A significant revelation has surfaced.
In a recent interview with John Fawcett on The Great America Show, former Chief of U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, disclosed that he was never informed by the FBI about the deployment of hundreds of agents amidst the crowds on January 6.
It raises a question: how could the individual charged with safeguarding the U.S. Capitol be kept unaware of such a critical situation?
This past Thursday, the FBI confirmed that it had embedded 274 plainclothes agents within the crowds at the January 6 protests—significantly more than previously disclosed.
The Blaze noted that congressional insiders stated this wasn’t entirely unexpected, given the FBI’s customary practice of embedding counter-surveillance officials during large gatherings. However, the agency’s long-standing reluctance to reveal its actual presence at the Capitol is quite astonishing.
The situation deteriorates even further: an 88-page report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Inspector General, released in December 2024, declared that the FBI had “no undercover employees” present during the January 6 events. This assertion now painfully resembles another example of blatant misrepresentation.
Former FBI Director Chris Wray vehemently denied accusations of the FBI infiltrating the crowd during his testimony before Congress, positioning himself as the arbiter of truth when faced with scrutiny from representatives questioning the FBI’s actions.
In July 2023, Wray told Congress he “does not believe” that undercover agents were positioned at the Capitol during the insurrection.
During a heated exchange with Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ), who pressed him about the agency’s operational presence, Wray maintained, “As I sit here right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on.”
Biggs later asserted on Twitter that “Wray will be held accountable for this lie.”
According to Chief Sund’s account shared with John Fawcett, he explicitly inquired with major federal agencies the day before the protests about any potential liaison presence and did not receive any pertinent information.
John Fawcett:
As Chief, on January 6, your influence should have been monumental. It’s your job to ensure security, yet it appears you faced obstacles at every turn.To an observer like myself—no law enforcement background here—it seems rational for the FBI to have contacted you with information about agent deployment on a day expected to be chaotic.
“Hey, Chief, just want to let you know, we know January 6th is supposed to maybe get a little bit crazy. We’ll have 300 agents there for you. They’ll be plainclothes. There’ll be some guys not in plainclothes. Is that a rational thing for me to be thinking— that, hey, we’ll pick up the phone and say, ‘Hey, Chief, you’ll have 300 guys there if you need them. Here’s your point of contact for January 6th. Let us know if you need anything else.’”
Chief Sund:
If they intended to deploy agents on site, convention would suggest establishing a liaison within my command center. When significant resources are allocated to a jurisdiction, communication is pivotal.However, the bureaucratic nature of the Capitol posed significant hurdles. Despite my position as Chief, I faced constraints from other law enforcement hierarchies that complicated decision-making.
John Fawcett:
I didn’t mean to imply fault on your part.Chief Sund
I want viewers to understand: this situation is unlike any other jurisdiction, necessitating urgent reform.
VIDEO:
Former Chief Sund confirmed to me on The Great America Show that he never received any information regarding FBI agents on that fateful day. How can it be that the person responsible for the Capitol’s security was kept in the dark? pic.twitter.com/ggFGk9IySK
— JohnFawcett (@JohnFawcettNY) September 27, 2025
The full interview can be viewed below:
BREAKING: Comey indicted as crucial January 6th docs emerge! https://t.co/Lnz1cIyEHF
— JohnFawcett (@JohnFawcettNY) September 26, 2025
Remember, ex-Chief Steven Sund previously testified in February 2021 that he did not receive an FBI warning about potential violence on January 6.
The FBI had issued a warning report dated January 5, detailing threats of violence. Sund pointed out that, although his department eventually received this report, it did not reach him directly.
During the 2021 hearing, a former FBI agent mentioned observing that a bus load of Antifa members had infiltrated the Trump rally, suggesting a deliberate attempt to influence events.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) brought forth compelling testimony regarding “agents-provocateurs,” emphasizing the multifaceted nature of the events at the Capitol.
Michael Waller, an expert on political warfare, recounted witnessing individuals who appeared to be intentional agitators, contrasting sharply with the surrounding crowd.
- Plainclothes participants were noticed in MAGA attire at the forefront of the police line.
- Provocateurs were seen rallying the crowds tightly together, driving them toward the Capitol’s center.
- Counterfeit Trump supporters were noted for their incongruous behavior and appearance, assumed to be agitators.
- Coordinated attackers were spotted in matching tactical gear, underscoring strategic planning behind their actions.
The narrative surrounding the Capitol events has led to significant discussions around accountability. Notably, Chief Sund has criticized former Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her role in the security breakdown, which raises further questions about political accountability.
Despite multiple preemptive communications regarding potential violence, Pelosi declined assistance from the National Guard, as reported in multiple sources leading up to January 6.
After the incident, Sund faced backlash, with Pelosi attributing security failures to him while denying any direct communication throughout the day, a claim Sund refuted with documented interactions.
