The political fight over January 6 refuses to fade quietly into history, and once again, Nancy Pelosi has chosen to revive it — only this time, she ran headlong into an inconvenient voice she can’t dismiss: the man who was actually responsible for securing the U.S. Capitol that day.
Steven Sund, the former Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, has forcefully contradicted Pelosi’s latest claim that President Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard during the Capitol riot. His response was not vague, emotional, or speculative. It was procedural, detailed, and rooted in statutory authority — and it directly challenges the narrative Pelosi has spent years promoting.
Pelosi Reopens an Old Wound
Pelosi’s comments came after President Trump announced a sweeping federal crackdown on crime in Washington, D.C., which included asserting federal control over the Metropolitan Police Department and activating the D.C. National Guard to assist in restoring order. The move followed a series of high-profile violent crimes that renewed concerns about public safety in the nation’s capital.
Rather than addressing the current crime crisis, Pelosi pivoted immediately to January 6.
She accused Trump of hypocrisy, claiming he had failed to deploy the National Guard when the Capitol was under attack but was now eager to use it as a political distraction. According to Pelosi, Trump’s decision to activate the Guard today was an attempt to deflect from policy failures on tariffs, health care, education, and immigration.
It was a familiar talking point — and one that has gone largely unchallenged in friendly media spaces.
That changed almost instantly.
Steven Sund Breaks the Silence
Steven Sund, who served as Capitol Police Chief during the January 6 riot and resigned shortly afterward, responded with what amounted to a public fact-check — one that directly implicated Pelosi’s office.
His statement was not defensive. It was not hedged. It was blunt.
Sund explained that days before January 6, he had already recognized the security risk and formally requested National Guard assistance. That request, he said, was denied — not by Trump, but by the House Sergeant at Arms, who reported to Pelosi.
Under federal law, Sund explained, the Capitol Police Chief does not have unilateral authority to deploy the National Guard. That authority flows through the Capitol Police Board, which includes the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms. Without their approval, Sund’s hands were legally tied.
This is not opinion. It is written into statute.
The January 3 Request That Was Rejected
According to Sund, on January 3 — three days before the riot — he formally requested National Guard support. The reason was simple: intelligence indicated large crowds, heightened tensions, and the potential for unrest.
That request never made it past Pelosi’s chain of command.
Sund revealed that even when Pentagon officials proactively offered Guard assistance, he was forced to decline because he lacked the legal authority to accept it without approval from the Capitol Police Board.
In other words, the military was ready — but political gatekeepers said no.
This detail alone undermines years of claims that Trump “refused” to act.
Seventy Minutes of Delay on January 6
When violence finally erupted on January 6, Sund says he immediately renewed his request for National Guard support. What followed, he claims, was an agonizing delay of more than an hour.
During that time, the Capitol was breached, officers were overwhelmed, and lawmakers were evacuated. Sund says he repeatedly called for assistance, only to be told that the request was being “run up the chain.”
That chain ended with Pelosi’s office.
According to Sund, approval was not granted until more than 70 minutes had passed — a delay that likely worsened the chaos and increased risk to both officers and lawmakers.
The implication is devastating: the very authority Pelosi now claims Trump failed to exercise was one she controlled — and withheld.
A Stark Contrast in Response
Sund also pointed out what he called a glaring inconsistency in Pelosi’s actions.
After January 6, the Capitol was transformed into a fortified compound. Thousands of National Guard troops were deployed. Fencing topped with razor wire surrounded the building. Access was tightly controlled for months.
All of that happened with Pelosi’s immediate approval.
Sund’s question is simple:
Why was rapid authorization possible after the riot — but not before or during it?
The contrast raises uncomfortable questions about priorities, decision-making, and accountability.
Legal Authority Matters
One of the most significant aspects of Sund’s response is that it reframes the entire debate around authority, not intent.
The Capitol Police Chief does not answer to the president.
The president does not command Capitol security.
Congress does.
By law, the House and Senate control Capitol security through their designated officials. That structure exists specifically to prevent executive overreach.
Pelosi’s narrative collapses once that reality is acknowledged.
Why This Matters Now
Pelosi’s renewed accusations are not occurring in a vacuum. They come at a moment when Trump is asserting federal authority to address crime — a move Democrats oppose both politically and ideologically.
Rewriting January 6 allows critics to question Trump’s judgment, motives, and legitimacy. But when the man responsible for Capitol security contradicts that version of events, the strategy becomes far less effective.
Sund’s statement does not absolve Trump of controversy — but it does directly challenge the claim that Trump “delayed” Guard deployment.
The Media Silence
Perhaps the most telling part of this episode is how little attention Sund’s account receives in mainstream coverage.
His statements are not new. He has made similar claims before. But each time, they are quickly buried beneath political narratives more convenient to Democratic leadership.
If accountability were truly the goal, Sund’s testimony would be central — not sidelined.
A Reckoning Still Avoided
Five years after January 6, the country still lacks a unified understanding of what happened, why it happened, and who was responsible for critical decisions.
Pelosi’s comments suggest certainty.
Sund’s account introduces doubt.
That tension remains unresolved because acknowledging it would require Congress to examine its own role — something it has shown little appetite for.
Final Thought
Pelosi may continue blaming Trump. That is politically easy and emotionally satisfying for her base.
But Steven Sund’s account presents a harder truth:
Authority was available. Requests were made. Approval was denied.
That fact does not disappear simply because it is inconvenient.
History will eventually sort out January 6 with or without partisan framing. When it does, voices like Sund’s — grounded in law, procedure, and firsthand experience — will matter far more than recycled talking points.
And this time, Pelosi doesn’t get the last word.