Fmr Capitol Police Chief Gives Pelosi a ‘Reminder’ About J6 After She Blamed Trump
In the long arc of American political history, few episodes have been as relentlessly politicized as the events of January 6, 2021. That day, a legitimate public protest over election integrity descended into violence at the Capitol, leaving Americans across the political spectrum shaken. Yet what should have prompted sober reflection and institutional accountability instead became a partisan weapon—one repeatedly wielded by Democrats, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to paint Donald Trump as uniquely dangerous to democracy.
This week, the familiar script met an inconvenient rebuttal. President Trump announced a decisive federal intervention to restore order in Washington, D.C., assuming temporary control of the Metropolitan Police Department and deploying the D.C. National Guard to combat rampant crime. Pelosi responded with characteristic indignation, accusing Trump of having “delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack.” The irony was not lost on those who remember the record.
Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who resigned in the aftermath of that troubled day, offered a direct and detailed response that deserves careful consideration from every thoughtful American. In a pointed statement, Sund reminded the former Speaker that on January 3, 2021—three days before the riot—he had formally requested National Guard support. That request was denied by the House Sergeant at Arms, an official who reports to the Speaker. Under federal law, Sund explained, he lacked unilateral authority to summon the Guard. Even when Pentagon officials offered assistance that same day, he was compelled to decline.
When violence erupted on January 6, Sund’s urgent pleas for reinforcements were again delayed for more than an hour as they were “run up the chain” for approval. The contrast with later events is striking. Once the riot concluded, Pelosi’s leadership quickly authorized extensive fencing, concertina wire, and thousands of National Guard troops to secure the Capitol complex. Security that was allegedly unavailable when officers were under assault became readily available when it served political optics.
This episode reveals deeper patterns in how power operates in Washington. Americans who lived through the Reagan era remember a time when strong leadership and institutional competence restored national confidence after the malaise of the 1970s. We saw similar institutional failures and selective outrage during the urban unrest of the late 1960s and the riots that followed the death of George Floyd in 2020. In each case, the rule of law and the protection of ordinary citizens should have been paramount.
The hypocrisy extends further. Footage from an HBO documentary, later aired by CNN, captured Pelosi expressing hope that Trump would come to the Capitol so she could personally confront him. “I’ve been waiting for this,” she reportedly said, while her staff noted Secret Service concerns. One is left to wonder why that same sense of urgency did not extend to authorizing the National Guard when lives were demonstrably at risk inside the building she led.
Equally telling is the position of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. This week, she described Trump’s intervention as “unsettling and unprecedented,” even while pledging compliance. Yet in the days before January 6, Bowser sent a letter to federal officials explicitly discouraging additional law enforcement deployments without her consultation. The capital’s chronic problems with crime, homelessness, and disorder did not begin this year. For decades, Washington has suffered from governance that prioritizes ideology over the safety of residents, workers, and visitors—issues that weigh heavily on seniors who remember a more orderly republic and middle-class families who simply want safe streets.
President Trump has rightly framed his action as “liberation day” for the nation’s capital. By invoking the Home Rule Act for a 30-day period and positioning Guard troops as force multipliers, the administration is confronting what many Americans have watched with growing alarm: the erosion of basic public order in our most symbolic city. Warnings that other major cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles could face similar interventions send a clear message that neglect of fundamental governance will no longer be tolerated.
This renewed focus also revives essential questions about January 6 itself. Despite years of Democratic insistence that Trump personally refused to send help, documented evidence shows he had pre-authorized up to 10,000 National Guard troops in anticipation of potential unrest surrounding the electoral vote certification. Security responsibility for the Capitol complex has long rested primarily with congressional leadership, not the executive branch. Chief Sund’s public clarification reinforces what many have long suspected: the narrative crafted for political advantage has often strayed from the operational realities of that day.
As a nation, we have witnessed this pattern before. From the contested election of 1800 to the turbulent 1960s, Americans have periodically faced deep divisions. The genius of our constitutional system lies in its emphasis on checks and balances, accountability, and the peaceful transfer of power. When former officials attempt to rewrite history to shield themselves from scrutiny, they undermine the very institutions they claim to defend.
For Baby Boomers and older Americans who built careers, raised families, and paid taxes through decades of national ups and downs, these issues matter profoundly. We want a capital city worthy of our republic—not one marred by violence, disorder, and political score-settling. We expect leaders to prioritize fiscal responsibility, secure borders, and effective governance rather than perpetual grievance.
May you like
The intervention in Washington today represents more than a crime-fighting measure. It is a necessary assertion that no city, no matter how politically insulated, is exempt from the basic expectation of safety and order. As this chapter unfolds, Americans would do well to demand honesty about the past even as we address the challenges of the present.
In the end, history tends to favor those who value truth over narrative. Chief Sund’s willingness to speak plainly serves as a reminder that facts, though often inconvenient to the powerful, remain the foundation of any healthy republic. Our republic has endured for nearly 250 years through storms far greater than this. With wisdom, steady leadership, and a renewed commitment to constitutional principles, it can continue to do so for generations yet to come.
