Former Capitol Police Chief Blasts Pelosi’s Account of January 6 Security Failures

A sharp and public clash has ignited between two central figures tied to January 6, exposing previously hidden details about the security breakdowns that led to that fateful day—and sparking a renewed struggle over who is held accountable.

The spark came when Nancy Pelosi, former House Speaker, criticized President Trump’s recent deployment of federal forces in Washington, D.C., drawing a direct line to his actions (or inactions) during the Capitol riot. Pelosi accused Trump of delaying the National Guard’s deployment as the Capitol was under attack, and framed his current moves in D.C. as a cover for earlier mismanagement.

But the attack backfired. Steven Sund, the former Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, responded almost immediately—and in detail. In a pointed rebuke, he laid out a timeline and narrative that directly challenged Pelosi’s version of events, claiming that she and her leadership structure denied or delayed critical security support before and during the riot.

---

Sund’s Timeline: Requests Denied, Guards Declined

Sund asserts that on January 3, 2021, three days before the siege, he formally requested National Guard assistance through proper channels. That request, he claims, was refused—and not merely by faceless bureaucracy, but by Pelosi’s own Sergeant at Arms, under orders from congressional leadership.

According to Sund, the rejection of that early security advance was pivotal: with resources already on the table, the failure to accept them marked a missed opportunity to mitigate the coming threat.

His account also names a Pentagon link: Sund says that Carol Corbin, a Pentagon official, offered Guard support on January 3—but that he lacked the legal authority to accept without congressional approval. That claim suggests that military readiness was present—but held back by procedural and political constraints.

---

The Crisis Unfolds: Requests That Went Nowhere

When violence erupted on January 6 itself, Sund says he again urgently requested National Guard deployment. Rather than an immediate green light, his pleas were stalled for over 70 minutes, he claims, as they were passed “up the chain” for approval.

That period of delay—Sund emphasizes—happened while the Capitol was under active assault. He accuses Pelosi’s Sergeant at Arms of denying his immediate requests, framing the hold-up as more than bureaucratic inertia: deliberate policy resistance in the midst of danger.

The former chief’s narrative raises serious questions: if security forces were available, why was deployment delayed? And who made the call to stall, even as the threat became real?

---

Legal Constraints and Congressional Control

Central to Sund’s rebuttal is the legal authority structure surrounding National Guard deployment under 2 U.S.C. §1970, which requires explicit congressional approval before Guard forces can be brought in for Capitol protection. Sund argues that he operated under that law, unable to authorize deployment unilaterally—even in light of his own threat assessments.

The structure places responsibility squarely on congressional leadership—the very figures who Sund and others accuse of slow-walking or denying support when it mattered most. If Sund’s claims hold, the security failures of January 6 reflect not just intelligence or planning mistakes, but political obstruction of security requests.

---

Pelosi’s Post-Riot Security and Accusations of Hypocrisy

Sund also called out what he framed as hypocrisy: after January 6, Pelosi supported dramatic security measures around the Capitol—mirrored by fences, razor wire, checkpoints, and thousands of National Guard troops under long-term deployment.

He portrayed that shift as politically timed. While she declined preemptive support at a moment of imminent crisis, she embraced an overtly fortified Capitol environment when it served her narrative. That contrast, Sund argues, reveals political calculation—not consistent security strategy.

By accusing Pelosi of authorizing heightened security only when it bolstered a post-riot narrative, he suggests the decisions were less about protection than optics and message control.

---

Stakes and Political Fallout

This clash between Sund and Pelosi carries major implications. If Sund’s account is validated—especially his claim that leadership overrode or delayed responses—it would reshape how Americans understand January 6. The narrative might shift from one of systemic intelligence failure to one of leadership-level decision-making failures.

Pelosi is far from alone in being scrutinized; the events of January 6 remain a battleground in American politics, with both sides vying to frame the memory and assign blame. But Sund’s detailed, insider perspective is uniquely powerful: as the man responsible for Capitol security, his testimony bypasses general criticism and confronts leadership head-on.

---

Context: Washington, D.C., Enforcement Reforms

This showdown comes against the backdrop of Trump’s expanded federal law enforcement operations in Washington itself—a contrast Sund may intend. The recent federal takeover of D.C. policing, integration of federal agents into local operations, and a significant rise in immigration arrests have stirred debate over executive control. Pelosi’s invocation of January 6 in criticizing those initiatives opened the door for a response grounded in history and security authority.

Sund’s public revelations may serve a dual purpose: to defend his own record and to challenge Pelosi’s use of January 6 as a political cudgel. As the narrative plays out, his claims will face intense scrutiny, and the public—already divided—will hear competing versions of that day’s pivotal hours.