Capitol Police Chief Exposes Pelosi—Leaves Her Scrambling in Stunning Revelation

Capitol Police Chief Drops the Hammer on Pelosi—She’s Left Scrambling for Cover

The political fallout from the January 6th Capitol riot continues to reverberate through the halls of Congress, and this week, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi found herself at the center of a firestorm. In a dramatic turn of events, the former Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, publicly exposed Pelosi’s role in the security failures of that fateful day, leaving her scrambling for cover as new evidence and pointed questions mount.

Pelosi Confronted on the Capitol Steps

The drama unfolded when Lindell TV reporter Allison Steinberg confronted Pelosi on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Steinberg asked the question that millions of Americans have wondered: “Why did you refuse the National Guard on January 6th?” Pelosi, visibly agitated, snapped back, “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’re a serious journalist?”

The tense exchange was emblematic of the pressure Pelosi faces as scrutiny intensifies over her actions before and during the Capitol riot. While Pelosi has consistently denied responsibility, insisting that the decision to deploy the National Guard belonged to others, new revelations from Steven Sund, the former Capitol Police Chief, tell a different story.

Steven Sund’s Bombshell Testimony

Chief Sund, who was in charge of Capitol security on January 6, has emerged as a key figure in unraveling what really happened behind the scenes. In a recent statement, Sund directly contradicted Pelosi’s claims, revealing that his urgent requests for National Guard assistance were denied by the House Sergeant-at-Arms—an official who reports directly to the Speaker.

“Even on January 6,” Sund stated, “your sergeant-at-arms denied my urgent request for over 70 minutes while he was ‘running it up the chain for your approval.’ The Pentagon offered National Guard assistance, but I had to decline because your sergeant-at-arms would not grant me the legal authority as required under federal law.”

Sund cited U.S. Code 1970, which stipulates that the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Speaker have the authority to approve such requests. His account is backed by a detailed chart showing multiple requests for additional security, beginning early on the morning of January 6 and continuing even as the situation at the Capitol deteriorated.

Advance Warning Ignored

The revelations are even more damning in light of the fact that law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, had advance warning of possible unrest. According to Sund, alerts were given days before the riot, and extremist groups had been infiltrated by undercover agents. Despite this intelligence, no significant steps were taken to bolster security.

Sund’s warnings began as early as 9:40 a.m. on January 6, well before the breach occurred. He repeatedly asked for more National Guard troops, but his requests were met with bureaucratic delays and ultimately denied.

Entrapment or Incompetence?

The chaos of January 6 has led to widespread speculation about whether the security failures were the result of incompetence or something more sinister. Video evidence shows Capitol Police officers opening doors for protesters, some of whom were later charged for their actions. Undercover Metro Police officers were also reportedly seen encouraging the crowd to “go to the Capitol.”

These incidents, combined with the denial of National Guard support, have fueled allegations of entrapment. Critics argue that the lack of adequate security and the apparent coordination between various law enforcement agencies suggest that the events may have been orchestrated to create a political crisis.

Pelosi’s Daughter Filming—A Strange Coincidence

Adding to the intrigue, video footage surfaced of Pelosi with her daughter, who was filming her as she made ominous remarks about “punching him out” and “waiting for this.” The timing and content of the video have led some to speculate that Pelosi anticipated unrest and may have been preparing for a dramatic response.

As Speaker, Pelosi had direct authority over the House Sergeant-at-Arms and could have authorized additional National Guard troops well in advance. The Pentagon Inspector General’s report confirms that then-President Donald Trump requested more security for the certification of the Electoral College vote, reportedly offering up to 10,000 National Guard troops.

The Political Narrative Unravels

For months, the dominant narrative from Democratic leaders has been that the Capitol riot was an insurrection orchestrated by Trump supporters. However, Sund’s testimony and the mounting evidence suggest a more complex picture. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse, where he urged supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” stands in contrast to the violence that erupted at the Capitol.

Most Trump supporters were at the Ellipse, while the violence was carried out by a small group of extremists. Sund and others have condemned these acts, emphasizing that they do not represent the broader movement.

The Pipe Bomb Mystery and Harris’s Location

Further complicating the story are the mysterious pipe bombs found at the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee headquarters. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris was at the DNC on January 6, raising questions about her whereabouts and security arrangements.

Analysts have scrutinized the pipe bomb footage, noting inconsistencies and raising doubts about the official account. The presence of Harris at the DNC, rather than Capitol Hill, has fueled speculation about the planning and execution of the day’s events.

Accountability Demanded

As the dust settles, calls for a thorough and independent investigation have grown louder. Critics argue that the January 6 Select Committee was a partisan “kangaroo court” designed to protect Democratic leaders and deflect blame. They insist that a real investigation is needed to hold those responsible accountable, including Speaker Pelosi.

Steven Sund’s testimony has been a turning point, shedding light on the failures and denials that led to the breach of the Capitol. His insistence that Pelosi could have authorized more security has put the former Speaker on the defensive, forcing her to confront uncomfortable questions about her leadership.

The Fallout—Pelosi Scrambles for Cover

Pelosi’s reaction to Steinberg’s questions—her anger, deflection, and refusal to engage—reflects the pressure she is under. The American people continue to demand answers, and the new January 6 committee may yet find her liable for the security debacle.

For now, Pelosi remains in the spotlight, her actions under intense scrutiny. The revelations from Sund and others have shifted the narrative, placing responsibility squarely at her feet. As more evidence comes to light, the calls for accountability will only grow louder.

Conclusion—A Turning Point in the January 6 Investigation?

The events of January 6 were a national tragedy, but they also exposed deep flaws in the leadership and security protocols of Congress. Steven Sund’s courageous testimony has brought new clarity to the situation, challenging the official story and demanding real answers.

Nancy Pelosi, once one of the most powerful figures in Washington, now finds herself scrambling for cover as the truth emerges. The American people deserve transparency, accountability, and justice. Only a thorough investigation—not a partisan committee—can deliver that.

As the nation continues to grapple with the legacy of January 6, one thing is clear: the search for truth is far from over, and those who failed in their duty must be held to account.

Rep. Jim Jordan has just unveiled a game-changing bill that could redefine who’s eligible to lead America

Jim Jordan’s “American Birth” Bill Sparks National Debate Over What It Means to Be Truly American

WASHINGTON — A new bill introduced by Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has set Washington ablaze with controversy, reigniting one of the oldest and most divisive questions in American politics: What does it mean to be American enough to lead?

The proposed legislation, formally titled the “Born American Act,” would require that anyone seeking the presidency, vice presidency, or a seat in Congress be born on U.S. soil — effectively barring naturalized citizens from holding the nation’s highest offices.

Supporters call it a matter of patriotism and constitutional integrity. Critics denounce it as xenophobic, exclusionary, and fundamentally un-American.

And in a political climate already stretched thin by partisanship, Jordan’s bill may become the next ideological fault line to split the nation.

The Proposal: “American by Birth, American by Duty”

Unveiled at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Jordan’s bill lays out a simple but sweeping mandate: only individuals born in the United States to at least one American citizen parent would be eligible to run for or hold federal elected office.

“Our leaders should have roots that run deep into the soil of this country,” Jordan told reporters. “They should understand — not just intellectually, but instinctively — what it means to live and breathe American freedom.”

The congressman argued that the bill is designed to “preserve the founding spirit” of the nation, ensuring future leaders are grounded in its culture, values, and constitutional traditions.

“This is not about exclusion,” he added. “It’s about ensuring that those who make the laws of this land have lived under them their entire lives.”

The proposed amendment would go beyond the existing constitutional requirement that the president be a “natural-born citizen” — a term that has historically included people born abroad to American parents.

If passed, it would bar naturalized citizens — even those who have spent decades in the country — from running for president, vice president, senator, or representative.

The Backlash: “A Step Backward”

Within hours of the bill’s announcement, backlash was swift and fierce.

Civil rights advocates, immigrant groups, and constitutional scholars denounced the proposal as discriminatory and anti-immigrant.

Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, called the bill “a betrayal of everything this nation stands for.”

“We are a country built by immigrants, defended by immigrants, and renewed by immigrants,” Padilla said. “To suggest that only those born here can lead here is not patriotism — it’s fear.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement calling the proposal “a dangerous and unconstitutional attempt to create two classes of citizenship.”

“This bill doesn’t strengthen democracy,” the statement read. “It weakens it by suggesting that birthplace, not merit, defines one’s love of country.”

Legal experts have also questioned whether the bill could withstand judicial scrutiny.

Professor Linda Chavez, a constitutional scholar at Georgetown University, noted that while Congress can regulate eligibility for congressional office through legislation, changing presidential qualifications would require a constitutional amendment — a process that demands ratification by three-fourths of the states.

“This proposal, in its current form, has no path forward without a constitutional amendment,” Chavez explained. “But the symbolism of it — that’s what will resonate politically.”

A Political Chess Move?

Some analysts see Jordan’s proposal less as a realistic piece of legislation and more as a strategic political message.

By introducing the Born American Act in the run-up to a high-stakes election season, Jordan is effectively staking a claim on one of the Republican Party’s most enduring talking points: the protection of “American identity.”

Dr. Nathan Klein, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, described the bill as “performative nationalism.”

“Jordan knows this bill won’t pass — at least not in this Congress,” Klein said. “But that’s not the point. The point is to force Democrats to take a position that can be portrayed as ‘anti-American’ or ‘soft on immigration.’”

Indeed, Jordan’s rhetoric at the press conference echoed broader themes from recent GOP messaging — linking national pride, border security, and citizenship under a single, emotionally charged banner.

“We’re losing sight of who we are,” Jordan said. “This bill is a reminder that being an American is more than paperwork — it’s heritage, it’s sacrifice, it’s home.”

America’s Identity Debate

The firestorm surrounding the Born American Act comes amid a larger cultural debate about identity and belonging in a rapidly changing nation.

The United States has more foreign-born residents today than at any time in its history — over 45 million, according to U.S. Census data. Many are naturalized citizens who serve in the military, work in public service, and contribute billions to the economy.

For some, the idea that such citizens could never hold the country’s top offices feels like a repudiation of America’s core promise: that anyone, regardless of birthplace, can rise through merit and hard work.

“If Alexander Hamilton were alive today, he’d be disqualified under Jordan’s bill,” quipped one historian, noting that the founding father himself was born in the West Indies.

Immigrant advocacy organizations have also warned that such legislation could further polarize an already fractured electorate.

“This is not just about who runs for office,” said Maria Gomez, director of the National Coalition for Immigrant Rights. “It’s about who counts as fully American.”

The Road Ahead

Despite its explosive debut, the Born American Act faces long odds in Congress. With Democrats controlling the Senate and President Biden almost certain to veto any such measure, the bill is unlikely to become law in its current form.

Still, its political impact may be far-reaching. By injecting questions of loyalty, belonging, and identity into the 2026 campaign cycle, Jordan has ensured that the debate over what it means to be “truly American” will remain front and center.

“Legislation like this isn’t just about law,” said Klein. “It’s about storytelling. It’s about shaping how Americans see themselves — and who they think belongs in the story.”

The Question That Remains

In a way, the controversy surrounding Jordan’s bill reflects a paradox at the heart of the American experiment: a nation founded by immigrants, still struggling to define who gets to claim its future.

To its supporters, the Born American Act is a safeguard — a reaffirmation of loyalty and heritage. To its critics, it’s a betrayal of the very ideals it claims to defend.

But perhaps the deeper truth lies in the tension between those two visions.

Because for all the outrage and rhetoric, the question remains the same — one as old as the republic itself:

Who gets to call themselves American?

And maybe, just maybe, that’s the conversation Jim Jordan always wanted to start.

news