Fmr Capitol Police Chief Gives Pelosi a ‘Reminder’ About J6 After She Blamed Trump
Nancy Pelosi just got a very public “fact check” from the man who was in charge of Capitol security on January 6 — and it’s not a good look for the former House Speaker.
The California Democrat unloaded on President Donald Trump Monday after he announced a sweeping federal crime crackdown in Washington, D.C., taking direct control of the Metropolitan Police Department and activating the D.C. National Guard to patrol the streets.
“Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake,” Pelosi fumed. “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.”
It didn’t take long for former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund — who resigned after the Jan. 6 riot — to hit back, and hard.
“Ma’am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people,” Sund said in a scathing statement. He recounted how on January 3, 2021, just three days before the riot, he formally requested National Guard support. That request, he says, was shot down by Pelosi’s own Sergeant at Arms.
“Under federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970), I was prohibited from calling them in without specific approval,” Sund explained. “That same day, Carol Corbin at the Pentagon offered National Guard support, but I was forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority.”
When January 6 arrived and chaos erupted, Sund said he begged again for the Guard — and was stalled for over an hour. “While the Capitol was under attack and despite my repeated calls, your Sergeant at Arms again denied my urgent requests for over 70 agonizing minutes, ‘running it up the chain’ for your approval,” Sund wrote.
He then accused Pelosi of hypocrisy: “When I needed assistance, it was denied. Yet when it suited you, you ordered fencing topped with concertina wire and surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops.”
Pelosi’s own daughter showed the Speaker on Jan. 6 telling aides she wanted Trump to come to the Capitol so she could “punch him out” and “go to jail… happy.”
The remarks were caught on camera for an HBO documentary and aired by CNN. In the clip, Pelosi’s staff told her the Secret Service had dissuaded Trump from coming due to security concerns, but Pelosi replied, “I hope he comes. This is my moment. I’ve been waiting for this.”
It is still a mystery why she wasn’t “waiting” to authorize the National Guard to secure the Capitol through the House Sergeant at Arms, as former Chief Sund highlights.
Trump on Monday called his D.C. crime crackdown “liberation day” for the capital, vowing to rid the city of violent gangs, roving mobs, and “drugged-out maniacs.” The move gives the president full control of the MPD for 30 days under the Home Rule Act, and he warned that New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles could be next.
“Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals… and we’re not going to take it anymore,” Trump declared at the White House. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Guard troops from D.C. and other states will be deployed within days as “force multipliers” for local and federal officers.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, calling the takeover “unsettling and unprecedented,” said she would nonetheless comply, adding, “Everybody should follow the law, the police and the community.”
It is odd that Mayor Bowser doesn’t find it “unsettling” that she failed to secure the Capitol ahead of January 6, despite the repeated warnings. Bowser addressed a letter to acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy and acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller prior to the January 6 riot.
“To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway,” she wrote in the letter.
The irony wasn’t lost on political observers: Trump is now deploying the very D.C. Guard he has been accused of withholding on Jan. 6 — and the former Capitol Police Chief is now on record saying it wasn’t him who blocked them at all.
Sund’s remarks revive a bitter political fight over who bears responsibility for the Guard delay that day. Democrats have long blamed Trump personally, suggesting he refused to send reinforcements as the riot unfolded. Trump and his allies counter that security planning for the Capitol fell under congressional leadership — meaning Pelosi’s office was at the center of the decision-making process.
In addition, it is a documented fact that Trump instructed the Pentagon to secure the capitol, ahead of expected election objections, and that included a pre-authorization for as many as 10,000 National Guard troops.
With Trump once again in the Oval Office and now exercising emergency control over the capital’s streets, the battle over the truth about January 6 is front-page politics all over again. And judging by Sund’s blunt words, he’s not letting Pelosi rewrite the record to fit her political narratives.
CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...
CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn
The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.
