Amid rising revelations, it has emerged that then-President Donald Trump advocated for military intervention to safeguard the U.S. Capitol before the January 6, 2021, riots; however, Pentagon officials dismissed these directives, intensifying security lapses.
Just The News reported that days before the notorious Capitol riots, President Trump explicitly ordered Pentagon officials to utilize any measures necessary to secure the U.S. Capitol, which ultimately went ignored.
On January 3, 2021, during an Oval Office meeting, President Donald Trump gave a directive to top Pentagon officials. This new evidence proves that Trump tried to stop the January 6th protest refuting claims Democrats have made since 2020.
The instructions were clear: deploy National Guard or active-duty troops to ensure the security of the U.S. Capitol ahead of the anticipated January 6 demonstrations.
Gen. Mark Milley and then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller were involved in the discussions that would shape the eventual security posture on that fateful day. Testimonies and transcripts reviewed by the Department of Defense Inspector General have since exposed a critical rift, or more likely a conspiracy to sabotage Trump, in following the President's orders.
Transcripts unveiled by Barry Loudermilk, Chairman of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee, expose a concerning narrative: senior Pentagon officials, including Miller and Milley, prioritized political optics over the Executive's security mandate.
Gen. Milley recounted the President's directive as straightforward and non-negotiable, emphasizing the need for sufficient troops to ensure safety.
Christopher Miller's response to Trump’s directive was a poignant mix of assurance and defiance. Miller asserted an existing plan covered the necessary security measures, yet also firmly stated, "There was no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period."
Instead of deploying troops directly around the Capitol, an alternative strategy was set in motion by Pentagon officials. The plan involved the use of DC National Guard troops not for reinforcing the Capitol, but for managing traffic—far from the vigorous defense President Trump had commanded.
Former Defense Secretary Miller and Former DC Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee provided testimony shedding light on these decisions.
On the day violence escalated, the Pentagon was slow to deploy additional troops—a delay again influenced by concerns over how such actions would be publicly perceived. Both Milley's and Miller's testimonies pinpoint a troubling reluctance rooted in the optics of military presence at the Capitol.
Ultimately, the lack of troops led to the riot getting out of control, and the day's events were used by Democrats to claim that Trump incited an insurrection leading to years of litigation that has yet to be resolved.
Christopher Rodriguez, another key defense figure, expressed his astonishment and concern regarding the slow response, indicating uncertainty in achieving timely support at the Capitol. The internal strife and delayed decisions painted a picture of a defense apparatus at odds with the immediacy of the unfolding crisis.
Miller, seeing the President's call for 10,000 troops as somewhat hyperbolic, did not interpret it as a literal command, likening Trump's long speeches to those of Fidel Castro: grand but overstretched, leaving little room for pragmatic action under the narrow confines of his interpretation.
Loudermilk condemned the Pentagon's disregard for Trump's directives, attributing the flawed security response and subsequent Capitol breach to leadership failures that prioritized political appearances over proactive measures. His position highlights a sharp critique of the Pentagon's narrative as depicted in their Inspector General report.
The Department of Defense's approach to January 6 has faced intense scrutiny. The decisions made—or not made—by Pentagon officials not only shaped the day's events but also mirrored the complex interplay between military authority and political considerations in crises.
The dissolution between presidential orders and military action raises broader questions about the protocols and powers in place during national emergencies. As America continues to grapple with the fallout of the Capitol riots, understanding the layers of command and the hesitations that influenced the day is crucial to reforming future responses.