Listen to the article
Republicans in the House of Representatives held their first hearing on Thursday to investigate what they’re calling the “January 6 select committee security failures.” The event marked the latest effort by House Republicans to reframe the narrative around the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and challenge findings from the previous Democratic-led investigation.
During the three-hour hearing, testimony from three witnesses raised questions about the security response leading up to the attack. However, several claims made by witnesses and committee members contained mischaracterizations or lacked crucial context about the events of that day.
Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who resigned following the riot, testified that his requests for National Guard assistance were delayed by bureaucratic hurdles. He described a conference call that took place during the attack where military officials expressed concerns about “optics” of deploying troops at the Capitol.
“I was actually pleading for the National Guard during that call,” Sund told the committee. However, Army officials present on that call have previously disputed this characterization, maintaining that no formal request for National Guard deployment had been made prior to the riot.
The hearing also featured testimony from Kash Patel, former chief of staff to the acting defense secretary during the Trump administration. Patel claimed that then-President Donald Trump had authorized 10,000 National Guard troops for January 6, but that this offer was rejected by Mayor Muriel Bowser and congressional leaders.
This assertion contradicts multiple official investigations, including those conducted by the Defense Department’s inspector general and the January 6 committee, which found no evidence of such an authorization by Trump. Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller has previously testified under oath that no such order was given by the president.
Committee Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) emphasized the hearing’s focus on security failures rather than the actions of the rioters themselves. “Our work here is not about relitigating the events of January 6,” Loudermilk said. “It is about getting the answers as to why the Capitol was so unprepared.”
Critics note that this framing deliberately shifts attention away from Trump’s role in spreading false election claims and encouraging supporters to come to Washington that day. The previous January 6 select committee had extensively documented how Trump’s rhetoric contributed to the atmosphere that culminated in violence.
The hearing occurred amid ongoing partisan tensions over how to characterize the January 6 events. Republican lawmakers repeatedly referred to the riot as a “protest” and questioned why some participants remain in custody awaiting trial, while Democrats have consistently described the event as an “insurrection” and emphasized the violent nature of the attack that resulted in injuries to more than 140 police officers.
Julie Kelly, a conservative commentator who testified at the hearing, described the prosecutions of January 6 rioters as “political persecution,” a claim that drew sharp criticism from Democrats. Federal prosecutors have secured more than 1,200 arrests and hundreds of convictions related to the Capitol riot.
The security failures on January 6 have been documented by multiple investigations, including a bipartisan Senate report that identified intelligence sharing breakdowns and delays in deployment of reinforcements. However, Thursday’s hearing presented these failures without the broader context of what motivated the rioters and how the violence escalated.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who led the original January 6 committee, criticized the new hearing as an attempt to “rewrite history” and defended the previous investigation’s findings, which concluded that Trump was the central figure who incited the violence through his actions and inactions.
The hearing represents just the beginning of House Republicans’ counter-investigation, with Chairman Loudermilk indicating that future sessions will further examine security protocols, the treatment of detained riot participants, and what Republicans characterize as “unequal application of justice” in the prosecution of January 6 cases.
As this new investigation unfolds, the competing narratives about January 6 continue to reflect the deep political divisions that have defined American politics in the aftermath of the 2020 election and the unprecedented attack on the Capitol.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
Fact-checking is so crucial when dealing with such a politically charged and consequential event. I’m glad to see NPR scrutinizing the claims made in this Republican-led hearing to ensure the public gets an objective account.
The January 6th attack was a dark day for American democracy. While it’s important to understand what went wrong with the security response, I worry this hearing may be more about political point-scoring than getting to the facts.
You raise a fair point. Maintaining a nonpartisan, fact-based approach will be key to getting a full and accurate picture of the events and failures that day.
While I’m glad the security failures of January 6th are being investigated, I worry this Republican-led hearing may be more about spinning a narrative than getting to the facts. Impartial, evidence-based inquiries are what’s needed.
It’s good to see NPR fact-checking the claims made in this hearing. Given the gravity of the Capitol attack, we need rigorous, nonpartisan investigations to understand what went wrong and ensure it never happens again.
Interesting to hear the differing accounts of the National Guard response on January 6th. Transparency around the security failures that day is critical, but it’s important to rely on facts and context rather than political narratives.
Agreed. This seems like a complex issue with multiple perspectives. I hope the investigations can uncover the full truth of what happened in an objective manner.
The security failures on January 6th deserve a thorough, nonpartisan investigation. This Republican hearing seems more focused on reframing the narrative than getting to the truth. I hope future inquiries can be more balanced and evidence-based.
It’s concerning to hear about potential delays or political considerations around deploying the National Guard that day. The Capitol attack was a grave threat to our democracy, and the public deserves a clear understanding of what went wrong.
Agreed. Transparency and accountability are essential, regardless of political affiliation. I hope the investigations can move beyond partisan agendas and uncover the full truth.