Alleged DC pipe bomber argues Trump's Jan 6 pardons should also apply to him

Attorneys for the Virginia man charged in connection with the planting of pipe bombs outside the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., on the eve of the January 6 Capitol riot are arguing in court that President Donald Trump's pardons of Jan. 6 defendants should apply to their client and charges against him should be dismissed.

The attorneys for defendant Brian Cole, Jr. filed the motion Monday, arguing that the charges against their client are "inextricably and demonstrably tethered" to the events of Jan. 6, 2020. 

Cole pleaded not guilty in January to the charges of interstate transportation of explosives and malicious attempt to use explosives following his December 2025 arrest – nearly five years after the pipe bombs were planted.

The attorneys also argue that federal prosecutors said that Cole told the FBI he had traveled to Washington, D.C., to attend an election-related protest, which suggests he was part of "the same political controversy that animated the January 6 crowd." In addition, the argue despite the bombs allegedly being planted on Jan. 5, they were discovered the next day.

"The Pardon – like it or not – applies to Mr. Cole, based on the ordinary and plain meaning of the Pardon's language as applied to the relevant facts in this case," Cole's lawyers wrote.

While the bombs didn't detonate, the FBI said they were viable.

Hours after returning to the White House last year, Trump pardoned around 1,500 Capitol riot defendants who were facing charges ranging from trespassing to assaulting police. 

Trump pardoned the criminal convictions for all but 14 of those who were convicted of Jan. 6-related offenses, and directed the Justice Department to work on dismissing charges against those who had not yet been convicted.

Trump's order says the pardons apply to "offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021."

Cole's lawyers argue that the phrase "related to" could apply to offenses that did not occur on Jan. 6, 2021, as long as they were linked to the events of that day.