Fact check: What was the Pentagon's role in National Guard deployment delays on January 6th?

1. Summary of the results

The Pentagon played a significant role in delaying the National Guard deployment during the January 6th Capitol riot, primarily due to "optics" concerns ^[1]. Senior military officials, specifically Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn and Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, objected to troop deployment ^[2]. While verbal approval was given at 3:04 PM, the official deployment orders weren't received until 5:08 PM, with Guardsmen arriving at the Capitol around 6 PM ^[2]. The House Administration Subcommittee investigation directly contradicts the original Department of Defense Inspector General report which had claimed the Pentagon's actions were "reasonable" ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial timeline details were omitted from initial reports:

• There were two specific critical delays identified:

1. A 90-minute delay between Pentagon's approval for Guard movement to D.C. Armory and subsequent approval to move to the Capitol

2. A 30-minute communication delay in informing the Guard commander about deployment authorization ^[3]

• Major General William Walker confirmed that the National Guard was ready and waiting for Pentagon authorization ^[1]
• The House Administration Subcommittee found that the DoD Inspector General report was misleading and that senior Pentagon leaders intentionally obstructed the National Guard response ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question doesn't acknowledge the existence of conflicting official narratives. There are two competing institutional accounts:

1. The Department of Defense Inspector General's initial report claiming actions were "reasonable"

2. The House Administration Subcommittee's findings indicating intentional delays and obstruction ^[1]

Those benefiting from the "reasonable delay" narrative would include:

• Senior Pentagon officials who made the decisions
• Military leadership concerned about institutional reputation
• Those wanting to minimize the severity of the January 6th response

Those benefiting from the "intentional obstruction" narrative include:

• Congressional oversight committees
• Those seeking to establish greater accountability in military response protocols
• Groups pushing for reform in emergency response procedures