‘Don't forget': mural brings attention to the January 6 rioters pardoned by Trump
These are just three of the stories told on the Wall of Shame, a public installation by artist Phil Buehler that launched on 4 July in Bushwick, Brooklyn, New York. The giant red, white and blue mural aims to document and highlight the stories and alleged crimes of more than 1,575 people involved in the January 6 2021 attack on the US Capitol who were pardoned by Donald Trump.
The project is the third in what might be called Buehler's art against autocracy trilogy, a series of collaborations with the non-profit Radio Free Brooklyn. It began in 2020 with the Wall of Lies, a 50ft mural displaying more than 20,000 lies told by Trump during his first term in office. The second installation, the Wall of Liars and Deniers, was a mural displaying the 381 Republican politicians running in the 2022 midterm elections who denied Democrat Joe Biden's legitimacy as president.
Related: The ongoing fight to replace racist monuments in the US: 'requires a lot of perseverance'
'Artists can have more power than Fox News to turn this around,' Buehler says in a Zoom interview from his Brooklyn studio, reflecting on the struggle for truth in the Trump era. 'Boy, would Magaland hate it if culture, music and art [pushed back]. You've got to double down the other way and start flooding this zone with art as Trump tries to erase it.'
The Wall of Shame is a 50ft-long, 10ft-tall outdoor mural featuring the pardoned Trump supporters, colour-coded to distinguish their actions: violent rioters appear in red, those who damaged property are shown in blue, and the remaining individuals are depicted in white. The combined effect resembles a Star and Stripes that has imploded.
Buehler spent about 100 hours gathering the rioters' stories, charges and sentences from research by National Public Radio (NPR) and formatting them to be printed on waterproof vinyl and hung outdoors on a fence. NPR had about a thousand photos of the rioters, so Buehler enlisted a friend to track down a further 500 pictures; only about 10 are now missing.
He adds: 'Artists can do it in a different way. I'm just presenting facts. It's almost seducing people with a visual that they then approach and go, that's pretty cool, what is that? Then you can read these things and we're benefiting from NPR's reputation having factchecked this.'
The rioters are easy to dismiss as an amorphous mob; the mural is a reminder that each is a person with their own career, family and personal demons. Guy Reffitt, 48, from Wylie, Texas, allegedly told his family that he had taken his gun to the US Capitol on January 6 and said to his child: 'If you turn me in, you're a traitor. And you know what happens to traitors. Traitors get shot.' But Pamela Hemphill, 68, from Boise, Idaho, refused Trump's pardon and expressed remorse, describing the police as 'heroes' and the rioters as 'very dangerous people'.
Buehler reflects: 'I could see patterns. It's very tribal. Trump was successful in almost stealing red, white and blue as their symbol. They all call themselves patriots on this wall. They all bought into the big lie that the election was stolen.
'Their social media posts and messages that were part of the record when they were indicted show that they believed a lot of the other lies like Pizzagate – we've got to stop the pedophiles taking over. They're in a media bubble. They believe it and they're in it together and they did see themselves as patriots.'
The project aims to foster solidarity and courage among those who oppose authoritarianism. Buehler recounts how the defacement of the Wall of Lies by the far-right group Proud Boys galvanised the community, leading them to cut out the Proud Boys graffiti and spraypainted hearts all over it and raise money for a bigger mural.
'How are we going to survive the next four years? This runs through your head. Then what can I do? Community gives you courage. Marching in those parades gives you courage to fight against this. We're using this symbolic art piece to rally around a different flag.'
The Wall of Shame – installed at the same location as the Wall of Lies – was provoked by Trump's decision on his first day back in office to grant clemency to about 1,500 individuals charged or convicted in connection with the January 6 insurrection, including people found guilty of assaulting police officers. Democrats called the move an affront to justice and democracy.
Yet the controversy has been almost forgotten in the fast-paced news cycle, overwhelmed by a deluge of Trump drama from Elon Musk to Signalgate to tariffs to protests in Los Angeles to military strikes on Iran. But Buehler insists: 'We look at that as the first of his steps in his march toward authoritarianism. 'OK, let's pardon all the people that rioted.'
'It's interesting what we've seen since. He sent thousands of national guard and marines to LA for mostly peaceful protests. I don't know if it's ironic or telling that, during the January 6 riots, he watched them on television on the other side of DC and didn't do anything and then pardoned them. A hundred and forty cops got hurt and now this year [FBI director] Kash Patel is saying, 'Touch a cop, go to jail.' I guess the unsaid part is, 'Touch a cop, go to jail unless it's for Trump and what Trump wants.''
The artist adds: 'He's since followed it up with some illegal deportations. He disobeys the courts constantly. He's turned the White House into a car dealership showroom with Tesla. And now he's starting a war [against Iran] without the authorisation of Congress. I guess we're trying to highlight that was the first thing. Don't forget that one: the pardon of the rioters. That was his first act of trying to emulate Putin and become an authoritarian leader.'
Trump has been waging war on reality for a decade, conjuring a mirror world in which up is down and black is white. He has described the January 6 rioters as patriots and martyrs while dismissing those who protested against immigration enforcement raids in LA as 'insurrectionists'. When he faced criminal investigations he blamed the 'weaponisation' of the justice department, while any negative media coverage is routinely branded 'fake news'.
Rob Prichard of Radio Free Brooklyn, who initially suggested that Buehler tackle the January 6 pardons, finds something Orwellian in Trump's attempts to rewrite history and dominate the cultural space. The president has seized control of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and ordered the removal of so-called 'improper, divisive or anti-American ideology' from Smithsonian Institution museums, forcing the resignation of the director of its National Portrait Gallery.
Speaking from Park Slope, Brooklyn, Prichard, 69, says via Zoom: 'As a nation we are as close to autocracy as we've ever been. It seems like fascism is basically a war on consensus reality and we need to put a pin in those points where it's so obvious that it's not true.
'Trump's entire political career is predicated on a demonstrable lie, saying Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and because we never called him out on it properly in the first place, it just continues. If you can get away with it you play the hand again. Steve Bannon [a rightwing podcast and former Trump adviser] is flooding the zone. We need to flood the zone too but with the truth.'
The colour-coding of the mural is intentional, designed to reclaim a national symbol from what the creators perceive as its co-option by Trump supporters. Prichard adds: 'We're not ceding the red, white and blue. We claim it and we claim the true meaning of representative democracy.
'I have hope because for one thing, autocracy and fascism is predicated on violence and the threat of violence. Both violence and the threat of violence are untenable. They can't be. You just can't maintain them forever and it has to break. The fever has to break eventually and either there's complete submission or we liberate ourselves. I don't see complete submission. That's part of our DNA.'
Prichard does not use words such as fascist lightly. His 91-year-old mother is German and was forced to join Hitler's youth movement when she was seven years old. 'She remembers it. She is deathly afraid of Trump. If she were 10 years younger, she would probably move to Germany permanently.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
Officers' unexpected pizza delivery goes viral after holiday traffic stop arrest
A viral video shows a pair of police officers in Arizona helping finish a pizza delivery after the driver was arrested during a traffic stop. "When your GrubHub driver gets arrested… Tempe Police Delivers," the caption on the video read. It was posted on social media by the Tempe Police Department. The department shared the moment, which unfolded on July 4, that showed officers delivering the pizza to a visibly surprised customer. "Hello," the shocked customer said when she opened her door to find two police officers with her pizza order. "How are you doing?" one of the officers asked. "Good. How are you?" she responded. "Very good. Brandy?" the officer holding the pizza asked to verify they had the right home for the delivery. "Yes," she confirmed. "So your GrubHub guy got arrested, so we still delivered your pizza," the officer explained. The customer's mouth dropped open when she realized what was happening. "I really appreciate the pizza," she said. "It still should be warm," the second officer added. The department shared the viral video on their X account as well. "When a delivery driver was arrested during a traffic stop, our officers made sure the pizza still got to the customer. The order was Hot-N-Ready, and the suspect was Caught-N-Steady," the department shared in a post on X. "We're committed to serving our community 24/7—whether it's safety or pizza delivery!" Authorities told Fox News Digital that the delivery driver was arrested on charges of reckless driving and racing. Fox News Digital reached out to GrubHub for comment. Stepheny Price is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business. She covers topics including missing persons, homicides, national crime cases, illegal immigration, and more. Story tips and ideas can be sent to
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A $100 billion mystery is unfolding on tariffs and inflation and economists are cracking the case
Economists have for months warned that tariffs would cause an inflation surge, but as of July, there's little evidence of that in economic data, despite about $100 billion in tariffs already collected by the Treasury. Fortune asked economists to explain why. The possible reasons range from 'it's too soon' to 'consumers won't stand for it.' Since the first weeks of President Donald Trump's second term, when the president signaled a wholesale reimagining of the international trade system on a scale not seen in decades, mainstream economists have warned that prices would surge. The mantra, repeated by everyone from mainstream economists to factions of the GOP, has been clear: A tariff is a tax on consumers. Businesses said the same, with three -quarters of importers in a recent New York Fed study declaring they planned to pass on some tariff costs to customers. But halfway into the year and well into the most consequential reshuffling of trade in half a century, tariff-fueled inflation is missing in action. The tariffs are certainly in place: The Treasury so far has collected a record-setting $100 billion in customs duties, and is on track to pull in $300 billion this year. The tariffs are paid by U.S. importers—think Walmart and other retailers—when goods cross the border into the U.S. It takes some time to work their way into the system, but eventually higher prices get passed onto consumers. Those higher prices directly influence the overall price levels in inflation measures. Except there's a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, and coated in a puzzle. One place tariffs aren't showing up? In the inflation numbers. For four months, official inflation readings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have come in under expectations, with the latest inflation reading a relatively modest 2.4%. The president's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) this week released a brief arguing that import prices have actually been falling. Why doesn't the data show a tariff hit? Here's what leading economists told Fortune. Though tariffs have been discussed for months, they haven't actually been in place for that long. 'Regarding the impact of tariffs on prices, the timeframe used by the CEA is way too short to draw any definitive conclusions,' said the fiscally conservative National Taxpayers Union said in a critique on the study, which looked at prices through May. 'Trump's 10% nonreciprocal tariffs were only imposed in April.' Tariffs on steel and aluminum went into effect in March and increased in June, while Chinese imports have been subject to a 30% tax since March; dozens more 'reciprocal' tariffs, initially announced in early April, have now been postponed. Meanwhile, official government price data takes time to collect and release. As of mid-July, the most recent data for the Consumer Price Index and Personal Consumption Expenditures deflator, covers May. Immediately after tariffs were announced, importers rushed to bring in goods before they were subject to a higher rate. Businesses brought in so many goods, with no corresponding sales, that it briefly flipped the U.S.' GDP into negative territory. (In economist math, imports count as a negative to GDP.) That surge means that businesses could still be largely selling goods brought in under pre-tariff prices. 'Businesses stockpiled inventory, and presumably haven't had to raise prices on goods because they're sitting on the shelf. Eventually they will, and once they start to raise prices it'll start impacting consumers,' said Eric Winograd, chief U.S. economist at AllianceBernstein, to explain this theory. Uncertainty, in a word, is 'the most important reason' the hard data doesn't yet show tariff impact, according to Eugenio Aleman, chief economist at Raymond James. 'Business owners price their goods at replacement cost. If they have to buy the same good in the future, they have to increase the price [charged to the customer] if the price of the replacement is higher,' he told Fortune. The problem, though, is uncertainty. 'Everybody knows the prices that firms will pay for replacement goods will be higher, but nobody knows by how much. That uncertainty is keeping many firms from repricing their goods.' Businesses, particularly small businesses, could be choosing to eat the cost of tariffs for the time being. Unlike large businesses, they have a smaller client base and could be reluctant to hike prices, Aleman said. 'Maybe small firms are eating some large portion of the tariffs. Why? Because they can't afford to lose clients,' he said. One potential data point indicating this possibility is recent Commerce Department figures showing growth in proprietors' income—a proxy for small businesses—flatlining in May. Aleman stressed that more than one month of data would be needed to determine if this is the case. Recent Bank of America research shows the amount of tariffs paid by small businesses in May nearly doubled from 2022 levels. 'Small businesses may be, in some ways, more susceptible to tariff pressures than larger businesses, given their access to capital is more limited,' the note read. An added factor is the bully pulpit of Truth Social, which Trump has wielded freely at even the largest retailer thinking of hiking costs. 'If the president sees significant pass-through of tariffs via prices, you'll see a lot more public policy, probably via Twitter,' Jeff Klingelhofer, a managing director at Aristotle Pacific, told Fortune. Klingelhofer previously suggested that companies would take the brunt of the tariff impact because they're the only ones who could afford to, with consumers being 'tapped out' after years of high inflation. Former Federal Reserve economist Claudia Sahm also noted that companies today are less quick to hike prices now than they were during pandemic inflation, when Americans were flush with cash and eager to spend it. In 2021 and 2022, 'consumers up and down the income distribution, had some cash, and there were a lot of corporate earnings calls saying 'We're passing these [costs] through,' and the consumer could kind of handle it,' she told Fortune. Three years later, Americans have spent all the excess savings accumulated during Covid, and businesses 'realize if they increase prices dramatically, they could be losing customers,' she said. 'There is more hesitation. There is some raising of prices, but not the exuberance' of the pandemic. That's the position of Mark DiPlacido, policy advisor at American Compass, a conservative economic outfit that supports tariffs as a way to rebalance the U.S. economy. 'Foreign exporters have ended up absorbing a lot of [the costs], and businesses—very little has gotten to consumers at this point,' he said. Japanese carmakers, he noted, are slashing prices—sometimes nearly 20%—to compensate for the added costs U.S. buyers will pay. In other words, 'Japan itself and Japanese companies are eating the costs of the tariffs.' Every economist Fortune spoke with made some version of this point—that a tariff, rather than giving a blank check for a seller to boost prices, sets off a complicated negotiation between importers, exporters, and American end buyers. Finding the balance of which party pays how much will take time, and will be individual for each good and sector of the economy. 'Tariffs are a tax on imported goods,' Sahm said. 'Nobody wants to pay the tax, so who is the weakest link? Walmart can go in and tell their Chinese producers, 'You have to cut the price.' Maybe in the pandemic the consumers said, 'OK, I'll pay it—I'm not really happy about it, but I have the money.' The final answer, she added, 'can be very specific to the business, the industry, and also the general macroeconomic conditions.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Gizmodo
37 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
The U.S. and EU Are Fighting Over Who Controls Big Tech
President Trump just slapped 30% tariffs on goods coming from the European Union, escalating a long-simmering conflict over who gets to write the rules for Big Tech. The move came just after Brussels moved forward with more regulations, this time targeting the booming field of artificial intelligence. The latest flashpoint is the EU's new 'Code of Practice' for AI, a set of voluntary guidelines released Thursday aimed at addressing public safety concerns. While not legally binding, the code builds on the EU's landmark AI Act, and companies that don't sign on by the August 2 deadline risk intense regulatory scrutiny. OpenAI announced its intention to sign the code on Friday, while the tech lobby group CCIA, whose members include Google and Meta, has criticized the guidelines. The Trump administration has been openly hostile to the EU's attempts to regulate American tech companies. Trump has described the bloc's hefty fines as 'overseas extortion,' while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed they function as backdoor tariffs. This view has been amplified by Silicon Valley. In a January announcement, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said his company was 'going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies,' specifically calling out European regulators. These tensions have crippled trade negotiations; in May, Trump administration officials told the New York Post that talks had stalled over the EU's refusal to abandon its multi-million dollar fines against U.S. tech giants. Under the 2022 Digital Markets Act (DMA), a landmark European antitrust law, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Meta were all deemed 'gatekeepers.' This designation brought with it a wave of fines and forced changes to their EU operations. Most recently, Meta was hit with a more than $200 million fine after the European Commission found its 'pay-or-consent' model breached the DMA. According to a Reuters report from Friday, Meta has decided to fight the findings and will not propose changes, meaning more fines are likely on the way. Despite Trump's pressure, the EU seems intent on maintaining its regulatory independence. Earlier this month, the European Commission's tech chief, Henna Virkkunen, told Politico that the bloc's rules on digital competition and AI were not up for negotiation. However, the EU has shown some willingness to compromise. The bloc recently dropped a proposed tax on digital companies from its upcoming budget, a move seen as a win for the Trump administration. The question now is whether these new tariffs will backfire and provoke an even tougher crackdown. In response to the first round of tariffs in April, EU President Ursula von der Leyen was open about targeting Big Tech with countermeasures if talks failed. While the bloc delayed a set of retaliatory measures that were set to go into effect this past Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron has made it clear that the EU's most feared weapon is still on the table: the anti-coercion instrument. 'With European unity, it is more than ever up to the Commission to assert the Union's determination to resolutely defend European interests,' Macron wrote on X. 'This implies speeding up the preparation of credible countermeasures, by mobilizing all the instruments at its disposal, including anti-coercion, if no agreement is reached by August 1st.' Along with the President of the European Commission, France shares the same very strong disapproval at the announcement of horizontal 30% tariffs on EU exports to the United States from August 1st. This announcement comes after weeks of intense engagement by the Commission in… — Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) July 12, 2025The anti-coercion instrument is considered the 'bazooka' in the EU's arsenal. While traditional tariffs hit physical goods, this tool allows the EU to impose trade restrictions on services from a country it deems is using economic coercion. If the U.S. is found to fit the bill, American tech giants that provide digital services, like Apple, Google, and Meta, could be uniquely vulnerable. Ultimately, both sides are fighting to protect their own interests: the Trump administration wants to defend American dominance in the global tech industry, while the EU wants to regulate digital platforms on its own terms. As negotiations continue, they will not only decide the fate of the tech companies caught in the middle but will also set the rules for global tech sovereignty for years to come. But for Big Tech companies caught in the crossfire, the message is clear: this is a war over digital sovereignty, and the rules of the internet's next era may be written in Brussels as much as in Washington.
