A dramatic public clash has erupted between two of the most recognizable figures tied to the January 6 Capitol riot, revealing new claims about the security breakdowns that preceded one of the most consequential days in modern American political history. The confrontation has reignited long-standing debates over who bears responsibility for the failures that left the Capitol vulnerable, while highlighting the deeply entrenched political narratives that continue to shape public understanding of the attack.
The Catalyst: Trump’s D.C. Crackdown Reopens Old Wounds
The dispute began after former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharply criticized President Trump’s sweeping federal law enforcement operation in Washington, D.C., an effort that included taking command of the Metropolitan Police Department and activating the D.C. National Guard for street patrols. Pelosi framed the move as a political distraction and directly tied it to what she described as Trump’s failures during the January 6 riot.
“Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake,” Pelosi said in a pointed statement that quickly drew national attention. “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.”
Her remarks were more than a policy critique; they were part of an intentional effort to connect Trump’s current law enforcement push to past controversies, casting doubt on his leadership during critical moments of crisis. By invoking January 6, Pelosi positioned herself as a guardian of institutional security while questioning the president’s motives and competence.
But the comparison proved to be a miscalculation, providing an opening for someone with firsthand knowledge of the Capitol’s security preparations to publicly challenge her account.
Steven Sund’s Devastating Response: A Detailed Rebuttal
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund issued a rapid and blistering public response, offering a detailed, point-by-point refutation of Pelosi’s claims. Sund, who resigned following the riot, leveraged his central role in Capitol security to dispute her version of events and accuse her of misleading the public.
“Ma’am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people,” Sund wrote, in a statement that immediately cast doubt on Pelosi’s assertions and positioned him as a reluctant but authoritative truth-teller. His tone suggested that he viewed her criticism as not merely political rhetoric, but a distortion of the historical record.
Sund then revealed previously unreported details about his attempts to secure National Guard support in advance of January 6. According to him, he formally requested Guard assistance on January 3, 2021 — three days before the attack — contradicting claims that security officials had underestimated the threat.
The most explosive portion of his response concerned who denied that request. Sund alleged that his plea for National Guard support was “shot down by Pelosi’s own Sergeant at Arms,” raising the possibility that the decision not to reinforce the Capitol stemmed from congressional leadership, not operational oversight.
Legal Barriers and Bureaucratic Constraints
Sund also detailed the legal constraints that restricted his authority. Citing federal statute (2 U.S.C. §1970), he emphasized that he could not independently deploy the National Guard without specific approval from congressional leadership.
This legal context underscores the complexity of the Capitol’s security structure: even if Sund had fully anticipated the scope of the threat, he lacked the power to act unless House and Senate leadership authorized it. The law creates a layered chain of command that places ultimate responsibility with lawmakers — including Pelosi in her role as Speaker.
Sund further claimed that Pentagon officials were prepared to assist. He stated that on January 3, Defense official Carol Corbin offered National Guard support, but that he “was forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority.” He argued that the refusal stemmed not from operational oversight, but from the institutional limitations imposed by congressional leadership.
If accurate, these assertions recast the narrative surrounding January 6: not as a failure of planning or intelligence, but as a product of structural and administrative barriers that prevented swift action.
The Crisis of January 6: Requests Met With Delay
Sund’s description of his attempts to secure assistance during the riot itself was particularly damning. He claimed that as the violence escalated, he urgently requested National Guard support once again — only to face prolonged delays.
He alleged that his requests were “denied for over 70 agonizing minutes,” with Pelosi’s Sergeant at Arms insisting they needed to “run it up the chain” for approval.
The phrase “70 agonizing minutes” underscores the stakes of that delay — a period during which officers were attacked, lawmakers were evacuated, and the nation watched the Capitol breach in real time. Sund’s account raises serious questions about whether bureaucratic hurdles and leadership indecision compounded the crisis at a moment when every second mattered.
Accusations of Hypocrisy: Post-Riot Security Measures
One of Sund’s sharpest criticisms focused on what he characterized as hypocrisy in Pelosi’s post-January 6 actions. He noted that following the riot, Pelosi authorized sweeping security measures: fencing topped with razor wire, thousands of National Guard troops, and an extensive militarized perimeter around the Capitol.
“When it suited you,” Sund wrote, “you ordered fencing topped with concertina wire and surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops.” The implication was clear: Pelosi embraced aggressive security measures when they carried political or symbolic weight, but resisted them beforehand when they could have prevented violence.
This accusation cuts at the heart of the political narrative surrounding January 6, suggesting that the subsequent security apparatus served more as political theater than genuine protection.
The Broader Context: Federal Control of D.C. Policing
The Pelosi–Sund exchange comes as Trump’s federal law enforcement takeover of Washington, D.C. produces measurable shifts in crime and immigration enforcement. CNN, citing government data, reported that the first week under federal control saw a 19 percent drop in property crime and a 17 percent decrease in violent crime compared to the previous week.
These statistics help explain Pelosi’s decision to frame Trump’s initiative through the lens of January 6: early indications of success could undermine Democratic critiques of his law-and-order credentials.
The federal operation has also accelerated immigration enforcement dramatically, with roughly 300 arrests of individuals lacking legal status since August 7 — more than ten times the usual weekly number. Federal agents have embedded with local law enforcement to assist in arrests, searches, warrant executions, and coordinated patrols, representing an unprecedented integration of federal and municipal policing.
Congressional Leadership, Security Structures, and Accountability
The confrontation highlights the murky and often unwieldy structure of congressional security authority. The Capitol Police operate under the Capitol Police Board, which includes the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms. This structure creates a bureaucratic chain of command that can hinder rapid decision-making in emergencies.
Sund’s claims suggest that this system played a direct role in the January 6 failures. Even when security professionals raised alarms, he argued, political considerations and procedural delays impeded decisive action.
Political Fallout and the Fight Over January 6 Narratives
Sund’s allegations carry significant political ramifications. His detailed chronology, if substantiated, challenges the dominant narrative that Trump’s inaction was solely responsible for the security collapse. Instead, it suggests congressional leadership — particularly Pelosi — played a central role in decisions that limited security preparedness.
The timing of the exchange, amid Trump’s assertive federal policing initiatives in D.C., creates a stark juxtaposition between current decisive action and what Sund characterizes as past bureaucratic obstruction.
The confrontation is certain to intensify partisan debate over the events of January 6, the nature of leadership during the crisis, and the question of who ultimately bears responsibility for the failures of that day.
