Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said in an interview Friday that the FBI never informed him that hundreds of its agents had been deployed inside the crowds during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Sund’s remarks to host John Fawcett of “The Great America Show” came on the heels of a Thursday revelation that the FBI, then under Christopher Wray, had 274 plainclothes agents inside the massive Trump crowds on January 6, 2021 — hundreds more than previously reported.
A senior congressional source said the number of FBI personnel at the Capitol on Jan. 6 is not necessarily surprising, noting that the bureau routinely embeds countersurveillance staff at large public events. Still, the source acknowledged that, given the FBI’s longstanding refusal to detail the scope of its presence that day, the figure is likely to draw skepticism in some quarters, The Blaze
The disclosure follows earlier claims by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General that the FBI had no undercover personnel embedded in the Jan. 6 crowds. It also
“We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,” the DOJ OIG said in an 88-page report released in December 2024.
Wray testified before Congress in July 2023 that he “does not believe” undercover FBI agents were present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
“I’m not sure there were undercover agents on scene,” Wray responded to a question from a GOP lawmaker. “As I sit here right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on.”
Sund said that on January 5, one day before the Capitol protests, he met with representatives from major federal agencies and specifically asked whether any liaison would be assigned from agencies planning to have personnel on the ground. According to Sund, no agency disclosed such plans.
“If they were saying that they were going to have that group in the crowd already, most likely what they’d do is they’d put a liaison up in my command center,” Sund told Fawcett. “I mean, if you’re going to have that type of assets and resources deployed onto someone’s jurisdiction, you’re going to put somebody in their command center. That’s key.
The only problem with the Capitol is the bureaucracy. Even though, as the Chief of Police, there was a chief law enforcement officer for the House and a chief law enforcement officer for the Senate that sat over top of me. That created the big bureaucracy that I ran into. You’d like to think the chief could call the shots, especially with my experience? Not the case on January 6th,” he added.
“It’s like no other jurisdiction in the world. They really need to fix that,” he said.
In February 2021 testimony before the Senate Rules and Homeland Security committees, Sund said he never received an FBI report that warned of potential violence on January 6. The report, issued on January 5, outlined specific calls for violence ahead of the protest at the Capitol.
According to Sund, while the U.S. Capitol Police did receive the report, it never made its way to his office.
Instead, he testified, a Capitol Police officer assigned to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force received the document and passed it to an official within the department’s Intelligence Division, where it never made it further up the chain of command.
The aftermath of the recent election night has brought about a wave of introspection and, in some corners, outright dismay among establishment Democrats, particularly regarding the victory speech delivered by progressive candidate Zohran Mamdani. What was expected to be a moment of unifying triumph was swiftly marred by rhetoric that prompted accusations of a “character switch,” leading prominent voices, including CNN’s Van Jones, to suggest that Mamdani may have alienated potential allies and missed a critical opportunity for expansion.
The controversy surrounding Mamdani’s tone is intertwined with a broader political climate of intense polarization, highlighted by strategic maneuvers in Congress and the ongoing ideological battle within the Democratic coalition itself.
Zohran Mamdani, who secured a significant victory, immediately thrust himself into the national spotlight not with a message of broad inclusion, but with a highly charged, confrontational address. The commentary suggests that the warm, calm, and embracing persona Mamdani projected during his campaign—a figure perceived as close to working people—was conspicuously absent on the victory stage.
CNN analyst Van Jones articulated this feeling of betrayal and disappointment clearly.
“I think he missed an opportunity… The Mamdani that we saw on the campaign trail, who was a lot more calm, who was a lot warmer, who was a lot more embracing, was not present in that speech. I think his tone was sharp. I think he was using the microphone in a way that he was almost yelling, and that’s not the Mamdani that we’ve seen on TikTok and the great interviews and stuff like that.”
Jones’s analysis cuts to the core of the Democratic establishment’s anxiety: Mamdani’s rage-filled tone was not unifying. Jones expressed concern that the sharp, divisive rhetoric would lead many potential supporters to question whether they could “get on this train with him or not,” fearing he would prioritize “class warrior” tactics even in office. According to Jones, Mamdani’s failure to “open up and bring more people into the tent” could prove costly down the line.
The content of the speech further fueled these fears, particularly Mamdani’s direct, politically charged message seemingly directed at President Donald Trump. Mamdani was perceived as challenging the former President, with some analysts interpreting his words as a
“find out and find out” moment, signaling a willingness to engage in aggressive political warfare.
Republican commentator Scott Jennings seized on this point, offering a stark “reality check” to Democrats supporting the progressive wing. Jennings noted that Mamdani began his speech by quoting
Eugene Debs, a five-time Socialist Party of America candidate, immediately signaling a far-left, explicitly socialist ideology that transcends traditional Democratic liberalism.
Jennings warned that this worldview, exemplified by Mamdani’s quote, “No problem too large for government to solve or too small important,” would inevitably translate into policies that Democrats’ traditional base might fear. Specifically, this vision, where the government is the solution for every issue, is a thinly veiled promise of sweeping
The underlying tension highlighted by these reactions is the internal conflict plaguing the Democratic Party between its pragmatic, establishment wing and the increasingly powerful, far-left progressive and democratic socialist factions.
The discourse surrounding ideological purity and political strategy was amplified by events related to the federal government shutdown. The transcript suggests that Senate Democrats, led by figures like
Chuck Schumer, were deliberately delaying a resolution until polls were about to close for the elections.
News reports indicated that Senate Democrats were suddenly “making moves toward reopening the government,” a move interpreted by critics as evidence that the shutdown was merely a
political game designed to “juice their leftist base turnout for the elections.” The critical timing—addressing the crisis only as key elections were concluding—led to accusations that the Democratic leadership was a “disgrace” for using a serious governmental crisis for cynical electoral gain.
This perception of strategic manipulation only heightens the concerns raised about Mamdani’s approach: while the establishment is accused of playing calculated games, the progressive wing is simultaneously accused of being overly aggressive and divisive, leaving the party fractured on both tactics and tone.
While the analysis focused heavily on Democratic infighting and strategy, the transcript quickly pivoted to provide a significant reality check to the Republican Party following a night of overall disappointing results in key elections in states like New Jersey, Virginia, and New York City.
The key message from conservative commentators was that the GOP needs to abandon its reliance on simply framing the Democrats as “worse” and develop a compelling, independent platform.
Megan Kelly
delivered a scathing critique, stating bluntly: “The Republican Party needs to get its act together ASAP… The Republicans like to lose. They enjoy losing.” She argued that the Republican Party itself is not strong, but that
Donald Trump is strong, often “getting them over the line.” Without him, she contends, the party “doesn’t know how to win, they don’t know who to run, they don’t know what to do when daddy’s not there.”
Kelly and others advocated for a radical shift in focus, away from engaging in distracting internal battles and towards substantive issues impacting daily life.
Vivek Ramaswamy echoed this sentiment, delivering two key lessons for the GOP:
Focus on Affordability:
Cut Out Identity Politics:
character
President Donald Trump, when asked about Mamdani’s fiery speech and the implied threat, offered a response that was both dismissive of the rhetoric and strategically controlling of the future dynamic.
Trump called Mamdani’s speech “very angry” and a “very dangerous statement for him to make,” advising that the young victor “has to be a little bit respectful of Washington, because if he’s not, he doesn’t have a chance of succeeding.”
Crucially, Trump emphasized his role as a necessary gatekeeper for federal resources and approval: “I’m the one that sort of has to approve a lot of things coming to him. So, he’s off to a bad start.”
While stating his desire to see New York City succeed, Trump made it clear that any future cooperation would require Mamdani to initiate the contact: “I would say he should reach out to us. I think he should reach out. I’m here.” This calculated response reinforces the political hierarchy and places the onus for reconciliation—and thus, success in securing federal support—squarely on Mamdani’s shoulders.
The post-election landscape is defined by internal ideological wars and profound strategic miscalculations on both sides, suggesting that the current period of political turbulence is far from over.