Former Capitol Police Chief Challenges Pelosi’s January 6th Claims Amid Trump’s D.C. Security Overhaul

A dramatic confrontation has erupted between former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the man who was responsible for Capitol security during one of the most tumultuous days in American political history. The exchange, playing out in public statements and official responses, has reignited debate over what really happened behind the scenes during the January 6th Capitol riot and who bears responsibility for the security failures that day.

The dispute centers on competing narratives about National Guard deployment and raises fresh questions about the decision-making process that left the Capitol vulnerable during a critical moment in American democracy. As President Trump implements sweeping changes to Washington D.C.’s security apparatus, the war of words between key figures from that fateful day threatens to reshape public understanding of the events.

The Spark: Trump’s Federal Takeover

The controversy began with President Donald Trump’s announcement of a comprehensive federal criminal crackdown in Washington, District of Columbia. The sweeping initiative includes seizing direct control of the Metropolitan Police Department and activating the District of Columbia National Guard to police the streets—a dramatic expansion of federal authority that has sent shockwaves through the political establishment.

Trump’s move represents an unprecedented assertion of federal control over local law enforcement in the nation’s capital, marking a significant departure from traditional jurisdictional boundaries between federal and local authorities. The decision has been framed by the administration as necessary to combat rising crime rates and restore order to Washington’s streets.

Pelosi’s Sharp Rebuke

In response to Trump’s announcement, Pelosi launched a scathing attack on the president’s decision-making, both past and present. The California Democrat didn’t mince words in her criticism, directly challenging Trump’s version of events from January 6th.

“Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake,” Pelosi declared in her statement. Her words carried the weight of someone who witnessed firsthand the chaos that unfolded that day, as lawmakers were forced to evacuate and hide as rioters breached the Capitol building.

But Pelosi didn’t stop there. She connected the January 6th events to current policy decisions, arguing that Trump’s activation of the D.C. Guard was merely a distraction from broader policy failures. “Now, he’s activating the D.C. Guard to distract from his incompetent mishandling of tariffs, health care, education and immigration — just to name a few blunders,” she added, expanding her critique to encompass the administration’s entire domestic agenda.

The Capitol Police Chief’s Explosive Response

However, Pelosi’s accusations prompted an immediate and forceful response from an unexpected source: U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who had resigned in the aftermath of the January 6th riot. Sund’s statement was nothing short of explosive, directly contradicting Pelosi’s narrative and placing responsibility for security failures squarely at her feet.

“Ma’am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people,” Sund declared in what can only be described as a scathing public rebuke. His statement carried the authority of someone who had been at the center of the security preparations and response on January 6th, making his words particularly damaging to Pelosi’s version of events.

Sund’s account painted a dramatically different picture of the events leading up to January 6th. According to the former police chief, he had been proactive in seeking additional security, not negligent as Pelosi’s statement implied.

The Timeline of Requests and Denials

The heart of Sund’s counterargument lay in a detailed timeline of his attempts to secure National Guard support. According to his account, on January 3, 2021—a full three days before the riot—he formally requested National Guard support through proper channels. This contradicts any suggestion that security officials were caught off guard or failed to anticipate potential problems.

However, Sund revealed that his prescient request was shot down by Pelosi’s own Sergeant at Arms, a detail that fundamentally alters the narrative about who was responsible for the Capitol’s vulnerability. This rejection came despite Sund’s professional assessment that additional security would be necessary.

The legal constraints Sund faced were significant and highlight the complex jurisdictional issues surrounding Capitol security. “Under federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970), I was prohibited from calling them in without specific approval,” Sund explained, emphasizing that his hands were tied by existing protocols and legal requirements.

Adding another layer to the story, Sund revealed that Pentagon officials had actually offered National Guard support. “That same day, Carol Corbin at the Pentagon offered National Guard support, but I was forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority,” he disclosed. This detail suggests that federal resources were available and offered, but bureaucratic obstacles prevented their deployment.

The Day of Crisis

When January 6th arrived and chaos erupted at the Capitol, Sund’s account becomes even more damning. According to his statement, he immediately renewed his pleas for National Guard assistance as events spiraled out of control. However, instead of swift action, he encountered bureaucratic delays that lasted over an hour at one of the most critical moments in recent American history.

“While the Capitol was under attack and despite my repeated calls, your Sergeant at Arms again denied my urgent requests for over 70 agonizing minutes, ‘running it up the chain’ for your approval,” Sund wrote, painting a picture of precious time wasted while the situation deteriorated.

The phrase “70 agonizing minutes” carries particular weight, as it encompasses some of the most violent and chaotic moments of the January 6th riot. During this period, rioters had breached the Capitol building, lawmakers were being evacuated, and the certification of the presidential election had been halted.

Accusations of Hypocrisy

Perhaps most pointedly, Sund accused Pelosi of hypocrisy in her approach to Capitol security. He contrasted his experience of being denied assistance when it was most needed with Pelosi’s later actions that dramatically increased security presence around the Capitol.

“When I needed assistance, it was denied. Yet when it suited you, you ordered fencing topped with concertina wire and surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops,” Sund wrote. This comparison highlights what he sees as a double standard—reluctance to provide security when it could have prevented the crisis, but willingness to implement extensive security measures after the damage was done.

The fencing and National Guard deployment Sund referenced became iconic images in the weeks and months following January 6th, transforming the Capitol complex into what critics described as a militarized zone. The contrast between the minimal security on January 6th and the extensive fortifications that followed raises questions about decision-making priorities and timing.

Unanswered Questions and Ongoing Mysteries

Despite extensive investigations and numerous hearings, significant questions remain about the decision-making process surrounding Capitol security on January 6th. As Sund’s statement highlights, it remains unclear why Pelosi wasn’t prepared to authorize National Guard deployment through the House Sergeant at Arms, particularly given the advance warnings and formal requests for additional security.

This mystery extends beyond simple administrative oversight to fundamental questions about preparedness, authority, and responsibility. The fact that these questions persist years after the event suggests that the full story of January 6th security failures may still not be publicly known.

Current Security Changes and Their Impact

Against this backdrop of historical dispute, Trump’s current security overhaul in Washington D.C. has begun showing measurable results. According to CNN analysis of government data, the first week under federal control saw notable changes in crime patterns and law enforcement activity.

Property crimes fell by approximately 19 percent compared to the previous week, while violent crime dropped 17 percent, based on Metropolitan Police Department statistics. However, these broad categories mask significant variation in specific types of crime.

The most dramatic improvements were seen in robberies and car break-ins, which fell by more than 40 percent. These crimes often target tourists and residents in visible, public spaces, making their reduction particularly noticeable to the general public.

However, not all crime categories showed improvement. Theft incidents remained flat, suggesting that some criminal activity may be more resistant to increased enforcement. More concerning, burglary cases rose 6 percent, and assaults with dangerous weapons increased 14 percent, indicating that serious violent crime continues to pose challenges.

The homicide statistics remained consistent with recent trends, with two homicides occurring during the period under review. Notably, no homicides have been reported since August 13, though the short timeframe makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about longer-term trends.

Immigration Enforcement Surge

Perhaps the most dramatic change under the new security regime has been in immigration enforcement. Federal officials have arrested approximately 300 individuals in the district without legal immigration status since August 7—more than ten times the typical weekly number of ICE arrests in the city.

This represents a massive escalation in immigration enforcement activity. During the first six months of Trump’s current term, ICE averaged only about 12 arrests per week in Washington, according to data from the Deportation Data Project at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

The integration of immigration enforcement with local policing represents a significant policy shift. ICE agents have been accompanying Metropolitan Police Department officers and intervening when individuals stopped or questioned are found to be in the country unlawfully. This approach effectively turns routine police interactions into potential immigration enforcement opportunities.

Federal Integration and Tactical Changes

The new security approach involves extensive federal integration with local law enforcement. Federal agencies have embedded personnel with local police, assisting in arrests, searches, and warrant executions while patrolling the city in unmarked vehicles. This represents a fundamental change in how law enforcement operates in the nation’s capital.

The use of unmarked vehicles and embedded federal agents creates a more pervasive federal presence while maintaining some degree of operational discretion. This approach allows for rapid response and coordination between different levels of law enforcement while avoiding some of the visual drama that might accompany a more obvious federal takeover.

Administration Response to Criticism

When presented with CNN’s analysis of the security overhaul’s early results, the White House pushed back strongly against characterizations of the crime reductions as modest. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson accused the media of attempting to dismiss what she characterized as “exceptional results” from Trump’s Washington D.C. efforts.

“The drops in crime are not ‘moderate,’ they are life-changing for the countless of DC residents and visitors who have not been murdered, robbed, carjacked, or victims of overall violent crime in the last week,” Jackson stated, emphasizing the human impact of the statistical improvements.

Jackson also clarified the administration’s priorities in the operation, stating that “The priority of this operation remains getting violent criminals off the streets — regardless of immigration status.” This framing attempts to position the enforcement actions as public safety measures rather than purely immigration-focused operations.

Broader Implications

The dispute between Pelosi and former Chief Sund, set against the backdrop of Trump’s current security overhaul, raises fundamental questions about federal authority, local autonomy, and the lessons learned from January 6th. The competing narratives about that day continue to influence current policy decisions and public debate about security and law enforcement.

As these events unfold, they serve as a reminder that the legacy of January 6th remains contested and continues to shape American political discourse. The willingness of key figures to publicly challenge each other’s accounts suggests that definitive answers about what happened that day—and who bears responsibility—may remain elusive.

The current security changes in Washington D.C. will likely serve as a test case for broader federal law enforcement approaches, with implications extending far beyond the nation’s capital. The results of these policies, both in terms of public safety and civil liberties, will undoubtedly influence future debates about the proper balance between security and freedom in American society.