President Donald Trump is clarifying his controversial “punishable by death” comment, saying he wasn’t threatening any lawmakers but emphasizing how serious he believes their actions were.
On Thursday, Trump responded to six Democrats who appeared in a video urging military members to refuse “illegal” orders. The video, posted on Tuesday by Sen. Elissa Slotkin, has gained nearly 17 million views on X.
“I’m not threatening them, but I think they’re in serious trouble,” Trump said Friday on Fox News Radio’s “Brian Kilmeade Show.”
On his platform Truth Social, Trump posted about the video several times. In one post, he wrote, “This is really bad, and dangerous to our country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”
In a follow-up post, he added, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
The comments quickly drew criticism from Democrats, who accused Trump of threatening political rivals.
But Trump pushed back Friday, saying his message referred to the historical punishment for sedition, not a call for it today.
In the old days, if you said a thing like that, that was punishable by death,” Trump said, doubling down on his claim that the lawmakers “broke the law.”
Trump also said he worries the video could confuse or influence some service members, suggesting troops might be encouraged to refuse orders. He noted that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche are looking into the situation.
“They’re looking into it militarily. I don’t know for a fact, but I think the military is looking into it, the military courts,” said Trump.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin is seen during votes at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 23. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer slammed Trump’s posts. He said on the Senate floor that the president was explicitly calling “for the execution of elected officials.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also issued a statement, with his leadership team condemning the comments as “disgusting and dangerous.”
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on Air Force One on his way to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., Friday, Nov. 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
President Donald Trump is facing searing criticism on social media after referring to a White House correspondent as “piggy.”
In a moment that went viral online on Tuesday, Trump took a question about late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein from a female reporter while aboard Air Force One en route to Palm Beach, Florida, on Friday.
“Mr. President, what did Jeffrey Epstein mean in his emails when he said you ‘knew about the girls?’” the reporter asked the president, referring to an email released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee last week.
In the email, included in three chains sent between 2011 and 2019 following the committee’s recent subpoena of Epstein’s estate, the convicted sex offender told associate Ghislaine Maxwell and journalist Michael Wolff that Trump “knew about the girls.”
“I know nothing about that. They would’ve announced that a long time ago,” Trump responded, questioning Epstein’s alleged ties to former President Bill Clinton and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
“Jeffrey Epstein and I had a very bad relationship for many years,” he added.
When he began listening to another question, Trump snapped back at the reporter as she attempted to follow up: “Quiet! Quiet, piggy.”
Disgusting and completely unacceptable,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper posted about the instance.
Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson called Trump’s quip “disgusting and degrading,” writing, “It strikes at the core for me since I faced similar shame.”
Rick Wilson of The Lincoln Project posted an image of Trump, quoting the same insult. The press office account for California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) also took aim at the president, attaching a fake image of his face.
“Donald Trump said ‘quiet piggy’ to a female reporter because she dared to ask about the Epstein files, and as bad as that is, the fact that none of her colleagues defended her, is even worse,” JoJoFromJerz, a liberal commentator, wrote in a post.
Jennifer Welch, co-host of the “I’ve Had It” podcast, said that Trump’s remark is “unbelievable.”
“I think nobody takes misogyny seriously,” Welch added.
A White House official defended Trump’s comment in a statement to MS NOW, formerly MSNBC: “This reporter behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional way towards her colleagues on the plane. If you’re going to give it, you have to be able to take.”
During a press conference with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump lashed out at another reporter when asked why he is waiting on Congress to release the Epstein files.
“You know, it’s not the question that I mind. It’s your attitude,” Trump said. “I think you are a terrible reporter… You’re a terrible person and a terrible reporter.”
The confrontation began when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a sharp attack on President Trump’s comprehensive federal law enforcement initiative in Washington D.C., which included seizing direct control of the Metropolitan Police Department and activating the D.C. National Guard for street patrols. Pelosi’s criticism went beyond the immediate policy implications to draw direct parallels with Trump’s actions during the January 6 Capitol riot.
“Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake,” Pelosi declared in a statement that immediately garnered national attention. “Now, he’s activating the D.C. Guard to distract from his incompetent mishandling of tariffs, health care, education and immigration — just to name a few blunders.”
Pelosi’s statement represented more than routine political opposition; it was a deliberate attempt to frame Trump’s current law enforcement initiatives through the lens of his alleged failures during the Capitol riot. By invoking January 6, Pelosi sought to raise questions about Trump’s commitment to law enforcement and public safety, positioning herself as a defender of institutional security against presidential overreach.
The former Speaker’s decision to make this comparison proved to be a significant tactical error, as it provided an opening for someone with intimate knowledge of the January 6 security preparations to challenge her narrative directly and publicly.
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund’s response to Pelosi was swift, comprehensive, and devastating in its specificity. Sund, who resigned in the immediate aftermath of January 6, used his unique position as the person responsible for Capitol security to systematically dismantle Pelosi’s characterization of events.
“Ma’am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people,” Sund began his statement, immediately establishing a tone of moral authority and calling into question Pelosi’s truthfulness. This opening salvo suggested that Sund viewed Pelosi’s comments not as mere political rhetoric, but as a fundamental misrepresentation of historical facts.
Sund’s statement revealed previously undisclosed details about his efforts to secure National Guard support in the days leading up to January 6. According to his account, on January 3, 2021—three full days before the riot—he formally requested National Guard assistance through proper channels. This timeline detail is crucial because it directly contradicts narratives that suggest security officials were caught off-guard by the potential for violence on January 6.
The former chief’s revelation that his January 3 request was “shot down by Pelosi’s own Sergeant at Arms” represents perhaps the most explosive element of his statement. This claim suggests that the security failures of January 6 were not the result of poor planning or inadequate intelligence, but rather of deliberate decisions by officials operating under Pelosi’s authority to reject enhanced security measures.
Sund’s explanation of the legal framework governing National Guard deployment reveals the complex bureaucratic structure that may have contributed to the January 6 security failures. His citation of federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970) provides specific legal grounding for his claim that he was “prohibited from calling them in without specific approval.”
This legal constraint is significant because it suggests that even if Sund had possessed perfect intelligence about the coming violence, he would have been powerless to act without authorization from congressional leadership. The law’s requirement for specific approval creates a chain of accountability that leads directly to House and Senate leadership, including Pelosi in her capacity as Speaker.
Sund’s account of Pentagon involvement adds another layer of complexity to the pre-January 6 security preparations. His claim that “Carol Corbin at the Pentagon offered National Guard support” on January 3, but that he was “forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority,” suggests that federal military officials were prepared to provide assistance but were prevented from doing so by congressional restrictions.
This revelation, if accurate, fundamentally alters the narrative about January 6 preparations by suggesting that adequate security resources were available and offered, but were rejected due to legal and administrative constraints imposed by congressional leadership.
Sund’s description of his efforts to obtain National Guard support during the actual riot provides perhaps the most damaging allegations against Pelosi’s leadership. His claim that he “begged again for the Guard” when violence erupted, only to be “stalled for over an hour,” paints a picture of bureaucratic dysfunction at the moment of greatest crisis.
The specific detail that Pelosi’s Sergeant at Arms “denied my urgent requests for over 70 agonizing minutes, ‘running it up the chain’ for your approval” suggests a leadership structure that was either unprepared for crisis decision-making or deliberately slow-walking security requests for political reasons.
Sund’s use of the phrase “70 agonizing minutes” is particularly powerful because it humanizes the abstract concept of bureaucratic delay by connecting it directly to the real-time violence and chaos that was unfolding at the Capitol. Every minute of delay represented additional risk to the lives of Members of Congress, staff, and law enforcement officers.
The former chief’s characterization of repeated denials during active violence raises fundamental questions about the priorities and decision-making processes of congressional leadership during the crisis. If Sund’s account is accurate, it suggests that even as the Capitol was under physical attack, administrative procedures took precedence over immediate security needs.
Perhaps the most politically damaging element of Sund’s statement is his direct accusation of hypocrisy against Pelosi regarding post-January 6 security measures. His observation that “when it suited you, you ordered fencing topped with concertina wire and surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops” draws a sharp contrast between Pelosi’s alleged reluctance to authorize security before January 6 and her enthusiasm for extensive security measures afterward.
This accusation is particularly powerful because it addresses one of the most visible and controversial aspects of the post-January 6 period: the transformation of the Capitol complex into what critics described as a militarized zone. The presence of thousands of National Guard troops, razor wire fencing, and multiple security checkpoints became symbols of how dramatically January 6 had changed the relationship between the American people and their government.
Sund’s framing suggests that these dramatic security measures represented not genuine security improvements, but political theater designed to reinforce a particular narrative about January 6 and its aftermath. By characterizing the post-riot security as something that “suited” Pelosi politically, Sund implies that her security decisions were driven by political calculations rather than genuine security assessments.
The Pelosi-Sund exchange occurred against the backdrop of Trump’s comprehensive federal takeover of Washington D.C. law enforcement, which has produced measurable changes in both crime statistics and immigration enforcement activities. According to CNN’s analysis of government data, the first week under federal control saw property crimes fall by approximately 19 percent and violent crime drop by 17 percent compared to the previous week.
These statistics provide important context for understanding why Pelosi chose to attack Trump’s D.C. initiative through the lens of January 6. The apparent early success of federal law enforcement coordination in reducing crime rates could potentially undermine Democratic arguments about Trump’s fitness for office and his commitment to law and order.
The federal operation has also dramatically increased immigration enforcement activities, with approximately 300 arrests of individuals without legal status since August 7—more than ten times the typical weekly number. This enforcement surge aligns with broader Trump administration priorities and demonstrates the comprehensive nature of the federal takeover.
Federal agencies have embedded personnel with local police units, creating integrated teams that assist in arrests, searches, and warrant executions while patrolling the city in unmarked vehicles. This level of federal-local integration represents a significant departure from traditional policing models and provides a template that could be applied to other jurisdictions.
The Sund-Pelosi confrontation raises fundamental questions about the role of congressional leadership in Capitol security decisions and the accountability structures that govern such responsibilities. Under the current system, the Capitol Police operate under the authority of the Capitol Police Board, which includes the Sergeant at Arms of both the House and Senate.
This structure creates a complex chain of command that can lead to delays and confusion during crisis situations, as Sund’s account appears to demonstrate. The requirement for congressional leadership approval of National Guard deployment reflects the founders’ concerns about military forces being used against civilian government, but may create vulnerabilities during genuine security emergencies.
Sund’s revelations suggest that this system may have contributed directly to the security failures of January 6 by creating bureaucratic obstacles to rapid response during a developing crisis. His account implies that even when security professionals identified threats and requested appropriate resources, political considerations may have prevented adequate responses.
The public exchange between Sund and Pelosi has significant implications for ongoing political debates about January 6 and the broader questions of accountability for that day’s events. Sund’s detailed, specific allegations provide Republicans with powerful ammunition for their arguments that Democratic leadership bears significant responsibility for the security failures.
If Sund’s claims are substantiated, they could fundamentally alter public understanding of January 6 by shifting focus from Trump’s actions and rhetoric to congressional leadership’s security decisions. This shift could have profound implications for how Americans assign blame and accountability for the events of that day.
The timing of this confrontation, occurring as Trump implements comprehensive law enforcement reforms in Washington D.C., also provides a stark contrast between current federal security measures and the alleged security deficiencies that preceded January 6. This comparison could strengthen Trump’s political position by demonstrating decisive leadership in contrast to what Sund portrays as congressional indecision and obstruction.