What are the formal procedures and approval steps for Capitol Police to request the National Guard?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Congress changed the formal approval path after Jan. 6 so the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief can directly request the D.C. National Guard or federal law-enforcement assistance in an emergency without prior sign‑off from the Capitol Police Board (the Senate Sergeant at Arms, House Sergeant at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol and the USCP Chief) — a change enacted in the Capitol Police Emergency Assistance Act and signed into law in December 2021 [1] [2]. Before that law, Senate investigators and multiple reports found that the requirement to obtain Capitol Police Board approval contributed to delays in getting Guard forces to the Capitol on Jan. 6 [3] [4].
1. How the old approval chain worked — the Board bottleneck
Prior to the December 2021 law, the Capitol Police operated under a structure in which the Capitol Police Board played a central role in requests for National Guard support; the board members’ differing understandings of statutory authority and the need to seek approvals created a multi‑actor approval chain that a Senate report said delayed timely Guard deployment on Jan. 6 [3] [4]. Reporting and testimony about the Jan. 6 response documented that Capitol Police leadership sought assistance but had to navigate layers of consultation and approvals — a process critics called a bureaucratic bottleneck [5] [3].
2. What Congress changed: unilateral request authority for the USCP chief
In reaction to those findings, Congress passed the Capitol Police Emergency Assistance Act, which empowers the USCP Chief to request the District of Columbia National Guard or federal law enforcement in emergencies without prior Capitol Police Board approval; the bill was signed into law in December 2021 [1] [2]. Media summaries described the statutory change as allowing the chief to “unilaterally” seek National Guard backup to streamline response during violent or unfolding emergencies [6] [7].
3. Why lawmakers said the change was necessary
Senate investigators and congressional sponsors argued the old requirement impeded rapid action when the Capitol was under attack: a bipartisan committee found that officers were left to defend the Capitol while approval delays hindered Guard deployment, and that Pentagon deliberations added hours once a request reached DoD [1] [3]. Supporters — including Senators Amy Klobuchar and Roy Blunt — framed the law as implementing key recommendations from joint committee reporting on planning and response failures on Jan. 6 [2].
4. Remaining steps beyond the Capitol Police chief’s request
Available sources describe the legal shift that lets the USCP Chief make direct requests, but they also document that, historically, once a request reached Defense Department channels it triggered additional DoD-level mission planning and approvals that consumed time; reporting on Jan. 6 noted the Pentagon spent hours debating deployment “optics” and authorizations before Guard troops arrived [7] [3]. Sources do not provide a full, step‑by‑step flowchart of every DoD or federal action after a USCP unilateral request; that level of procedural detail is not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
5. Conflicting accounts and what witnesses said
The former USCP chief Steven Sund has said he repeatedly sought National Guard assistance and was rebuffed or delayed by other officials during the Jan. 6 riot, while other officials initially disputed whether a request had been made — illustrating how accountability questions and competing narratives drove legislative reform [5]. Investigations and press accounts echoed disagreements over who understood authority and who acted when, which legislators cited to justify the unilateral‑request change [1] [4].
6. How the change affects oversight and political dynamics
Legislation also added joint oversight hearings before the Senate Rules and House Administration committees with all Capitol Police Board members present, signaling Congress intended both faster tactical authority for the chief and expanded legislative scrutiny of security decisions [1]. Critics of earlier practice pointed to a hidden bureaucratic culture and interagency caution (including Pentagon “optics” concerns) as implicit drivers of delay; supporters said removing the Board approval step reduces the chance that such factors will stall emergency responses [7] [3].
7. What the record still leaves uncertain
Reporting confirms Congress’ statutory fix and the reasons lawmakers gave, and it documents that DoD deliberations after a request previously added crucial time [1] [7]. Sources do not enumerate every administrative or statutory obligation that now follows a chief’s unilateral request, nor do they fully describe whether or how DoD or governors’ authorities might still constrain deployment in all scenarios — those specifics are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: Congress removed a formal internal hurdle by law so the USCP Chief can directly call for Guard or federal law‑enforcement help in emergencies; the change responds to documented delays on Jan. 6, but published sources show DoD and interagency considerations previously added separate layers of delay and do not fully map every subsequent approval step after a request [1] [7] [3].