such activities, which directly contradict the cultural, religious and social values in the region, especially in Arab and Islamic societies”.
Image: The Seattle Pride festival takes place in late June, attracting hundreds of thousands of people every year, like in 2023. File pic: AP
In Seattle, the local organising committee said it was “moving forward as planned with our community programming outside the stadium during Pride weekend and throughout the tournament,” having already promoted an art contest ahead of the match.
It added: “We get to show the world that in Seattle, everyone is welcome.”
Seattle PrideFest has been organised in the city since 2007 by a nonprofit group which designated the 26 June match for celebration before FIFA carried out the World Cup draw on Friday.
On Saturday, FIFA announced the Egypt-Iran game had been allocated to Seattle instead of Vancouver, where the teams’ group rivals Belgium and New Zealand will play at the same time.