Former Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund publicly disputed former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s account of events surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, releasing a detailed timeline that questions her office’s handling of National Guard deployments. Sund’s statements, made on Wednesday, cast a spotlight on conflicting narratives about the preparedness and response of Congress’s security apparatus during one of the most turbulent days in recent U.S. history.

The confrontation followed a tense exchange earlier Wednesday when Pelosi was approached by Lindell TV reporter Alison Steinberg outside the Capitol. Steinberg pressed Pelosi about her role in the delay of National Guard support as rioters stormed the building. Pelosi sharply denied any refusal to deploy the Guard, stating, “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 are a serious journalist?”

Despite Pelosi’s strong rebuttal, Steinberg continued to press for answers, citing public interest and accountability. Pelosi, however, attributed the responsibility for the delayed response to former President Donald Trump, asserting that the lack of immediate National Guard support was not a result of actions taken by her office.

Sund’s Timeline and Allegations

In response, Sund posted a detailed statement on X, directly challenging Pelosi’s claims. He asserted that his multiple requests for National Guard assistance were repeatedly denied by the Speaker’s Sergeant at Arms (SAA), both before and during the events of January 6. Sund indicated that on the day of the riot, his urgent requests were denied for more than 70 minutes while the SAA “ran it up the chain” for Pelosi’s approval.

“Ma’am, let me help refresh your memory,” Sund wrote, addressing Pelosi. “It was your Sergeant at Arms who repeatedly denied my multiple requests for National Guard assistance before and on January 6. Even on Jan 6, your Sergeant at Arms denied my urgent requests for over 70 minutes, while he was ‘running it up the chain’ for your approval.”

Sund also emphasized that the Pentagon had offered immediate support, but he lacked the legal authority to accept it without the proper authorization from congressional leadership, as mandated under federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970). According to Sund, these denials significantly hampered the Capitol Police’s ability to respond effectively to the escalating violence.

Context of the January 6 Riot

The January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which sought to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election, resulted in multiple deaths, hundreds of injuries, and widespread damage to the Capitol complex. Investigations have examined failures in security protocols, including delays in mobilizing additional law enforcement and National Guard support.

In the aftermath, several investigations—including those conducted by congressional committees—have focused on the chain of command for security decisions. Sund’s recent statements highlight tensions between Capitol Police leadership and congressional offices regarding responsibility for timely deployment of reinforcements.

Conflicting Narratives

Pelosi has consistently defended her office’s handling of the events, asserting that her team acted within the limits of authority and protocol. However, Sund’s account suggests that bureaucratic obstacles within her office may have contributed to delays in critical support. This divergence raises questions about how much authority congressional leaders have over security forces and how decisions were communicated on that day.

Analysts note that the situation on January 6 involved overlapping chains of command, with the Capitol Police, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Pentagon all playing roles. The coordination of National Guard deployments requires approval from congressional leadership, which means delays in communication can have serious operational consequences. Sund’s timeline implies that such delays may have exacerbated the vulnerability of Capitol personnel during the riot.

Public and Political Reactions

Sund’s public statements have quickly attracted attention, reigniting debate over accountability for January 6. Some commentators argue that his timeline provides critical clarity regarding the legal and procedural barriers that hindered immediate response. Others suggest that the dispute reflects the broader political tensions surrounding the event, where competing narratives are often shaped by partisan perspectives.

Democratic leaders have defended Pelosi, emphasizing that the extraordinary circumstances on January 6 created challenges for all agencies involved. Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers have cited Sund’s statements as evidence that congressional leadership could have acted more decisively to deploy reinforcements.

Legal Considerations

Federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970) outlines the conditions under which the Capitol Police Chief may request assistance from the National Guard. Sund has maintained that while he had urgent operational needs, he could not unilaterally authorize the deployment without approval from congressional authorities. This legal framework has become a focal point in assessing responsibility for the security failures on January 6.

Legal experts suggest that Sund’s timeline could be relevant for ongoing investigations and hearings related to January 6. By documenting the specific sequence of requests and denials, Sund provides a record that contrasts with Pelosi’s statements, potentially informing future reviews of congressional security protocols.

Implications for Historical Record

The clash between Sund and Pelosi underscores the continuing struggle over the historical narrative of January 6. Accurate accounts of events are critical for evaluating systemic failures and implementing reforms to prevent similar crises in the future. Sund’s timeline adds detail to the chronology of the day, illustrating the difficulties faced by law enforcement in navigating procedural and bureaucratic barriers.

Observers note that the exchange also reflects broader questions about accountability in federal institutions. While political leaders shape policy and oversight, law enforcement officers on the ground face real-time decisions that can determine life-and-death outcomes. Understanding how these dynamics played out on January 6 is central to evaluating lessons learned.

Moving Forward

As the debate over January 6 continues, Sund’s public challenge to Pelosi may prompt further scrutiny of congressional security procedures and decision-making protocols. Both the Sergeant at Arms and congressional leadership are likely to face renewed examination regarding their actions and communications leading up to and during the riot.

Sund’s statements also highlight the importance of clearly defined authority and procedures for emergency situations in the Capitol. Lawmakers and security officials may be prompted to review existing regulations to ensure that rapid response is possible in future crises, minimizing reliance on potentially slow or convoluted chains of approval.

Ultimately, the dispute between Sund and Pelosi illustrates the complex interplay between political leadership, law enforcement authority, and emergency response. By presenting a detailed account of his actions and the obstacles faced, Sund has contributed to a growing public record that seeks to reconcile conflicting narratives about one of the most consequential events in modern U.S. history.

🎥🎥Watch full video: Surveillance camera captures dramatic moments before officer shoots man who police say attacked girlfriend

full video: Surveillance camera captures dramatic moments before officer shoots man who police say attacked girlfriend

 

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – The intense moments leading up to a deadly officer-involved shooting on Jacksonville’s Westside on Sunday were captured on a neighbor’s surveillance camera.

The neighbor shared the video with News4JAX, which we have chosen to end just before the officer fires his weapon. (Press play above to watch.)

In the video, a man police identified as 40-year-old Michael Lee Wright can be seen banging on the hood and window of a police vehicle outside his home. The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office said the encounter happened around 11 a.m. Sunday.

Officer Patrick Burke had escorted Wright’s girlfriend back to the property because she said Wright had attacked her earlier on Sunday when she returned to the home to get some of her belongings, police said.

When Burke arrived, Wright quickly became aggressive, repeatedly hitting the car and yelling.

Burke can be seen reversing several yards down the street as Wright follows him.

Then Burke switches course and drives forward, pushing Wright into a neighbor’s yard with the SUV.

As Burke gets out of the SUV with his gun drawn, Wright advances on him, and Burke can be heard yelling at Wright to “drop it!” It’s unclear what Wright was holding

When Wright charged at Burke, yelling “Go ahead and kill me,” Burke fired multiple shots, JSO Chief Alan Parker.

“Earlier in the day, he texted [his girlfriend] ‘Ima die today,’” Parker said of Wright. “So we don’t know his intentions.”

Wright immediately goes down in the video, and once Burke secures Wright, he can be seen performing CPR until help arrives. Wright died at the hospital.

JSO said Wright had an extensive drug history and overdosed in the past week

The full briefing by Chief Alan Parker and Sheriff T.K. Waters can be watched below. 

A list of mental health resources available in Florida can be found here. There are also nationwide resources such as the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, which provides 24/7, free, and confidential support for people in distress, prevention, and crisis resources for you or someone you know.

JSO said this is the agency’s eighth officer-involved shooting of 2025, and Burke’s first in his five-year tenure with the agency. 

JSO reported eight officer-involved shootings in all of 2024.

These instances, over the years, have fluctuated routinely. In looking at our Transparency site, the numbers have been as high as 16 in 2020 and as low as 6 in 2018 – the Transparency Site tracks OISs from mid-2015 to present.

These are unfortunate incidents, that are spawned as a result of an individual forcing law enforcement into responding to deadly force circumstances. The decision to escalate force to a degree that officers must defend themselves or other’s lives has to be made in seconds – and again, are merely reactions to stimulus created by others.

As these cases continue to be active investigations, we are going to respectfully decline to comment on them any further at this time.

News4JAX crime and safety analyst Tom Hackney, a law enforcement veteran of 30 years, said it’s good to look at the bigger picture of the overall numbers and trends, but said cases like these need to be looked at on their own to determine what can be learned and what to do moving forward.

Continue reading