In the aftermath of the January 6th Capitol riot, the search for answers and accountability has taken center stage in American political discourse. But as new evidence emerges and key figures speak out, the narrative is shifting in unexpected ways. Former Capitol Police Chief Stephen Sund, once thrust into the spotlight as the events of that fateful day unfolded, is now directly challenging former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, exposing what he calls a “deliberate delay” in National Guard deployment and a campaign to shift blame away from Congressional leadership.
.
.
.
It began with a tense exchange between Nancy Pelosi and journalist Allison Steinberg of Lindell TV. Steinberg pressed Pelosi with a question that has haunted the halls of Congress since January 6th: “Why did you refuse the National Guard on January 6th?” Pelosi, visibly irritated, snapped back, “Shut up. I did not refuse the National Guard. The president didn’t send it. Why are you coming here with Republican talking points as if you’re a serious journalist?”
The moment, captured on camera, quickly went viral. But beneath the surface-level drama lies a deeper, more troubling story—one that Sund is determined to bring to light.
Stephen Sund, who served as Chief of the Capitol Police during the riot, has consistently maintained that his repeated requests for National Guard assistance were denied by Congressional leadership, specifically the House and Senate Sergeants-at-Arms—both of whom reported directly to Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Sund recalls, “Ma’am, Nancy, let me help refresh your memory. It was your sergeant-at-arms who repeatedly denied my multiple requests for National Guard assistance before and on January 6. You denied it. Even on January 6th, your sergeant-at-arms denied my urgent requests for over 70 minutes while he was ‘running it up the chain’ for your approval.”
According to Sund, the Pentagon offered National Guard support, but he was forced to decline due to lack of legal authority without Congressional approval. He details a timeline of his requests:
January 3rd: Sund asks Pelosi’s Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving, for additional support. Irving reportedly responds, “I don’t like the optics of all the National Guard around here.”
January 3rd (later): Sund checks with the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, Michael Stenger, who concurs: “We don’t want any troops here.”
Sund’s frustration is palpable: “Denied. Denied. Denied. Can I—How about now? How about now? How about now?”
Why, then, were Sund’s requests denied? According to his account, Congressional leaders were concerned about the “optics” of deploying the National Guard—a move they feared would make the Capitol look like a militarized zone. Sund alleges that this reluctance was partly motivated by political calculations: “We want the optics to be the Capitol being ransacked. So, we can blame Trump on that and then impeach him and prevent him from ever running again.”
The transcript suggests a deliberate effort to control the narrative and shift responsibility. Sund’s requests were rejected not only by Pelosi’s office but also by McConnell’s team. Both leaders, he claims, were more concerned about appearances than security.
Despite being denied critical resources, Sund and his officers managed to resecure the Capitol within hours of the breach. For his efforts, however, Sund says he was forced to resign, humiliated, and stripped of his benefits.
“I was denied security resources repeatedly before and during January 6th. Despite those denials and delays, I resecured the US Capitol within hours. And for that, I was forced to resign. I was humiliated and I was stripped of my benefits,” Sund laments.
In the wake of the riot, Congress passed the Capitol Police Emergency Assistance Act of 2021, which changed the rules regarding National Guard deployment. Sund points out that, prior to this law, he lacked the authority to call in the National Guard without approval from the Capitol Police Board, which included the House and Senate Sergeants-at-Arms.
The new law, enacted on December 22nd, 2021, allows the Chief of Capitol Police to request assistance in emergencies without waiting for Board approval—a tacit admission that the previous system was flawed.
Pelosi and her allies have repeatedly claimed that President Trump refused to send the National Guard, implying that he wanted the unrest to occur. However, Sund and others dispute this narrative, noting that Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, D.C., also declined National Guard support in a letter sent on January 5th, citing coordination with Congressional security officials.
Sund’s account suggests that Trump was prepared to deploy additional assets but did not overrule local and Congressional authorities, respecting the separation of powers. “If Trump would have overruled them and said, ‘Well, you guys are idiots and I’m just going to deploy the National Guard to the Capitol building,’ do you know what kind of a meltdown that would have been? They would have said, ‘He’s sending troops to take over the Capitol building. That’s their building. This is a separation of powers problem. He can’t go interfere with that. If they don’t want him there, they don’t have them there.’”
Sund’s revelations have reignited the debate over accountability for January 6th. He accuses Congressional leaders of “weaponizing the entire government” against Trump and his supporters, waging “political warfare” for years.
“They could have approved [the National Guard] days earlier, but they didn’t want that to happen because this is something that was very useful to them. They waged political warfare against President Trump and his entire base for years,” Sund asserts.
The controversy over National Guard deployment on January 6th highlights a larger issue: the intersection of security and politics in the nation’s capital. Sund’s account suggests that political considerations took precedence over public safety, with devastating consequences.
For many Americans, the events of January 6th remain a painful reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions. Sund’s call-out of Pelosi and Congressional leadership has added a new dimension to the ongoing search for truth, raising uncomfortable questions about the role of optics, blame, and political maneuvering in crisis situations.
As Stephen Sund continues to speak out, his story serves as a powerful counter-narrative to the official explanations offered by Congressional leaders. His detailed timeline, corroborated by official documents and subsequent changes to the law, paints a picture of missed opportunities and deliberate delays.
In the end, Sund’s message is clear: “We still have questions. The American people want to know.”
With Congressional investigations ongoing and new evidence coming to light, the battle for accountability is far from over. Whether Sund’s revelations will lead to real change remains to be seen. But one thing is certain—the truth about January 6th is more complex, and more politically charged, than many in Washington would like to admit.
In the Dominican Republic, an investigation has been in progress since more than 200 people were killed when the roof of a nightclub collapsed.
At least 300 partygoers and employees, including two former Major League Baseball players, were impacted when the roof of the Jet Set club in Santo Domingo collapsed in early April of this year.
That particular night, Rubby Pérez was on stage. Unfortunately, the beloved Dominican merengue singer also perished in the incident.
Antonio and Maribel Espaillat, the club’s proprietors, were arrested and placed under arrest on June 12 after the Public Prosecutor’s Office conducted an inquiry into the case.
According to the New York Times, both have been charged with involuntary homicide.
“Both defendants displayed immense irresponsibility and negligence by failing to physically intervene to prevent the club’s roof from collapsing, as it ultimately did, causing 236 deaths and more than 180 injuries,”
the Attorney General’s Office of the Dominican Republic said in a statement regarding their detention.
According to Dominican Today, the club’s renovations were carried out “without obtaining the required permits or conducting the necessary structural assessments from the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (MOPC) or the Mayor’s Office of the National District.”
Prosecutors claimed that these modifications showed “a complete disregard for building and safety laws.”
They also stated, “A key column in the structure was subsequently removed, significantly affecting the roof’s stability, without any professional assessment or permit to support the modification, demonstrating high-risk behaviour.”
Heavy elements were also said to have overloaded the Jet Set Club’s roof.
The Espaillats allegedly knew of the building’s structural problems “through visual reports (photos and videos) and communications from their employees,”
yet they decided to overlook the difficulties.
Given all of this, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has maintained that if the defendants had followed the law and put life before money, the events of April 8
“would have been entirely avoidable.”
prosecutors continued: “The defendant, Maribel Espaillat, was aware of a falling debris incident hours before the collapse and in response to a request to suspend the activity, refused to do so, citing the absence of the defendant Antonio Espaillat López and the impossibility of stopping the party, prioritising economic gain over the safety and lives of people.”