What did the Capitol Police Board say in testimony about National Guard requests before and during Jan. 6, 2021?
Executive summary
Capitol Police Board members who testified to congressional committees offered differing, sometimes defensive accounts of requests for the D.C. National Guard before and during January 6, 2021, saying Chief Steven Sund raised the matter but that the Board did not approve an immediate Guard deployment—citing concerns about intelligence and “optics” and disputing precise timing of requests; those conflicting narratives are a central reason investigators found delay and confusion in the Guard response [1] [2] [3].
1. The Board’s formal role and what members told investigators
The Capitol Police Board is the exclusive body with authority to request National Guard assistance for the Capitol, and in testimony before oversight panels Board members — including the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol — gave accounts that acknowledged Chief Sund raised the possibility of Guard support but asserted they decided on January 3 not to make a formal advance request, with members later saying intelligence and potential “optics” weighed against pre-deploying troops to the Hill [4] [1] [5].
2. Sund’s version: he asked and was rebuffed or delayed
Former USCP Chief Steven Sund’s testimony and statements say he asked the Board on January 3 for Guard assistance for the Capitol perimeter and that on January 6 he “lobbied the Board for authorization to bring in the National Guard” but was not granted authorization for over an hour, claims echoed in contemporaneous summaries and his sworn testimony to House committees [6] [3].
3. Board members’ rebuttals and the missing transcript problem
Board members Paul Irving and Michael Stenger offered different recollections than Sund about timing and emphasis, and investigators have pointed out there is no definitive transcription of key conversations — a gap that prevents committees from establishing exactly when formal requests were made and how long approvals were withheld, leaving investigators to conclude that attempts by Sund to obtain Board approval contributed to deployment delays [2] [1].
4. “Optics,” authority chains, and the Pentagon’s role as described in testimony
Testimony and subsequent reports show Board members and Pentagon officials raised concerns about the optics of visible military forces on the Capitol grounds and about strictures on how and where D.C. Guard units could be used; those concerns, combined with the requirement that the Board or other authorities initiate requests and the Defense Department’s caution about deployment details, created layers of approval that slowed the Guard’s arrival on January 6 [5] [7] [1].
5. How investigators and other witnesses summarized the effect of Board decisions
Oversight reports and committee findings concluded that the combination of divergent accounts from Sund and Board members, the absence of clear documented requests, and hesitancy by officials — whether over intelligence judgments or “optics” fears — materially delayed Guard assistance until hours after the Capitol had been breached, a conclusion the House Select Committee and other post‑event reviews repeatedly cite while noting differing blame narratives from political actors [2] [3] [1].
6. Competing narratives, political spin, and limits of the record
Aftermath commentary and new administrations’ websites have amplified alternative narratives—some arguing the Pentagon and Democrats politicized decisions, others emphasizing administrative and command failures—demonstrating how the same testimony has been used to support rival political claims; however, the factual record that investigators rely on remains the sworn testimony and official reports, and where the sources lack transcripts or direct contemporaneous documentation, investigators explicitly refrain from definitive timing conclusions [8] [9] [1] [2].
7. Bottom line from the Board’s testimony
In short, Board members acknowledged Sund raised requests for Guard support but disputed specifics — saying they weighed intelligence and optics and did not authorize an advance Guard deployment on January 3 — while Sund and some witnesses say he was denied or delayed both before and during the attack; the conflicting testimony, absence of full contemporaneous records, and additional interagency reservations about use of Guard forces together explain why investigators found significant delay and confusion in National Guard deployment [6] [1] [2] [3].