The Chain of Silence: Secrets Behind the Denied Request
Former Capitol Police Chief Questions Pelosi’s Version of January 6 Decisions
Washington, D.C. — Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund has publicly challenged former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s version of events surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, releasing a detailed timeline that calls into question the handling of National Guard deployments. His statements, made Wednesday, place his account in direct conflict with Pelosi’s narrative and shine renewed light on the fraught chain of command that day.
The Confrontation
The dispute escalated after Pelosi was approached near the Capitol by Lindell TV reporter Alison Steinberg, who pressed the former speaker on her role in delays to National Guard mobilization. Pelosi responded sharply, shouting, “SHUT UP! I did not refuse the National Guard. The President didn’t send it…” She went on to accuse the reporter of echoing Republican talking points and questioned her credibility.
Pelosi maintained that her office did not refuse a Guard request and placed responsibility on then-President Donald Trump, saying the lack of deployment was not due to her office’s actions.
Sund’s Account
Sund issued a post on X that directly disputes Pelosi’s claims. He asserted that his repeated requests for National Guard support were denied by the House Sergeant at Arms (SAA) — both before and during the riot. According to his timeline, on January 6 he requested assistance more than once, but for more than 70 minutes those requests were refused or held up by the SAA, who was “running it up the chain” for Pelosi’s approval.
Sund accused the SAA of obstructing timely support. He also said that although the Pentagon offered help immediately, he could not accept without approval from congressional leadership, per legal constraints under federal law (2 U.S.C. § 1970).
According to Sund:
“Your Sergeant at Arms repeatedly denied my multiple requests for National Guard assistance … Even on Jan 6, your SAA denied my urgent requests for over 70 minutes.”
Legal and Procedural Context
The deployment of military or National Guard support to the Capitol is complicated by statutory limits: under U.S. code, the Capitol Police cannot unilaterally accept Guard assistance; they must receive approval from congressional authorities. Sund contends that procedural hurdles and delays in authorization severely curtailed his force’s ability to respond in real time.
Pelosi, for her part, has long defended her office’s handling, saying she and her team acted within the authority available. But Sund’s version introduces new assertions about internal roadblocks between law enforcement and congressional leadership.
Conflicting Narratives and Broader Implications
January 6 has long been framed as a breakdown of security planning and interagency coordination. Multiple investigations—from congressional committees to independent panels—have probed the failure to timely augment protective forces. Sund’s recent assertions deepen that inquiry, positioning congressional offices as potential bottlenecks.
The clash draws attention to a delicate balance: congressional leadership has influence over Capitol security, but law enforcement must have enough autonomy in emergencies. Sund’s timeline emphasizes how delays in communication and approval may have worsened risk for officers and members during the siege.
Observers note that Pelosi’s version and Sund’s now diverge sharply, highlighting the ongoing power struggle over the historical record. Which account is accepted — and whether investigations follow — may influence future protocols, reforms, and public accountability.
Reaction and Political Stakes
Pelosi’s allies have defended her role, arguing that the chaos of January 6 made even the most responsible systems struggle. Meanwhile, Republicans have seized on Sund’s timeline as evidence that congressional leadership could and should have acted more decisively to protect the Capitol.
Legal experts caution, though, that Sund’s account does not automatically prove bad faith or constitutional violation: the operational realities of emergency authority and bureaucratic delays are often murky. But his version does raise tough questions about clarity of command and the adequacy of oversight in crisis.
With attention renewed, the Sergeant at Arms and congressional offices may come under further scrutiny. Investigators may examine internal logs, communications, and decision chains to assess who delayed what, why, and whether that contributed to the breach.
The Historical Record—Still Being Written
Sund’s intervention illustrates a broader struggle over who shapes the narrative of January 6. Different actors—law enforcement, congressional leaders, executive officials—all had roles, and their accounts differ. For historians, advocates, and political actors, reconciling these perspectives is essential to assigning accountability and improving future security.
Sund’s version—if corroborated and accepted—could revise assumptions about who held ultimate responsibility for delays that day. It may change the way Congress allocates power over Capitol security, mandates emergency authority, and ensures responsive coordination in future crises.
As Congress and courts continue to review that dark day, Sund’s assertions add another layer to scrutiny. The former chief’s role positions him uniquely between security operations and political actors. By forcing a public clash with Pelosi’s account, he demands scrutiny not only of past decisions but of how leaders are held to account during national emergencies.
In the end, the book on January 6 is still being written. The stakes are high—not only for reputations, but for the future structure of Capitol safety, crisis management, and institutional responsibility.