Oversight Hearing — Park Police at Lafayette Square, Parts 1 and 2 (House Natural Resources, 2020)

Summary

This is an oversight hearing before the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, with Part 1 on Monday, June 29, 2020 and Part 2 on Tuesday, July 28, 2020. The part titles read The U.S. Park Police Attack on Peaceful Protesters at Lafayette Square, Part 1, and Unanswered Questions About the U.S. Park Police's June 1 Attack on Peaceful Protesters at Lafayette Square, Part 2. The contents list statements by Rob Bishop and Raúl M. Grijalva and witnesses including Amelia Brace, Mariann Budde, Kishon McDonald, and Jonathan Turley. The hearing ends with a list of documents submitted for the record.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Issuer: Congressional materials
Document type: Congressional Hearing
Case: Chrg Chrg 116Hhrg40718 Chrg 116Hhrg40718

Cite this document

“Oversight Hearing — Park Police at Lafayette Square, Parts 1 and 2 (House Natural Resources, 2020).” Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/chrg-chrg-116hhrg40718-chrg-116hhrg40718/, SHA-256 6df0cfa2ab4f624a5936ea8bb63da15c759fcbfa5528015f04ac5d58074f28f8.

Full text

THE U.S. PARK POLICE ATTACK ON PEACE-
FUL PROTESTERS AT LAFAYETTE
SQUARE—PART 1
***
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE U.S.
PARK POLICE’S JUNE 1 ATTACK ON
PEACEFUL PROTESTERS AT LAFAYETTE
SQUARE—PART 2

OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

Monday, June 29, 2020 (Part 1)
Tuesday, July 28, 2020 (Part 2)

Serial No. 116–36

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40–718 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

RAÚL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI Doug Lamborn, CO
Jared Huffman, CA Robert J. Wittman, VA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul A. Gosar, AZ
TJ Cox, CA Paul Cook, CA
Joe Neguse, CO Bruce Westerman, AR
Mike Levin, CA Garret Graves, LA
Debra A. Haaland, NM Jody B. Hice, GA
Joe Cunningham, SC Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Nydia M. Velázquez, NY Daniel Webster, FL
Diana DeGette, CO Liz Cheney, WY
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO Mike Johnson, LA
Debbie Dingell, MI Jenniffer González-Colón, PR
Anthony G. Brown, MD John R. Curtis, UT
A. Donald McEachin, VA Kevin Hern, OK
Darren Soto, FL Russ Fulcher, ID
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Jesús G. ‘‘Chuy’’ Garcı́a, IL
Vacancy

David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov

(II)
CONTENTS

Page
Hearing held on Monday, June 29, 2020, Part 1 .................................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 4
Grijalva, Hon. Raúl M., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 2
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3
Haaland, Hon. Debra A., a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico, Statement for the record .................................................... 70
Statement of Witnesses:
Brace, Amelia, U.S. Correspondent, Seven News Australia ......................... 9
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10
Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 16
Budde, Mariann, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Washington ......................... 29
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31
McDonald, Kishon, Civil Rights Demonstrator .............................................. 5
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7
Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 8
Turley, Jonathan, Law Professor, George Washington University Law
School ............................................................................................................. 16
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18
Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 28
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Department of the Interior, Letter from Sec. Bernhardt to Chair Grijalva
dated June 5, 2020 ........................................................................................ 71
Fraternal Order of Police, U.S. Park Police Labor Committee, Letter
to the Editor dated June 19, 2020 ............................................................... 46
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Letter from Cole
Rojewski, Director to Chair Grijalva re: declining to send Mr. Gregory
T. Monahan, Assistant Chief of the U.S. Park Police dated June 24,
2020 ................................................................................................................ 48
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s
official files .................................................................................................... 72

(III)
CONTENTS

Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 28, 2020, Part 2 .................................................. 73
Statement of Members:
Grijalva, Hon. Raúl M., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 74
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 75
Hice, Hon. Jody B., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia ........................................................................................................... 76
Statement of Witnesses:
DeMarco, Adam D., Major, District of Columbia National Guard ............... 116
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 118
Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 121
Monahan, Gregory T., Acting Chief, United States Park Police, U.S.
Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 77
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 79
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s
official files .................................................................................................... 143

(V)
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE U.S. PARK
POLICE ATTACK ON PEACEFUL PRO-
TESTERS AT LAFAYETTE SQUARE—PART 1

Monday, June 29, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:02 p.m., in 1324
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Napolitano, Costa, Sablan,
Huffman, Lowenthal, Gallego, Cox, Neguse, Levin, Haaland,
Cunningham, DeGette, Clay, Dingell, Brown, Soto, Horsford,
Tonko, Garcı́a; Bishop, Gohmert, Lamborn, McClintock,
Westerman, González-Colón, and Fulcher.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The Committee on
Natural Resources will come to order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the ‘‘U.S.
Park Police Attack on Peaceful Protesters at Lafayette Square.’’
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hear-
ings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member,
or their designees. This will allow us to hear from the witnesses
sooner, and help Members keep to their schedules.
Therefore, I am asking unanimous consent that all other
Members’ opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or at the close
of the hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess, subject
to the call of the Chair.
As described in the notice, statements, documents, or motions
must be submitted to the electronic repository at
HNRCdocs@mail.house.gov.
Additionally, please note that, as with our fully in-person meet-
ing, Members are responsible for their own microphones. As with
our fully in-person meetings, Members can be muted by staff only
to avoid inadvertent background noise. Anyone present at the hear-
ing today must wear a mask covering their mouth and nose. The
Speaker of the House and the Sergeant at Arms, acting upon the
recommendations of the Attending Physician, require face cov-
erings for all indoor gatherings over 15 minutes in length, such as
Committee meetings.
Accordingly, to maintain decorum and protect the safety of
Members and staff, the Chair will not recognize any Member in
this hearing room to speak who is not wearing a mask. According
to House Rule 17 and Committee Rule 3(d), the Chair retains the
(1)
2

right of recognition of any Member who wishes to speak or offer a
motion. The right includes the responsibility to maintain decorum.
As permitted by the Sergeant at Arms guidance, the Chair will
make exceptions for Members briefly removing their masks to fa-
cilitate lip reading by viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing, as
I am doing presently.
Finally, Members or witnesses who experience technical
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
With that, I will recognize myself for the opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAÚL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
The CHAIRMAN. A Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee on
the neck of George Floyd for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. For 8
minutes and 46 seconds, we all have witnessed the slow and pain-
ful death of Mr. Floyd, and it has created a demanding, anguished
cry for action to deal with the legacy of racism in this country.
And that cry, that anguished cry, has risen all across the Nation.
Thousands of Americans have taken to the street to offer a strong
declaration—that is really a plea for basic humanity—that Black
Lives Matter. They protest to honor the all-too-many Black men,
women, and children whose lives have been affected, cut short at
the hands of racism and brutality. They protest to demand change
and to demand that their constitutional rights be upheld, and call
upon government for systemic response to the systemic racism that
afflicts us as a legacy.
Astonishingly, instead of honoring this collective outcry for jus-
tice, this Administration answered demands to end police brutality
with more police brutality. On the afternoon of June 1, President
Trump called state governors and berated them for not being
aggressive enough, saying, and I quote, ‘‘You have to dominate. If
you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time.’’ He made clear this
is a war, us against the protesters.
Of course, he was probably especially angry after we all found
out that he had retreated to the White House bunker the night
before.
That same afternoon, overwhelmingly peaceful protesters gath-
ered at Lafayette Square Park. Park Police, National Guard, and
other law enforcement lined the perimeter of the park. Then,
around 6:30 p.m., nearly a half-hour before the DC curfew would
take effect, the Park Police and their law enforcement partners
suddenly moved in on the protesters.
Peaceful protesters, innocent bystanders, and members of the
press were all caught up in a chaotic barrage of shields, batons,
horses, projectiles, and tear gas. The militarized assault even hit
people from the historic St. John’s Church, neighbor to the White
House, and a friend of presidents for many years. Clergy and
church staff who were handing out water were reportedly pushed
off their own patio by officers.
Once everybody had been forcibly expelled from the so-called
battle space, the world witnessed something even more incredible.
President Trump, accompanied by the Attorney General and other
White House advisers—and, it should be added, top military
brass—strolled through the park to St. John’s Church, where he
3

posed with a Bible for a brief photo op. And St. John’s had no idea
the President was going to do this.
Peaceful protesters, church, and press all fell victim to this
Administration’s violent and senseless operation. Remarkably,
these victims also embody our three main freedoms protected by
the First Amendment: freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of
religion, and freedom of the press.
The Trump administration is still scrambling to explain how this
happened, often contradicting itself, ample video evidence, and the
accounts of people at the scene, people who felt the batons hit their
bodies, and the chemical munitions burn their eyes.
We are fortunate to have some of those people here as witnesses
today, as well as the Bishop who presides over St. John’s Church
itself.
I want to thank all of you for giving of your time to help us
answer the many questions still surrounding this indefensible
attack on our own people and our basic freedoms.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAÚL M. GRIJALVA, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES
On May 25, a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee onto the neck of George
Floyd for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. For 8 minutes and 46 seconds, this officer
slowly and painfully murdered Mr. Floyd—a father, brother, and son—depriving
him of his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
The public response to George Floyd’s murder has been loud and persistent.
Thousands of Americans have taken to the streets to offer a fervent declaration that
is really a plea for basic humanity: BLACK LIVES MATTER. They protest to honor
the all-too-many Black men, women, and children whose lives have been cut short
at the hands of racism and police brutality. They protest to demand change and to
demand that their constitutional rights be upheld.
Astonishingly, instead of honoring this collective outcry for justice, this
Administration answered demands to end police brutality with MORE police
brutality. On the afternoon of June 1, President Trump called State Governors and
berated them for not being aggressive enough, saying, ‘‘You have to dominate. If you
don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time.’’ He made clear: This is war—us against
the protesters.
Of course, he was probably especially angry after we all found out he had
retreated to the White House bunker the night before.
That same afternoon, overwhelmingly peaceful protesters gathered around
Lafayette Square. Park Police, National Guard, and other law enforcement menac-
ingly lined the perimeter of the park. Then, around 6:30 p.m., nearly a half hour
before the DC curfew would take effect, the Park Police and their law enforcement
partners suddenly attacked.
Peaceful protesters, innocent bystanders, and members of the press were all
caught in a chaotic barrage of shields, batons, horses, projectiles, and tear gas. The
militarized assault even hit people from historic St. John’s Church, neighbor to the
White House and a friend to presidents for many years. Clergy and church staff who
were handing out water were reportedly pushed off their own patio by officers.
Once everyone had been forcibly expelled from the so-called battle space, the
world witnessed something even more incredible. President Trump, accompanied by
advisors and military brass, strolled through the park to St. John’s church, where
he posed with a Bible for a brief photo op. St. John’s had no idea the president was
going to do this.
Peaceful protesters, church, and press all fell victim to this Administration’s
violent and senseless operation. Remarkably, these victims also embody our three
main freedoms protected by the First Amendment: freedom of speech and assembly;
freedom of religion; and freedom of the press.
The Trump administration is still scrambling to explain how this happened, often
contradicting itself, ample video evidence, and the accounts of people at the scene—
people who felt the batons hit their bodies and the chemical munitions burn their
4
eyes. We are fortunate to have some of those people here as witnesses today, as well
as the bishop who presides over St. John’s Church itself.
I want to thank you all for giving your time to help us answer the many questions
still surrounding this indefensible attack on our own people and our basic freedoms.

The CHAIRMAN. I would now like to turn to the Ranking Member,
Mr. Bishop, for his opening statement.
Mr. Bishop, you are recognized.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, wherever you are.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. BISHOP. I know that when Democrats were in the Minority,
they used to object to some of the titles which we had on our hear-
ings. You guys have learned very well from that. I appreciate that.
Not only have you come up with new titles that are unique for
yourselves, but this one is especially inflammatory and pejorative.
So, congratulations on it.
There are issues that need to be discussed. That said, we have
serious issues to address in the present, and we would be selling
our society very short without ensuring that there is full truth as
to what was going on that is recorded in our history, not just a my-
opic and biased view. And, unfortunately, that means that this
hearing, as far as understanding truth of what went on, and
coming up with a good history, is going to be invalid.
Two of the witnesses that we will be hearing from today are
involved in litigation or investigations, and are here even before
any of that stuff started, which may be legal, but it is highly
questionable.
An invitation was given to some in the Park Service who volun-
teered to come in later, after the litigation period had at least
begun, but that was rejected. And instead, we decided to move
ahead with what can only be described as really good political
theater.
I mean, there are questions that need to be answered.
There was a question of why the police moved prior to the curfew
actually existing.
There are questions of why the DC Mayor decided to put a
curfew on in the first place.
There are questions of was this part of a plan that was
established 48 hours prior to the event or not.
There are questions of why three warnings with the decibel level
that is equivalent to a jet aircraft taking off were not heard by
people. Or were they actually there? And when were they done?
There is a question about the amount of violence that took place.
Protests, as we all know, are legal. But arson is not. Destruction
of property is not. Attacking police is not. We do know that in the
Park Service police, within a period of 2 weeks within this there
were 50 policemen that were attacked, that were harmed, that
were injured. At least one went to the hospital, presumably to con-
duct surgery at the time.
All of those are legitimate questions. And all of those legitimate
questions are not going to be addressed in this Committee hearing
today. It is simply—the structure is not designed to do that. The
5

structure is not designed to come up with a historical statement.
The structure is designed to come up with good drama.
Look, on the flight back here I was able to watch three movies.
Two of them were historical dramas, historical fiction. They were
well done. And what we are attempting to do today would fit nice
into that genre of activities. The other was a musical. I wish you
could do that one, that was more enjoyable.
But the Democrats here have now produced something that is
not going to be substantive, that is not going to be historical, that
is really a distraction. It is political theater as an attempt to do it.
So, Mr. Grijalva, for you and Watkins, you have learned this job
very well. I would urge you to become producers of movies. You can
do extremely well in that area. But please don’t try to write a text-
book, because you are leaving too many questions out that need to
be part of the narrative, and need to be part of the answers.
With that, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. And now I will
introduce the witnesses.
Let me begin with Kishon McDonald, DC resident, and who was
a peaceful protester on the day of the event.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but that their
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the timer will begin, and will turn orange when
you have 1 minute remaining. I recommend the Members and wit-
nesses joining remotely use active speaker thumbnail view, so they
may pin the timer on their screen, and see the Members in the
room.
With that, Mr. McDonald, welcome. The time is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF KISHON MCDONALD, CIVIL RIGHTS
DEMONSTRATOR
Mr. MCDONALD. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop,
and members of this Committee on Natural Resources, my name
is Kishon McDonald. I am a 39-year-old resident of northeastern
Washington, DC. I have been a resident here for the past 5 years.
I was born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. I honorably served my
country in the U.S. Navy on the USS Leyte Gulf as a yeoman third
class. I am employed with United Airlines as a mechanic at the
Dulles Airport. I appreciate the invitation to share my experience
with you today.
On June 1, I decided to join in a peaceful protest against racial
injustice. I know that there was a curfew imposed for that evening,
so I went down as part of my usual run, and planned to run back
home by the curfew time of 7 p.m.
I arrived at 16th and 9th Street around 6 p.m. I observed mili-
tary vehicles, uniformed soldiers, blocked-off streets, and a huge
police presence. I began recording the scene from my phone:
primarily, because I wanted to record this moment in history;
second, for my safety, because Trump had made threats of ominous
weapons and vicious dogs to be used on protesters.
I walked from 16th and I Streets directly toward Lafayette Park,
and observed huge group of diverse, peaceful protesters chanting
for George Floyd and for change. It was an overwhelming
6

experience, and it was powerful to be a part of it. The chanting con-
tinued around 6:25 p.m., when officers started approaching us as
we stood on the north side of Lafayette Park along the fencing.
The officers stopped for a few minutes about 10 to 15 yards
away, and they moved closer, as if we were posing a threat, which
we were not. They got directly in front of us, to the point we could
have a conversation with them. They got very close to us in a
threatening kind of way. They gave no instructions, and just a
show of force.
We stood our ground. We told them we were peaceful and we
wanted no trouble. We were met with silence. At no time did I hear
any instructions to move. And if we did hear instructions, I would
have moved. I am sure the crowd would have moved, because we
were very peaceful during the entire time before we were attacked.
Right before 6:30 p.m., I observed a line of police in riot robocop
gear coming in from my left. Now, at this point the soldiers were
communicating, but it was yelling, ‘‘Move, move.’’ They were not
walking. They were pushing and running toward us with their
shields, and people started to panic. A word of confusion ensued.
I could not really understand what was going on, why they were
responding in that manner, seeing it was way before curfew, 30
minutes before curfew.
I observed a Black male fall to the ground and protesters circled
around him and demanded it please stop so a medic could assist
him. The officer stopped briefly on the south side of St. John’s
Church. We grabbed the male and started to retreat.
Police started throwing tear gas and flash bang grenades at us
for no reason. We were retreating. We didn’t need any help retreat-
ing. Using weapons on us was ridiculous. It just made the situation
dangerous.
Even before the officers charged us or fired their weapons, it had
been peaceful. This is the most important block in the world. We
are in front of the most powerful governing house in the world. It
is citizens who are being attacked by their own government just for
asking and protesting for change. I was scared, confused, and
angry.
I did CS gas training boot camp. This group of demonstrators
were not soldiers. This wasn’t a battle station test, but it was simi-
lar to a boot camp drill. It is unacceptable to treat protestors that
way in our own city and Nation.
Once I got home, I reviewed my footage and pictures. It was then
I noticed U.S. Park Police on one of the officers who forced us up
from the left as we stood along the fence in Lafayette Park. I joined
a lawsuit challenging the attack on me and other demonstrators,
so someone will be held accountable. At this moment, it is a forgot-
ten history.
I have seen footage of this kind of attack on African-American
prisons in the 1960s when we wanted change. The dogs and water
cannons from the 1960s have turned into tear gas and flash bangs
today. It hurts, as a Black man, to see it is 2020 and we still have
a government that will do this again, over something that seems
so right to protest about.
The damage was done the minute the President decided to
violate our First Amendment right. How was it the KKK can hold
7

a rally in DC and be protected, but when a Black man is killed we
protest in honor of him and we are attacked? How can you not
perceive this attack on a Black Lives Matter movement?
I served this country so everyone could enjoy the freedoms grant-
ed to us under this Constitution. If anyone had the right to be
there, it was me. I should not have been forced to move and
attacked with tear gas and flash bangs as I was peacefully
protesting for change. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KISHON MCDONALD
My name is Kishon McDonald, and I am a 39-year-old resident of Northeast
Washington DC. I’ve been a resident here for the past 5 years but was born and
raised in Cleveland, Ohio. I honorably served my country in the U.S. Navy on the
USS Leyte Gulf as a YN-E3. I’m currently employed with United Airlines as a
mechanic at the Dulles airport. I appreciate the invitation to share my experiences
with you today.
On June 1, 2020, I decided to join in the peaceful protest at Lafayette Park
against racial injustice. I know there was a curfew imposed for that evening so I
went there as part of my usual run and planned to run back home by the curfew
time of 7 p.m.
I arrived on 16th & I Street around 6 p.m., and I observed military vehicles and
uniform soldiers, blocked-off streets and a huge police presence. I began recording
the scene on my phone primarily because I wanted to record this moment in history
and second for my safety because Trump had made a threat of ‘‘ominous weapons’’
and ‘‘vicious dogs’’ to be used on protesters.
I walked from 16th & I Street directly toward Lafayette Park and observed a
huge group of diverse peaceful protesters chanting for George Floyd and for change.
It was an overwhelming experience, and it was powerful to be a part of it. The
chanting continued until around 6:25 p.m., when officers started approaching us as
we stood on the north side of Lafayette Park along the fencing. The officers stopped
for a few minutes about 10 to 15 yards away, then moved closer to us as if we were
posing a threat, which we were not. They got directly in front of us to the point
we could have a conversation with them. They got very close to us in a threatening
kind of way. They gave no instructions. It was just a show of force.
We stood our ground. We told them we were peaceful and wanted no trouble. We
were met with silence. At no time did I hear any instructions to move, and if we
did hear instructions I would have moved and I’m sure the crowd would have moved
because we were very peaceful during the entire time before we were attacked.
Right after 6:30 p.m. I observed a line of police in riot Robocop gear coming in
from my left. Now at this point the soldiers were communicating, but it was yelling
‘‘MOVE! MOVE!’’ They were not walking. They were pushing and running toward
us with their shields, and people started to panic and a world of confusion ensued.
I could not really understand what was going on or why they were responding in
that manner seeing it was way before curfew—30 minutes before.
I observed a Black male fall to the ground and protesters circled around him and
demanded police stop so a medic could come assist him. The officers stopped briefly
on the south side of St John’s Church. We grabbed the male and started to retreat.
Then the police started throwing tear gas and flash bang grenades at us for no
reason. We were retreating. We didn’t need any help retreating.
Using weapons on us was ridiculous and just made the situation dangerous, even
though before the officers charged us or fired their weapons it had been peaceful.
This is the most important block in the world, and we are in front of the most pow-
erful governing house in the world. It’s citizens who are being attacked by our own
government just for asking and protesting for change. I was scared, confused and
angry.
I continued recording and tried to ask officers, ‘‘Would you do this to your
children?’’ and ‘‘Would you attack your children over protesting for change?’’ I was
met with tear gas and a flash bangs which exploded with shrapnel. I felt a searing
hot pain on my legs and thighs. In news footage I have seen, you can observe me
jumping up and down; I’m the one with the neon shorts on when the force of police
pushed us up 16th Street and protesters were trampled.
I did CS gas training in boot camp. This group of demonstrators were not soldiers.
This wasn’t a battle stations test. But this was similar to a boot camp drill. It’s
unacceptable to treat protesters like that in our own city and nation.
8
Once I got home I reviewed all my footage and pictures. It was then that I noticed
U.S. Park Police officers among the force who attacked us from the left as we stood
along the fence in Lafayette Park.
I joined a lawsuit challenging the attack on me and the other demonstrators so
someone will be held accountable and this moment in history isn’t forgotten. I’ve
seen footage of this kind of attack on African American protesters in the 1960s
when we wanted change. The dogs and water cannons from the 60s have turned
into tear gas and flash bangs today. It hurts as a Black man to see that it’s 2020
and we still have a government who would do this to us again over something that
seems so right to protest about. The damage was done the minute the President
decided to violate our First Amendment rights. How is it the KKK can hold a rally
in DC and be protected, but when a Black man is killed, we protest in honor of him
and are attacked? How can you not perceive this as an attack on the Black Lives
Matter movement?
I served this country so everyone could enjoy the freedoms granted to us under
the Constitution. If anyone had the right to be there it was me. I should not have
been forced to move and attacked with tear gas and flash bangs as I was peacefully
protesting for change.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIR GRIJALVA TO MR. KISHON
MCDONALD, CIVIL RIGHTS DEMONSTRATOR
Question 1. Did you see the U.S. Park Police, military, or other law enforcement
entity at Lafayette Square on the evening of June 1, 2020 wearing any cameras,
either when you were on the scene, or in footage afterwards? Did you see any other
video recording equipment associated with any of the police or military forces? If so,
please provide details.
Answer. In response to the query you posed, Mr. McDonald answers that although
he did not observe any cameras on the Park Police, a photograph he took that day
showed one federal officer with a GoPro on his helmet. The picture he took is
attached below, with the camera circled.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Let me now recognize Amelia Brace, Correspondent, Seven News
Australia.
The time is yours, please.
9
STATEMENT OF AMELIA BRACE, U.S. CORRESPONDENT,
SEVEN NEWS AUSTRALIA
Ms. BRACE. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member
Bishop, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to
speak today.
For more than 3 years, I have been the U.S. correspondent for
Seven News, one of Australia’s largest commercial broadcasters. I
have been called to testify about my experience covering protests
near Lafayette Square Park, particularly the incident in which my
cameraman, Tim Myers, and I were physically assaulted by Park
Police on June 1, while we were broadcasting live to Australia with
hundreds of thousands of people watching, including our families.
This video, which formed part of the coverage in Australia, shows
the incident from multiple angles.
[Video shown.]
Ms. BRACE. We began our coverage at Lafayette at 5:45 p.m. The
atmosphere was passionate, but peaceful. In fact, it was far less
tense than it had been the night before. As we prepared for our
6:30 p.m. live broadcast we noticed riot police lines begin to form.
We were not alarmed by this sight, as it initially resembled the
enforcement of curfew the night before, and we still had more than
half an hour before this curfew was due to take effect. Regardless,
members of the media were exempt from curfew restrictions. We
did not hear any warning from law enforcement that the area was
to be cleared, or that the curfew would be enforced early.
Suddenly, the police line surged forward. We moved back, along
with many protesters. Police lining the park used automatic weap-
ons to fire non-lethal rounds. Tim was hit with a projectile in the
back of the neck, and our equipment was damaged.
After this first surge, we took cover behind a tree as Tim tried
to get the now-damaged live transmitter working. We saw the line
of police start to walk toward us at a walking pace. To ensure we
were completely out of the way of both police and protesters, we
moved to the fence line, where we were sheltered by a concrete
wall and also a sidewalk.
We were clearly a news crew. Most notably, Tim was holding a
large television camera. We were also surrounded by other mem-
bers of the media, and given no directive by police to move on. As
I began reporting live, the line of police suddenly and without
warning began charging forward at a sprinting pace, knocking
protesters to the ground.
A Park Police officer who was passing us stopped, turned toward
Tim, and rammed him in the chest and stomach with the edge of
his riot shield, causing Tim to keel over and drop down. The officer
then took a step back, paused, then punched his hand directly into
the front of Tim’s camera, grabbing the lens. As this happened,
Tim and I were both repeatedly shouting the word, ‘‘Media.’’
A second officer appeared to intervene, giving us the opportunity
to move. As I was running away, a third officer pushed through the
group, going out of his way to strike me with a truncheon. As we
tried once again to clear the advancing line of police, loud flash
bangs boomed around us, and some sort of chemical irritant and
plumes of smoke filled the air. I could be heard screaming as I was
struck by non-lethal projectiles directly to my legs and backside.
10

The incident prompted Australia’s Prime Minister to direct our
Ambassador to the United States to seek a full investigation.
As a reporter, I have no interest in becoming the story. But over
recent weeks, many of us have been left with no choice. I have been
shocked to see how many journalists have been attacked, beaten,
and detained just for doing their jobs. Covering protests does carry
unavoidable risks, but the media’s role is essential. We don’t just
have a right to be there, we have an obligation.
As Australian journalists, we are the eyes and the ears of our
people—in this case, witnessing civil unrest in the capital of our
most powerful and closest ally. It is crucial to democracy that jour-
nalists be allowed to do their job freely and safely. And that is
certainly something we should expect in the world’s greatest
democracy.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brace follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMELIA BRACE, A U.S. CORRESPONDENT FOR THE
SEVEN NETWORK
Thank you Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of this
Committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Amelia Brace. I am a
U.S. Correspondent for the Seven Network, which is one of the largest broadcast
television networks in Australia. I am here to testify about my experience covering
the protests in Lafayette Square Park, and, in particular, the incident in which my
cameraman, Tim Myers, and I were physically attacked by U.S. Park Police officers
when they cleared out the park in the afternoon on Monday, June 1, 2020. Even
though we were out of the way of the advancing officers and were clearly identifi-
able as a news crew, we were directly assaulted without provocation by two separate
officers.
This is a situation where the video speaks louder than any words could. This link
shows the Seven News broadcast about the incident from the next day, which cap-
tures the incident both from the perspective of our own camera feed, which was
broadcast live to Australian audiences, and from another angle captured by a local
news crew here: https://youtu.be/yzNMdWOoC7M?t=33.
The live broadcast, showing the incident and the in-studio anchors’ reactions
happening in real time, can be seen here: https://youtu.be/wkf-znzWKRc.
I would like to speak today about what exactly happened in the video we just saw,
and why this event was so deeply troubling for me, even beyond the physical effects
of the attack, which do still linger.
MY BACKGROUND AND ROLE AS U.S. CORRESPONDENT FOR SEVEN NEWS

I have been a television journalist for 10 years, nearly the whole time at the
Seven Network. I have been living in the United States serving as the U.S.
correspondent for Seven News since January 2017. Before that, I reported on poli-
tics in various bureaus within Australia, including in Canberra, the capital city. I
have reported from all manner of locations and at all manner of events. My camera-
man, Tim, works freelance for Seven News, as well as for the BBC and the United
Nations. In those jobs, he has traveled around the world to cover news and shoot
footage, including in Mexico, Jordan, Nigeria, Chad and Ghana. Neither Tim nor I
have experienced anything like the treatment we received from the U.S. Park Police
on June 1; never before have I been physically attacked by law enforcement simply
for doing my job of reporting the news.
As a U.S. correspondent for Seven News, I provide on-camera dispatches on
breaking news stories in this country for Seven’s various television news programs.
Oftentimes, I will be patched in live on video during these programs, doing what
we refer to as a ‘‘live cross.’’ Because of the time difference, events that take place
in the evening on the East Coast of the U.S. may end up being seen first thing in
the morning in Australia. Here, when Tim and I were attacked, we were in the proc-
ess of delivering a live cross to Seven’s daily morning news show, Sunrise (which
is similar to The Today Show or Good Morning America in this country).
At any given time, Seven is likely to have three U.S. correspondents reporting
from this country, focusing on the major news of the day and/or stories that would
be of interest to Australians. But the fact is, the U.S. is widely considered
11
Australia’s most important ally. Australians take a keen interest in the political,
social and cultural developments in this country. When there is widespread civil un-
rest in the United States, Australians want to know and understand what’s actually
happening. I take my job seriously, and believe strongly in the importance of
delivering news from within the U.S., to my fellow countrymen and -women.
REPORTING ON PROTESTS IN DC: DAY 1

When protests erupted throughout the U.S. after the police killing of George
Floyd, Seven’s U.S. correspondents traveled around the country to report from the
scene. One of my colleagues reported from Minnesota; another reported from Los
Angeles. Because I was already on the East Coast reporting on a story in Florida,
I was selected to cover the protests taking place here in the capital city,
Washington, DC.
My crew consists only of myself and my cameraman, Tim. Tim and I arrived in
DC separately on Sunday, May 31, around mid-day. We began reporting almost im-
mediately from Lafayette Square. Having seen the nature of the protests and police
actions from the days before, we were aware that we would potentially encounter
tear gas or other irritants, so Tim had purchased goggles for us to have on hand.
And we each already had face masks to cover our mouth and nose because of the
pandemic. I had my laminated press credentials issued by the State Department at
hand and occasionally held it up to law enforcement when I needed to reiterate that
we were there as part of the news media. Usually, this was not necessary since, as
can be seen in the videos, Tim was carrying a large, full-sized television news
camera over his shoulder.
We delivered ‘‘live crosses’’ throughout that Sunday evening and overnight.
During that night, I saw and reported on a great deal of chaos, including destruc-
tion of property, fires, and even some looting of shops. I did not see the fire at St.
John’s Episcopal Church, but I did see other structures in and around the park on
fire, as well as a large bonfire in the middle of the street by the park. We were
aware that the DC government had imposed an 11 p.m. curfew. In the hours leading
up to that time, we saw the police occasionally mobilize to push protesters away
from the park, but it was not until after the curfew went into effect that they
cleared the park area completely. As members of the press, we were exempt from
the curfew and so we were able to move in among the protesters and behind the
police line to capture footage of the scene. By the time I delivered my last few live
crosses early in the morning of Monday, June 1, the police had cleared the park and
protesters had long since dispersed.
Throughout the first night we were there, the tension between the protesters and
police was palpable, and we did see the police use riot gear and so-called ‘‘less-
lethal’’ munitions to clear protesters. But the process was relatively orderly and re-
laxed, to the extent one could ever describe a process like that as orderly or relaxed.
The efforts to clear the streets around the park did not kick in until the curfew—
in fact, not until several minutes after the curfew—and the process was fairly
deliberate and methodical.
REPORTING ON PROTESTS IN DC: DAY 2—THE ATTACK

The next day, in the afternoon on Monday, June 1, Tim and I went back out to
report on the protests. As we left our hotel on 15th Street, we encountered a large
march coming down 14th Street and headed toward the Capitol Building. We fol-
lowed the march, and delivered several live crosses from the demonstration outside
the Capitol. The protests there were certainly passionate, but they were peaceful.
Protesters occasionally chanted slogans directly at the line of police officers, but I
saw no physical altercations. In the late afternoon, the crowd received an alert on
their phones announcing that DC was imposing a curfew starting at 7 p.m. The
crowd began to make their way to Lafayette Square, and we followed them. We
arrived around 5:45 p.m., in time to set up for a relatively uneventful ‘‘live cross’’
at 6 p.m. The atmosphere in Lafayette Square was similar to the Capitol. The crowd
was passionate, but peaceful. In fact, the atmosphere was much less tense than it
was the night before, with none of the property destruction or fires we had seen that
night.
We were scheduled to deliver a live cross at 6:30 p.m. for Sunrise. We were near
the Northeast corner of the square, at H Street and Vermont Avenue, on the side-
walk outside the park. As we were getting ready for the cross, we saw the police
lines suddenly start to form. These officers were in full riot gear. Some—which we
identified by their uniforms and helmets as U.S. Park Police—carried round, clear
shields on one arm, often using their other hand to swing their batons. Other
12
officers carried what looked like modified automatic weapons, which we knew fired
‘‘less-lethal’’ projectiles like rubber bullets.
We were aware that the curfew was not set to kick in for another half hour, so
we were confused about what was happening. However, based on our experience the
night before, we were not overly concerned by police lining up, as we expected the
police forces to only begin clearing the area after curfew.
We did not hear any warning from law enforcement that the area was going to
be cleared, or that the curfew was going to start early. Nevertheless, right around
6:30, the line of police suddenly surged forward. We ran a couple hundred feet West
on H Street along with the protesters to position ourselves farther away from the
line. The police began releasing some kind of smoke and irritant gas, and firing
what I thought at the time were rubber bullets. I now understand they may have
been shooting ‘‘pepper balls’’ or launching ‘‘stinger’’ grenades, which I understand
launch rubber pellets into the surrounding area. Tim was hit with one of those pro-
jectile in the back of the neck during this surge. The ‘‘TVU’’—the piece of electronic
equipment that transmits our video and audio feed back to the studio in Sydney,
which Tim carries in his backpack—was also hit with a projectile or piece of shrap-
nel and was knocked offline. (We later realized that the TVU was seriously damaged
in that incident.)
After this first surge, we took cover behind a tree on the sidewalk, so that we
could regroup and try to get our damaged equipment ready to begin our 6:30 live
cross. To our right (looking East) there was a line of law enforcement, which I
believe were National Guard or some form of military police, with tall, clear riot
shields standing in a line behind a metal barrier along the border of the park. To
our left, the street was filled with confused and angry protesters who understood
that the curfew was not set to begin for another half hour.
We saw the line of police start to advance toward us at a walking pace. We want-
ed to stay completely out of the way of both police and protesters, so we backed up
and moved further down the sidewalk. Eventually we were able to step up onto a
raised curb in a small ‘‘alcove’’ created by a short concrete wall running perpen-
dicular to the sidewalk. (I believe it is a wall around a storage shed for the park.)
At that point, we had a good vantage point to capture the scene, without being in
the way of the advancing police line, since we were sheltered by a concrete wall off
of the sidewalk. The line of military police officers was directly behind us (behind
the temporary metal barriers) and we identified ourselves to them as members of
the press. There were also other members of the press immediately around us along
the fence and on the sidewalk. This still from the local news footage of the incident
shows how we were positioned (and confirms the presence of other media in that
area, since they were able to capture this image directly).

That is me in the blue backpack, with my back to the camera on the right side. Tim
is to my left in the baseball hat, sitting on the milk-crate, having just been knocked
over by a U.S. Park Police officer, as I will explain below.
13
We then began our live cross. As I started explaining the situation to the in-studio
hosts, the line of police suddenly—and again, without any verbal warning that I
could hear—began charging forward at a sprinting pace. As Tim was capturing the
footage of this stampede (which was knocking protesters onto the ground), a Park
Police officer who was running by on the sidewalk stopped just as he was passing
us, turned toward Tim and rammed him in the chest and stomach with the edge
of his riot shield, causing Tim to keel over and drop down to a sitting position on
a plastic crate behind him. The officer took a half step back and seemed to pause
for a moment, looking at Tim. He then punched his hand directly into the front of
Tim’s camera and grabbed the lens, causing Tim’s head to whiplash backward. Tim
later told me that this caused him to ‘‘see stars’’ for a moment. As this happened,
both Tim and I were repeatedly shouting ‘‘Media! Media!’’ at the top of our lungs,
to make clear what I would have thought was already obvious.
In an instant, a group of four or five Park Police officers surrounded us, as we
continued to shout ‘‘Media!’’ I recall instinctively raising my hands near my face and
almost cowering behind Tim, afraid of what this even larger group of officers would
now do to us. (This can be seen in the still photo just above.) An officer in the group
stood behind the first officer, and placed his arm between the first officer and us,
seemingly trying to restrain him. That second officer shouted at us to move further
down the sidewalk. We immediately complied. Tim—despite having been knocked
down a second earlier—crouched low and began running down the sidewalk. Even
though Tim was following the officers’ instructions, the first officer pushed the face
of his shield against Tim’s back to physically prod him forward. I grabbed hold of
Tim’s backpack, and followed, also crouching low.
As I was running away, I felt something strike me hard across the back and
shoulders. I now know, from seeing the local news crew’s footage, that a third U.S.
Park Police officer reached around the second officer to smack me with his baton
in a backhanded motion as I was running away. Disturbingly, in the moments be-
fore that, as the other officers surrounded us, this third officer appears to be trying
to push his way into the scrum while waving his baton. Unable to get ‘‘into the mix’’
before we started running down the sidewalk, he seemed to go out of his way to
make sure to get at least one hit on us.
Again, this all happened as we were broadcasting live to the news desk for the
morning show in Sydney. The anchors of the show reacted with shock when they
saw the first officer’s fist suddenly fill the frame as he punched Tim’s camera.
Initially, the studio could not hear us, because the attack had knocked the receiver
for my microphone off of Tim’s camera. As they tried to make sure we were OK,
one of the anchors, Samantha Armytage, observed that the police were not discrimi-
nating between protesters and the media.
After we ran several yards away from the police line, and Tim reconnected the
microphone receiver to the camera, I told the anchors (and Australian audience,
which included my own family) what was happening:
Yes guys, you heard us yelling there that we were media, but they don’t
care. They are being indiscriminate at the moment. They chased us down
that street as you see. They were firing these rubber bullets at everyone.
There’s tear gas. Now, we are really surrounded by the police and you
really saw the way that they dealt with my cameraman Tim there, quite
violent. And they do not care who they’re targeting at the moment.
I also explained that the curfew was not set to come into effect for another 26
minutes, but that the police seemed to be trying to box the protesters in, which
would mean that, after curfew, all of the protesters present could be subject to
arrest.
The news anchors were curious to understand exactly where we were located,
relative to the White House, where President Trump was scheduled to speak in the
Rose Garden at any moment. Tim panned his camera to the left to show how we
were directly across the park from the front door of the White House at that very
moment.
As this was happening, the police lines began advancing again, all the while firing
their weapons and releasing various forms of tear gas and smoke grenades. We tried
to move further West along H Street, but were squeezed in place with the line of
military police to our left, the U.S. Park Police line advancing behind us, and
throngs of protesters all around us. In many ways, that was the most frightening
part of the experience. We had already been attacked physically and wanted nothing
more than to get clear of the continuing onslaught from the police. But we kept find-
ing ourselves caught in the bottleneck created by the Park Police line moving
forward so quickly. It felt like there was no escape.
14
As we turned to run away from this second wave, I felt a sharp pain as I was
struck with a projectile directly to my legs and backside. In the video, which was
again, still being broadcast live to Australian morning news audiences, I can be
heard shrieking in pain and surprise. I had assumed at the time that I was hit with
a rubber bullet, and said as much to the camera. Having now seen the wounds
caused by actual rubber bullets on others, I believe I was actually struck by a
‘‘pepper ball’’ projectile. (I have compared the feeling to being hit with a paintball
at very close range.) I received bruises where I was hit that lasted for several weeks.
Continuing to crouch low, Tim and I pushed our way West as loud flash grenades
boomed around us, gas continued to fill the air (causing everyone around us to
cough violently, which was particularly unnerving in light of the COVID pandemic),
and the police forces kept firing their ‘‘less-lethal’’ guns at the crowd.
Tim and I then ran at a sprinting pace all the way down H Street to the other
side of the park, and turned north on Connecticut Avenue to try to escape the
bottleneck where we had been stuck. Running (and then speaking on camera) was
made all the more difficult by the gas and smoke that was constantly filling the air.
Barely able to catch my breath, I gave an update to the camera, explaining that
we had gotten out of the main area, after being hit by (what I thought were) rubber
bullets and pepper spray. I told the audience how ‘‘we were trying to move on, as
the police were asking us to. Obviously, the last thing we ever want is to get in
the way. But there was just no opportunity. As you were moving this way, you’re
hitting more and more protesters. And the police were just pushing up so quickly—
’’ I then cut myself off to say ‘‘we’re gonna keep moving,’’ as I saw that the police
line was continuing to advance further, and explosions continued booming around
us. We eventually ran all the way to Farragut Square, but could only pause for a
moment before I saw the stampede people continue to run toward us, away from
the constantly advancing police line. As I took cover around the corner of I Street
at Farragut Square, I told the studio (now over the phone), how ‘‘we’ve done our
best to get out of the way. We’ve now found ourselves in almost the exact same situ-
ation. It’s almost impossible to escape.’’ We pushed forward up the square and
turned right on K Street, where we were finally able to catch our breath and assess
the damage.
THE AFTERMATH

As a result of the attack, the lens assembly on Tim’s camera—a professional grade
news camera—was seriously damaged, and would no longer focus properly. His cam-
era’s viewfinder (which had been jammed into his face) was also damaged. Tim had
an additional lens (with a different focal length) that I was carrying in my back-
pack. Unfortunately, that lens took part of the brunt of the baton strike to my back,
and was also damaged. As I mentioned above, the TVU device that enables us to
send our video and audio feed back to Australia remotely, was also malfunctioning
from being jostled and hit with the projectiles fired by the police forces in the first
rush. Repairing and replacing this equipment will likely cost thousands of dollars.
Of perhaps less significance, but still frustrating, I lost one of my wireless ‘‘Airpods’’
and a pair of sunglasses as we were pushed by the police.
I have large bruises that lasted for weeks where I was hit with the ‘‘pepper ball’’
(or whatever ‘‘less-lethal’’ projectile hit me). Both Tim and I have also experienced
persistent aches and soreness from where we were hit—Tim, from the riot shield
hit and camera punch, and me, from the baton strike. Both Tim and I have con-
sulted with doctors for treatment for the lingering effects from those attacks.
Despite these injuries and the damage to our equipment, we continued to report
on the protests and police actions throughout the rest of that night, and over the
next 8 days in Washington, DC.
I would be lying if I said I did not feel fear when we went back out to continue
to report on the events in the streets. From the beginning, we knew we were enter-
ing a potentially chaotic situation, and tried to take precautions. For example, I
knew that, if law enforcement used things like tear gas, we would be caught in the
cloud just like everyone else. That was why we had protective eyewear. What we
never would have expected was that we would be directly assaulted by multiple po-
lice officers when we were not in anyone’s way, and were clearly identifiable as
media, peacefully reporting on the events. I had no way of knowing whether the
same thing would happen again as we continued to try to report on the scene. As
I’ve told others since the incident, our instinct as journalists covering a dangerous
situation would normally be to run towards the police for safety. But this was the
opposite; here, the police were the ones we feared.
At the same time, I felt an even more solemn obligation to go out and do my job,
to show the Australian people what was actually happening on the ground in the
15
capital city of its closest ally. In fact, this incident illustrates perfectly how impor-
tant it is for reporters to be on the scene, witnessing and capturing what’s hap-
pening directly. The moment when the police began rushing protesters away from
the park was so chaotic and rushed that it would have been impossible to know
what was actually happening if we had been filming from, say, a couple blocks
away. This is something that should be important not only to protesters and civil-
ians, but to the police as well. I would think that if the situation were reversed,
and it was protesters who attacked police without provocation, the police would
want that reality documented and reported on.
For that reason, I was shocked to have the U.S. Park Police attack us so directly,
even after they knew we were media. I could possibly understand the first officer
getting caught up in the heat of the moment, and striking Tim with his riot shield
before he realized what was happening. (Though, I would also hope that police offi-
cers are sufficiently trained so that they know how to more effectively assess a situ-
ation before lashing out with physical force.) However, after he took a step back and
realized that Tim was a cameraman, and we were shouting ‘‘Media! Media!,’’ his
reaction was to directly punch the camera lens. It felt as if he was trying to aggres-
sively convey that we did not have a right to be there, filming what was hap-
pening—even though we absolutely did. The fact that the third officer struck me
with a baton as I was running away, after it was abundantly clear that we were
media, and were complying with all directives without hesitation, was all the more
disturbing.
I was also, frankly, disturbed to see the police dealing so harshly with what had
been, up to that point, a relatively peaceful protest. I was, of course, aware of the
chaos and destructive behavior by some individuals the night before. But up until
6:30 on that Monday, we had not seen any violence or destruction by any of the pro-
testers. At the time, we were baffled as to why the police were cracking down so
violently on a peaceful protest when the curfew had not even kicked in yet. Of
course, we later learned that the apparent reason for the police action was to clear
the way for the President to walk over to St. John’s church.
During my live cross to Sunrise the next day, one of the hosts, David Koch, asked
if I was angry. Here is what I said at the time:
I’m really disappointed . . .. It’s not just about the media and the fact that
we were attacked while we were doing our job. It’s about the fact that that
was before curfew. So every single person that was here had a legal right
to be here. And to see these people tear gassed to make way for a photo
opportunity for the president in front of the White House in the United
States of America is outrageous. This is not the United States that I know
at the moment. This is a police state. It’s martial law. And to see civilians
treated like that was really, really upsetting.
As a reporter, I don’t like to make myself the story. I’m there to witness and
report on what I see, without interfering. But I have been shocked over the past
few weeks to see how many reporters in cities around the country have been at-
tacked, beaten, and arrested, just for doing their jobs. In fact, my fiancée, who is
here with me today, is a cameraman for Channel 9 News, one of Seven’s biggest
rivals. He was in Minneapolis to cover the unrest. On the Saturday night before I
was attacked in Lafayette Square, he was driving in a car with the reporter he
works with, as well as a security consultant. They were stopped by the police while
they were driving after that city’s curfew. Although they had media credentials that
permitted them to be out at that time (since the press was exempt from the curfew),
the police pulled their car over and placed all three under arrest. They sat hand-
cuffed on the curb for a number of minutes before they were let go. Our experiences
are just two of many that have been happening around the country, some much
more serious than what happened to either of us. As terrifying as my experience
was, I feel grateful that Tim and I were not more seriously injured, as some of my
fellow journalists around the country have been.
The Australian government and people were horrified to see journalists treated
this way in, of all places, the United States, which has such a long tradition of pro-
tecting the role of the press. As I’ve mentioned, the attack on myself and Tim was
broadcast live to hundreds of thousands of Australians eating their breakfasts—
including my family, who were understandably quite worried for my safety. People
at the highest levels of our government expressed shock and outrage. The Prime
Minister called the incident ‘‘troubling,’’ and directed Australia’s Ambassador to the
United States to seek a full investigation of the incident. The leader of the opposi-
tion party labeled it a ‘‘completely unacceptable assault.’’
Covering protests does carry unavoidable risks, but the media’s role is essential.
We don’t just have a right to be there, we have an obligation. As Australian
16
journalists, we are the eyes and the ears of the people, in this case witnessing civil
unrest in the capital of our most powerful and closest ally. It is crucial to democracy
that journalists be allowed to do their job freely and safely. And that is certainly
something we should expect in the world’s greatest democracy.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIR GRIJALVA TO MS. AMELIA BRACE,
U.S. CORRESPONDENT, SEVEN NEWS AUSTRALIA
Question 1. Did you see the U.S. Park Police, military, or other law enforcement
entity at Lafayette Square on the evening of June 1, 2020 wearing any cameras,
either when you were on the scene, or in footage afterwards? Did you see any other
video recording equipment associated with any of the police or military forces? If so,
please provide details.
Answer. I have no specific memory of seeing law enforcement officers wearing
cameras at the time, nor do I recall seeing any other video recording equipment
associated with any of the police or military forces. In reviewing the footage of the
assault against me and Tim Myers by U.S. Park Police officers (as captured by local
news station WJLA), I observe that the officer who assaulted Mr. Myers with his
riot shield was wearing what appears to be a body camera. Other U.S. Park Police
officers in the line that moved forward at the same time also appear to be wearing
similar devices on the left sides of their chests.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I now recognize Jonathan Turley,
Professor of Law at George Washington University.
Professor, the time is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR,
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Mr. TURLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the Committee for the honor of appearing before you
today to talk about the controversy of the clearing of Lafayette
Park.
For roughly 14 years, I was one of the lead counsels in the World
Bank protest litigation that produced the guidelines and case law
currently applied in mass demonstration events like the one in
Lafayette Park. Much of that litigation centered on the mass arrest
of hundreds of individuals in Pershing Park, which is not far from
Lafayette Park, in 2002. I appear today in the hopes of offering
some legal perspective on the governing standards that apply in
these cases, and also the facts that a court would likely look at in
reviewing these allegations, which are quite serious.
In appearing, I should disclose that I have previously discussed
this matter. I criticized the level of force used to remove the pro-
testers from the area, and called for a congressional investigation
into the operation.
I also stated that night that I thought the attack on the
Australian journalist appeared entirely unjustified and unlawful. I
continue to hold those opinions, as I discuss in my written
testimony.
My written testimony looks at the motivation, the authority, and
the means used in the operation.
Two points on nomenclature. I referred to the operation as the
‘‘clearing operation’’ to establish the perimeter to create a fence
line. This process appeared to take about 22 to 26 minutes from the
timelines that I have reviewed.
17

But, as this Committee has, in the title of the hearing—as the
Chairman said in his opening statement, we are all referring to
Lafayette Park or Lafayette Square Park. Obviously, we are not
talking about just the park itself. Most of the activity occurred on
H Street, and some of the protesters were pushed back to, I believe,
I street. The Park Police have argued they were creating this
perimeter so they could establish the fence line. But, obviously,
when we talk about Lafayette Park, as with the title of this hear-
ing, we are talking about a larger area.
And, by the way, that is an area that I think would warrant
congressional review of how far those protesters were pushed back,
and why.
As to the photo op allegation, that goes to the motivation behind
this operation. I won’t dwell on that much. As my testimony indi-
cates, this may be a case where correlation does not mean causa-
tion. There has been a number of statements and timelines
presented that indicate that the plan to clear the park, create the
fence line was, in fact, proposed 2 days earlier. It was submitted
on Sunday night, I believe. It was approved in some form on
Monday morning. An order went out around 2.
The National Guard, apparently, was delayed in arriving. That
pushed that operation past 5, and there was a delay in the fencing
material.
So, whether all of that is true or not is exactly why we need a
congressional inquiry, and that is an area that I would encourage
the Committee to look at.
In terms of the order itself, just because there was damage and
there was violence the day before does not mean that an order is,
per se, lawful, or that it was done in a lawful way.
In the World Bank protest litigation and other cases, we have
established guidelines that you must have three audible warnings
that are spaced apart. You must also give ample opportunity for
dispersal. In the World Bank case, we had the encirclement of
everyone in Pershing Park Freedom Plaza. So, even if they had
been given those warnings, which they weren’t, they wouldn’t have
been able to remove themselves.
In this case, it does appear the three warnings were given, but
that is based on the government’s account. And, once again, that
is an issue for you to look at.
It also does appear that protesters could remove themselves
because they weren’t encircled. However, if you look at these films,
there was a very rapid approach of the line to the perimeter line,
which is beyond the fence line. That line was brought back to the
fence line later. That rapid pushing forward is something that is
a legitimate question for this Committee to ask. Was there enough
time that it was necessary to use the level of force that it did?
On the level of force, as my testimony goes through in detail,
courts have largely deferred to an objective, reasonable officer in
determining what force should be used. This comes out of the
Graham case, it is called the Graham analysis.
I point out that a number of district courts have ruled recently
against the use of tear gas and pepper spray. And as I say in my
testimony, that distinction between tear gas and pepper spray is
really not that essential, because courts tend to group them
18

together. The important question is, was there a reasonable use of
those devices?
My summary, ultimately, concludes that the order to clear the
park is probably going to be held as lawful, that the government
does have the right to clear the park. Whether the means used to
clear the park were lawful is something that this Committee and
other committees may be able to shed some light on.
Many courts would express concern over the rapid escalation of
force, particularly in a protest involving police abuse allegation.
And, for that reason, I compliment Congress in looking into this.
I would be happy to answer any questions on the legal aspects,
should Members have those.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY, SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC
INTEREST LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
I. INTRODUCTION

Chairman Grijalva, ranking member Bishop, members of the Committee on
Natural Resources, my name is Jonathan Turley, and I am a law professor at
George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair
of Public Interest Law.1 It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the
controversy over the clearing of Lafayette Park.
For roughly 14 years, I was one of the lead counsels in the World Bank protest
litigation, which produced guidelines and case law currently applied in mass dem-
onstration events like the one at Lafayette Park.2 Much of this litigation centered
on the mass arrest of hundreds of protesters in Pershing Park and Freedom Plaza,
not far from Lafayette Park, in 2002. I appear today in the hope that I can offer
a legal perspective on the governing standards that apply to such cases and the key
facts that would determine how a court would likely review the current controversy.
In so appearing, I should disclose that I have previously discussed this matter. As
a long-time free speech advocate,3 I criticized the level of force used to remove the
protesters and called for a congressional investigation into the purpose, timing, and
means of the operation. I also stated that an attack on Australian journalists ap-
peared unjustified and unlawful. I continue to hold those opinions and will explain
them in more detail below.
The standards derived from prior cases like Chang and Barham are important not
only for establishing unlawful conduct but also for enabling litigants to overcome
qualified immunity defenses. Qualified immunity shields Federal officials from dam-
ages absent a showing that (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional
right, and (2) that the right was ‘‘clearly established’’ at the time of the challenged
conduct.4 The Supreme Court has ‘‘repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly
established law at a high level of generality.5 Rather, the qualified immunity doc-
trine demands a ‘‘more particularized’’ inquiry.6 This testimony is an effort at a
more particularized analysis of confirmed facts.

1 I appear today on my own behalf and my views do not reflect those of my law school, my
colleagues, CBS News, the BBC, or the newspapers for which I write as a columnist. My testi-
mony was written exclusively by myself, though I received inspired editing assistance from
Nicholas Contarino, Thomas Huff, and Seth Tate.
2 There are multiple lawsuits involved in this litigation. See, e.g., Chang v. United States, 738
F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Our Chang
case was the first filed and the last to settle. The long and complex litigation was only possible
due to the commitment of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP and my co-lead counsel Daniel
Schwartz. In the over decade of intense litigation, over 30 lawyers joined our effort including
Jake Kramer, Dan O’Conner, PJ Meitl, Heather Goldman, Jennifer Mammon, and many others.
They represent the very best of the bar and its commitment to the public interest.
3 I have litigated free speech issues and write regularly in support of free speech values. My
blog, ResIspa (www.jonathanturley.org), is focused in large part on issues related to free speech
and the free press.
4 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818
(1982)).
5 Id. at 742.
6 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987).
19
I have been called not as a witness or a litigant but as an expert on the under-
lying law. I will give you my best assessment of the various legal claims that have
been raised in the aftermath of the Lafayette operation, including widely reported
theories that now appear to be without sufficient legal or factual foundation. In so
doing, we can hopefully focus on the real issues to come before Congress and the
courts. After briefly discussing the Pershing Park case, I will focus on the two most
important legal questions surrounding the authority to clear the park and the man-
ner in which it was done. I believe this investigation and the other ongoing inquiries
are important steps to guarantee both a full record and complete accountability for
the actions on June 1, 2020.
II. THE PERSHING PARK LITIGATION

On September 27, 2002, during demonstrations in protest of the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police
Department (‘‘MPD’’), the United States Park Police, and other law enforcement per-
sonnel carried out a mass arrest at Pershing Park in Washington, DC. Specifically,
police officers from these agencies encircled Pershing Park and arrested roughly 400
individuals who were in the Park. Among those arrests were student journalists and
observers who became the first to file against the MPD, the Park Police, and other
agencies and individuals.7 The central figure in this unconstitutional mass arrest
was then Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham (who is now serving as the Chief
of Police) 8 and then Chief of Police Charles Ramsey. We specifically included the
Park Police as a defendant in our action based on its critical role in the encirclement
of the area to carry out the ‘‘trap and arrest’’ operation.9
Newsham ultimately acknowledged he gave the order to trap and then arrest
hundreds of people, including tourists and journalists, without affording them any
warning or opportunity to disperse. He explained his decision in the following way:
‘‘[I]t appeared to me that the demonstrators . . . were continuing to act as an orga-
nized group and would at some point leave the Park to continue their unlawful dem-
onstrations in the streets. I determined that I should not and would not allow this
to occur.’’ He admitted that he declined to give warnings precisely because he did
not want people to escape: ‘‘I was concerned that if orders were given to clear the
Park, the demonstrators would leave the Park as an organized group, or groups, and
unlawfully take to the streets as they had previously done, thus exacerbating the
situation rather than resolving it.’’
Ramsey admitted that he was fully informed of the intent to arrest everyone in
the park. However, despite being present and speaking with Newsham and others
about the operation, he denied giving the order. Ramsey would only say that he
‘‘supported’’ Newsham’s decision to arrest and, at most, gave his ‘‘tacit approval.’’
Nonetheless, two officers came forward at great personal risk and contradicted
Ramsey, insisting that he did give the order. These officers (who were standing sep-
arately and on either side of Ramsey as he spoke with Newsham) testified that
Ramsey ordered Newsham to ‘‘lock those mother****ers up,’’ to ‘‘teach them a
lesson’’ and ‘‘get them off the street.’’
The Park Police, Secret Service, and other police agencies participated in the mass
arrest. Like many, our plaintiffs were held for over 24 hours. They were hog-tied
(wrist being cuffed to their ankle), despite there being no allegations that they had
engaged in violence or were likely to be violent.
Numerous lawsuits were brought over the mass arrest, ultimately costing the city
millions of dollars in settlements and litigation costs. A settlement reached with
some of those other litigants included guidelines for future mass demonstration

7 Our clients included but were not limited to RayMing Chang, a first-year law student at
George Washington University who attended the demonstration as a neutral legal observer
affiliated with the National Lawyers Guild; Young Choi, Leanne Lee, and Christopher Zarconi
who attended the demonstration as student journalists or photojournalists affiliated with The
Hatchet, an independent newspaper at George Washington University.
8 Many of us involved in the World Bank, and civil libertarians, opposed Newsham’s appoint-
ment by Mayor Muriel Bowser due to his key role in one of the most costly and unconstitutional
mass arrests in the history of the city. See Peter Hermann & Ann Marimow, Mayor names Peter
Newsham as District’s police chief, The Washington Post (Feb. 23, 2017), https://www.
washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/newsham-to-be-named-dc-police-according-to-officials-
familiar-with-the-process/2017/02/23/a35f882c-d1b6-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html.
Newsham’s involvement in the current protest controversies can only be described as tragically
ironic. See Jonathan Turley, What Mayor Bowser will not state about real history of police abuse,
The Hill (June 9, 2020, 9 AM), https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/501772-what-mayor-
bowser-will-not-state-about-real-history-of-police-abuse.
9 Jonathan Turley, Un-American Arrests, The Washington Post, Oct. 6, 2002, at B8 (describing
the operation as a ‘‘trap and arrest’’ tactic).
20
operations based on litigation. The Chang plaintiffs did not agree to such a settle-
ment at the time because we felt that there had not been sufficient accountability
for the actions in Pershing Park and we were not satisfied that the guidelines were
sufficiently stringent or enforceable. One unresolved issue was the loss of key pieces
of evidence in the possession of the District. For example, the ‘‘running resume,’’
which contained a record of orders from top officials, was never found. District em-
ployees also allegedly gave false declarations and statements to the Court on the
existence of different records and their mysterious loss.
The litigation in all of the World Bank protest cases took roughly 14 years before
the Honorable Emmet Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia. In future mass demonstration events, the court reaffirmed in all of
these cases that the Park Police, as well as the MPD, could not enclose or otherwise
prevent demonstrators from leaving areas of unlawful gatherings. Warnings were to
be repeated three times with sufficient amplification and separation to allow both
officers and citizens to understand the order to disperse. Moreover, reasonable exits
would be available after warnings are given. The court further emphasized the need
for probable cause and the ability to identify the individuals who commit illegal acts
before arrests are made.
III. THE LAFAYETTE PARK LITIGATION

Applying these standards and controlling case law to the Lafayette Park operation
can hopefully clarify the legal and policy issues for Congress in addressing the two
most important questions (the clearing of the Park and the level of force in the oper-
ation). There is however a lingering question about why the clearing of the Park
was ordered in the first place. The motivation for such an operation is relevant but
not necessarily determinative. If the government has the authority to clear the park,
it can usually exercise that authority at its discretion. There would remain,
however, the question of the abuse of that discretion.
This controversy has long been framed by one overarching narrative that the park
was cleared for a photo op. Shortly after the Park was cleared, President Donald
Trump held a photo op outside of St. John’s Church. It was widely criticized and
I joined in that criticism. Even so, the more salient legal question is whether the
park was cleared for the purpose of holding the photo op, as alleged by many in
the media. The timing of the operation fueled such speculation. The operation
occurred shortly before the 7 p.m. curfew imposed by the city. At 6:29 p.m., Park
police and supporting agencies started to move toward the protest line. At around
6:35 p.m., the first deployment of pepper bullets or non-lethal devices were report-
edly used to push back the protesters. At 7:02 p.m., President Trump began his
walk to the Park and ultimately to the church. By 7:06 p.m., he was holding a bible
in his photo op and ultimately called over military and civilian leaders, including
Attorney General Barr for pictures.
Given that timeline, it is hardly surprising that people would believe that there
was a relationship between the plan for a photo op and the park operation shortly
before. It appears, however, that the hundreds of stories claiming that the Park was
cleared for the purpose of the photo op may be an example of how ‘‘correlation does
not imply causation.’’ In other words, the fact that two variables occur in close
sequence or association does not mean that one is caused by the other. I do not,
however, believe that the record is complete on this question. Assuming that the
current record is accurate, the original order to clear the park was not related to
the photo op. Yet, there remains an open question as to whether there was any last-
minute consideration of a delay in the clearing of the park and whether the photo
op was raised as part of such a decision. The D.C. National Guard’s arrival appears
to have delayed the operation past 5 p.m. and it is not known if anyone raised the
possibility of waiting until the following morning for the fence installation given the
size of the crowd in the park. The answer from Attorney General Barr is that he
had no such discussion on the photo op and the Park Police appears to have also
rejected that possibility. Rather, it appears that, once both the fencing material and
the guardsmen were in place, the operation proceeded as planned. Yet, it is a fact
that should be clearly established.
It should be obvious that the closing of the park for such a purpose would be as
disgraceful as it would be abusive. Indeed, despite knowing Attorney General Barr
for many years and testifying at his confirmation hearing in the Senate,10 I would

10 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, The Confirmation of William Pelham Barr As
Attorney General of the U.S. Supreme Court, Jan. 16, 2019 (testimony of Professor Jonathan
Turley), available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Turley%20Testimony.pdf.
21
immediately call for him to step down if this operation was ordered simply to give
President Trump a photo op in front of the church.
As the record stands, Attorney General Barr and the Park Police have repeatedly
denied that the plan to clear the park had anything to do with the photo op.11 To
the contrary, both assert that the plan came from the Park Police long before any
photo op was contemplated and Barr has insisted that he was unaware of any such
plan by the President. Acting Park Police Chief Gregory T. Monahan has given a
detailed account supporting the two reasons for the delay: the arrival of the fencing
and the arrival of the personnel needed to clear the park to install the fencing:
‘‘Following the violence that continued on May 30th where officers were hit
with bricks and assaulted, the USSS and USPP had initial discussions
regarding adjustments to the collective posture in Lafayette Park and
potentially obtaining fencing. As violence and destruction continued in
Washington, DC, putting both the public and law enforcement at risk, on
Sunday, May 31, USSS confirmed with USPP that the anti-scale fencing
would be procured and potentially delivered on Monday for installation
along H Street.
On Monday, June 1, USPP received confirmation from the USSS that the
fencing would be delivered during the day with the expectation of being in-
stalled in the evening. Both agencies concurred with a plan to clear H
Street to prevent a repeat of the protestors’ attacks and destruction that
occurred on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and to create a safe environment
for the fence to be installed. Pedestrians were to be moved from the imme-
diate area of the 1600 block of H Street to the following points: H Street
& Connecticut Avenue on the west, 16th & I Streets to the north, H St.
east of Vermont Avenue to the east.
The timing of implementing the plan was contingent upon having enough
resources on scene. Given that the majority of law enforcement personnel
did not report until later in the day, a late afternoon or early evening
operation was inevitable.’’
That account can be easily investigated by reviewing the records documenting the
delivery of the fencing and the arrival time of reinforcements.
The underlying violence cited as the reason for the plan can also be investigated.
Aside from video evidence, media accounts, and police reports, an objective record
is also available based on the injuries recorded on both sides in the Park during
the critical period of Saturday through Monday. The government has claimed over
100 Federal officers were injured around this time. The Park Police alone has
asserted that ‘‘51 members of the USPP were injured; of those, 11 were transported
to the hospital and released and three were admitted.’’ 12 The government has cited
repeated and confirmed incidents of arson and property destruction in and around
Lafayette Park. That would be a sufficient and lawful reason to close the park,
which has been closed in prior years to protect the park or the White House
complex.
The government has also offered a timeline that can be easily verified. Govern-
ment officials have stated that the plan was discussed two days in advance based
on ongoing violence in the park.13 Barr said that he personally witnessed such vio-
lence in the park and approved the plan. Barr also said that an order was sent out
to all agencies around 2 p.m. Again, he insists that the no one had discussed a visit
to the church or the Park by the President with him. Various media organizations
have reported sources confirming that the order was unrelated to the photo op out-
side of St. John’s. Absent new evidence that all of these individuals and agencies
are lying, the timeline of events would seem to support that the clearing of the Park

11 See Rob Hotakainen, Bernhardt defends Park Police actions, E&E News (June 8, 2020),

https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1063352991/search?keyword=park+police.
12 Statement From United States Park Police Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan, June 4, 2020,

available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/6_2_20_statement_from_acting_chief_monahan.
htm.
13 Aaron C. Davis, Carol D. Leonnig, Josh Dawsey, & Devlin Barrett, Officials familiar with

Lafayette Square confrontation challenge Trump administration claim of what drove aggressive
expulsion of protestors, The Washington Post (June 14, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
politics/officials-challenge-trump-administration-claim-of-what-drove-aggressiveexpulsion-of-
lafayette-square-protesters/2020/06/14/f2177e1e-acd4-11ea-a9d9-a81c1a491c52_story.html.
22
was not ordered to make way for the Trump photo op.14 Congress should certainly
examine whether these representations are true. The need to confirm the motivation
behind the operation is heightened by the abridgment of core free speech rights of
protesters who assembled to denounce police abuse. Courts have previously recog-
nized First Amendment claims in similar circumstances.15
Congress can play a critical role in resolving this question. However, even assum-
ing that the order to clear the park was unrelated to the photo op (as it currently
appears), it may still have been unlawful under the standards laid out in the World
Bank litigation and other controlling case law. It is to those questions that I now
turn.
A. The Clearing Of Lafayette Park
Any court reviewing the decision to clear Lafayette Park will start with several
established framing elements. First, the demonstration took place on Federal land
near an area (the White House) that is afforded particularly high levels of security.
Second, this was a demonstration that was proceeding without a permit or permis-
sion from the Federal Government. Third, there was a high level of injuries to
Federal officers and property destruction in the prior 24 hours. Those facts ordi-
narily give the government the discretion to order people from the Federal property
at its discretion. The actual dispersal actions at issue appear to have lasted less
than 30 minutes and did not result in arrests.16 On the current record, the order
approved Monday morning to clear the park to install fencing is likely to be viewed
as lawful and within the discretion of the government.
These facts, however, does not give the government carte blanche to clear the
park in any manner that it desires. As stated by the court in the Pershing Park
litigation, Park Police are supposed to give protesters a minimum of three audible
warnings that are both amplified and spaced apart. This is meant to give protesters
notice that they are in violation of the law and facing arrest. The Park Police must
also give reasonable avenues for the crowd to disperse in accordance with such in-
structions. In the World Bank litigation, it was confirmed that no warnings were
given and thus no probable cause was established for the arrests.17 The Court
enforced ‘‘the binding authority in this Circuit,’’ established by Dellums v. Powell,
that there is a ‘‘ ‘bright-line rule’ that groups with nonviolent or obstruction individ-
uals may not be arrested as a group ‘without fair warning or notice and the oppor-
tunity to come into compliance and disperse.’ ’’ 18
In this case, no arrests were made but there is still a requirement for warnings
under the guidelines. The Park Police has stated that it complied with these guide-
lines. Here is the official response:
‘‘On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret
Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At ap-
proximately 6:33 p.m., violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing
projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The
protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of
Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had
revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of
glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.
To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established
policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on
H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance
Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the
protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and
attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of

14 Dalton Bennett, Sarah Cahlan, Aaron C. Davis & Joyce Lee, The crackdown before Trump’s
photo op, The Washington Post (June 14, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/
2020/06/08/timeline-trump-church-photo-op/?arc404=true.
15 See, e.g., Dellums v. Powell, 566 F. 2d 167, 194 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (recognizing a cause of
action under the Constitution for the violation of the First Amendment rights of both individuals
demonstrating at the U.S. Capital and a Congressman addressing the demonstrators); Gibson
v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 (1987) (finding that
a claim against Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who impermissibly curbed plaintiff’s
protected speech was properly cognizable as a Bivens-type action under the First Amendment).
16 Reviewing various government and media timelines, it seems to me that, if (as likely) the
warnings were spaced apart by a couple minutes at a minimum, the time from the movement
of the line to the securing of the park was likely around 25 minutes. However, it seems unlikely
that it was much longer than 30 minutes.
17 Barham v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 573 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
18 Barham v. Ramsey, 338 F. Supp. 2d 48, 58 (D.D.C. 2004) (citing Dellums v. Powell 566 F.2d
167 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).
23
smoke canisters and pepper balls. USPP officers and other assisting law
enforcement partners did not use tear gas or OC Skat Shells to close the
area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.’’
Various media outlets have confirmed hearing one or more warnings 19 and some
members of the crowd were reportedly moving back. Moreover, the line of officers
did not appear to encircle the protesters so individuals could disperse. Congress
should confirm that the Park Police used a sufficient amplification system, like the
Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD),20 and that the warnings were sufficiently clear
and spaced apart. If that did occur in Lafayette Park, a court would likely hold that
the park could be cleared so long as at least three warnings were given and
protestors were provided an opportunity to disperse.
B. The Use of Pepper Balls and Other Means in The Operation
If the government is found to have told the truth about providing warnings and
a reasonable opportunity for dispersal, there remains the question of the means
used for the clearing operation. On this point, there is a factual dispute over the
use of what witnesses described as ‘‘tear gas.’’ Attorney General Barr has said that
he did not give the order to disperse the crowd but supported the decision made by
Park Police to use dispersal tactics if necessary. He and the Park Police insisted
that no tear gas or ‘‘OC Skat shells’’ were used in the operation as opposed to smoke
canisters and pepper balls, though a spokesman later said that pepper spray has
the same effect as tear gas.21 The debate has turned into a debate over the collo-
quial versus technical uses of the term ‘‘tear gas,’’ which may not be determinative
to our analysis. Officials insist that they did not deploy CN and CS (or 2-
chlorobenzalmalononitrile products), defined by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention as the ‘‘most common’’ forms of tear gases. The government refers to
‘‘pepper spray’’ as a ‘‘riot control agent.’’ One photo purportedly shows a clearly
labeled ‘‘Skat Shell OC.’’ 22 Oleoresin Capsicum refers to an irritant derived from
pepper plants but it has the same effect of what people associate with tear gas.
Congress should be able to confirm if the Park Police has misrepresented the
devices used in the operation. However, the agencies have continued to maintain,
including in communications with Congress, that no tear gas was used in the
operation.
For the purposes of legal analysis, the technical distinction may prove less impor-
tant to the conclusions. Courts often group the use of tear gas and pepper spray
together in court orders. The question is whether it was lawful to use non-lethal
devices ranging from possible smoke canisters to pepper balls to tear gas. That
question is likely to turn on the far more significant conflict in the accounts of the
violence level in the park. In reviewing video footage, there was clearly significant
violence in the park in the preceding days. On the day of the operation, some
protestors could be seen throwing projectiles at officers. However, the crowd
appeared largely peaceful, an impression reaffirmed by journalists in the crowd.
Courts tend to defer to law enforcement in circumstances where they face imme-
diate threats to their safety or the safety of others.23 The Supreme Court has

19 See, e.g., Karl Gelles, How police pushed aside protesters ahead of Trump’s controversial
church photo, USA Today (June 11, 2020, 1:15 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/
graphics/2020/06/05/george-floyd-protests-trump-church-photo-curfew-park/3127684001/.
20 LRAD is used by the Park Police and is an extremely powerful system for such warnings.
The LRAD 100X unit, for example, is 20–30 decibels louder than typical vehicle-based P.A.
systems that were once commonly used for dispersal orders. See https://genasys.com/
lrad_products/lrad-100x/. The LRAD system has a range that far exceeds the relatively small
space of the Park. However, canceling noise of protests can defeat even the best system, which
is why three warnings are required.
21 Rebecca Beitsch, U.S. Park Police Say It Was A Mistake To Say No Tear Gas Was Used
In Lafayette Park, The Hill (June 5, 2020, 3:11 PM), https://thehill.com/homenews/
administration/501372-us-park-police-say-it-was-a-mistake-to-say-no-tear-gas-was-used-in
(quoting Park Police spokesman Sgt. Eduardo Delgado as saying ‘‘I’m not going to say that
pepper balls don’t irritate you. I’m not saying it’s not a tear gas, but I’m just saying we use
a pepper ball that shoots a powder.’’).
22 Id.
23 See, e.g., Bell v. Irwin, 321 F.3d 637, 640 (7th Cir. 2003) (’’It is easy in retrospect to say
that officers should have waited, or should have used some other maneuver . . . but the fourth
amendment does not require second guessing if a reasonable officer making decisions under
uncertainty and the press of time would have perceived a need to act.’’); Mitchell v. City of
Indianapolis, No. 1:18-cv-00232-SEB-TAB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55274, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Mar.
31, 2020) (Under the circumstances, a reasonable officer could have also reasonably concluded
. . . that lesser uses of force, including physically removing [the suspect], would be both less
effective at securing compliance and more dangerous for the Officers.’’).
24
stressed that officers are often ‘‘forced to make split-second judgments [] in
circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.’’ 24 Under a fourth
amendment analysis, such use of force must be shown to be ‘‘objectively
unreasonable.’’ 25 Objective unreasonableness is in turn ‘‘judged from the perspective
of a reasonable officer on the scene,’’ in light of ‘‘the facts and circumstances of each
particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect
poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he
is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.’’ 26
The Graham analysis has been applied to the use of non-lethal devices by police.
For example, in Fogarty v. Gallegos, the Tenth Circuit found such use to be
unreasonable, noting:
‘‘With respect to the use of pepper balls and tear gas, we acknowledge that
our precedential opinions have not directly addressed the Fourth Amend-
ment implications of what defendants call ‘less lethal’ munitions. Neverthe-
less, a reasonable officer would have been on notice that the Graham
inquiry applies to the use of these methods just as with any other type of
pain-inflicting compliance technique. We find it persuasive that, in prior
cases, we have assumed that the use of mace and pepper spray could
constitute excessive force.’’ 27
An important distinction comes into play at this point in the analysis. In this
case, the officers were using the force to disperse a crowd rather than deter or
control an individual. Attorney General Barr has stated that the Park Police made
this decision but that they had the authority to do so when faced with violent oppo-
sition. In videos, the crowd as a whole appears in flux with some responding to the
dispersal order and others not responding, including a few seen resisting or ob-
structing the advancing line of officers.
There are comparatively few cases on the use of pepper spray to disperse crowds
than there are individual cases of alleged excessive use of force. Some cases support
the claim of the journalists in this case. In reviewing the attack on Amelia Brace
and her colleagues at Seven Network, I cannot see any conceivable justification for
the police conduct. This is not the first such attack on journalists. A similar case
was litigated recently in Quraishi v. St. Charles Cty., where police fired rubber bul-
lets and tear gas at Al Jazeera America journalists reporting on the events in
Ferguson on August 13, 2014. The court ruled that it would obviously be unreason-
able for the police to deploy tear gas against non-violent individuals who are also
not committing a crime.28 Likewise, prior cases have distinguished between people
who are agitating and those observing or recording scenes. In Jones v. City of
Minneapolis, the district court granted summary judgment against plaintiffs’ claims
of excessive force when the officers used mace on a crowd because the crowd ‘‘[tried]
to restrict their movement,’’ someone throw a ‘‘glass of booze’’ in one officer’s face,
and the police believed they were responding to an officer in distress.29 However,
the court refused to dismiss the claims of a videographer who was individually
assaulted by police.30 Courts have also refused to dismiss cases as categorically
barred under immunity arguments in such cases.31
However, the use of pepper spray is subject to a reasonableness standard based
on the totality of the circumstances in a given case, such as the use of pepper balls
fired into crowds.32 Courts have upheld the use of forms of gas or pepper sprays
to generally repel or disperse unruly crowds.33

24 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989).
25 Id. at 397.
26 Id. at 396.
27 Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1161 (10th Cir. 2008).
28 Quraishi v. St. Charles Cty., No. 4:16-CV-1320 NAB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97254, at
*1327–28 (E.D. Mo. June 10, 2019).
29 Jones v. City of Minneapolis, No. 04–4856 (DWF/AJB), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56280, at
*10–11 (D. Minn. Aug. 1, 2007), aff’d 337 F. App’x 596 (8th Cir. 2009).
30 Id. at *27–28.
31 See, e.g., Lamb v. City of Decatur, 947 F. Supp. 1261 (C.D. Ill. 1996) (rejecting qualified
immunity claims under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983); Nelson v. City of Davis, 2012 WL 2821931 (9th
Cir. 2012).
32 See, e.g., Buck v. City of Albuquerque, 549 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2008).
33 See, e.g., Dalrymple v. United States, 460 F.3d 1318, 1327–28 (11th Cir. 2006) (‘‘Based on
these undisputed findings of fact, we agree with the district court that [the demonstrator surg-
ing toward the front of the barricade while throwing objects including rocks, bottles, a stool, and
coolers at the agents] justified the use of either pepper spray or tear gas and was objectively
reasonable under the circumstances.’’); Young v. Akal, 985 F. Supp. 2d 785, 803 (W.D. La. 2013)
(‘‘Given the crowd’s refusal to adhere to the officers’ warnings [over 4 hours], this Court
25
There are cases, including some recent holdings, where courts reject the use of
such devices against an entire demonstration as opposed to individual violent dem-
onstrators. Courts have held that the proper response to violent individuals is to
arrest those individuals rather than to generally deploy tear gas or other irritants.
This is particularly the case with regard to dispersing crowds engaged in free speech
activities. In Collins v. Jordan, the Ninth Circuit held ‘‘the proper response to
potential and actual violence is for the government to ensure an adequate police
presence, and to arrest those who actually engage in such conduct, rather than to
suppress legitimate First Amendment conduct as a prophylactic measure.’’ 34 Pepper
ball devices have been specifically flagged as causing added risks in crowded condi-
tions. In Nelson v. City of Davis, the Ninth Circuit observed:
‘‘The dual nature of the pepperball projectile creates additional risks not
present with a strictly projectile object . . . [n]onetheless, even if consid-
ered as a purely projectile object, the officers in this case were aware that
pepperballs fired from their guns could, as in this instance, cause substan-
tial harm, and that there was a substantial risk of hitting individuals in
vulnerable areas given the inability to accurately target their weapons at
the distance at which they fired them . . . [A] reasonable officer would
have known that firing projectiles, including pepperballs, in the direction
of individuals suspected of, at most, minor crimes, who posed no threat to
the officers or others, and who engaged in only passive resistance, was
unreasonable.’’ 35
Recently, a Seattle court banned the use of tear gas, despite evidence from police
of ‘‘significant arson events, assaults on civilians and officers, as well as wide-spread
looting and property destruction.’’ 36 The Court issued the temporary restraining
order even though it acknowledged that ‘‘This, no doubt, poses a serious threat to
officer life and safety.’’ The Seattle case notably included both tear gas and pepper
spray within its injunction. The court defined the scope of the injunction as:
‘‘(1) any chemical irritant such as and including CS Gas (‘‘tear gas’’) and
OC spray (‘‘pepper spray’’) and (2) any projectile such as and including
flash-bang grenades, ‘‘pepper balls,’’ ‘‘blast balls,’’ rubber bullets, and foam-
tip projectiles. This Order does not preclude individual officers from taking
necessary, reasonable, proportional, and targeted action to protect against
a specific imminent threat of physical harm to themselves or identifiable
others or to respond to specific acts of violence or destruction of property.
Further, tear gas may be used only if (a) efforts to subdue a threat by using
alternative crowd measures, including pepper spray, as permitted by this
paragraph, have been exhausted and ineffective and (b) SPD’s Chief of
Police has determined that use of tear gas is the only reasonable alter-
native available.’’
Likewise, in another recent decision, a Federal district court rejected the use of
tear gas even when police submitted evidence of ‘‘the breaking of the windows of
the Justice Center and other buildings, setting off fireworks, property destruction,
looting, setting fires in the Justice Center and other areas of downtown, throwing
and launching deadly projectiles at the police, and attempting to dismantle a fence
put up to protect the Justice Center.’’ 37 The court order that ‘‘[Portland Police
Bureau] be restricted from using tear gas or its equivalent except as provided by
its own rules generally.38 In addition, tear gas use was limited to situations in
which the lives or safety of the public or the police are at risk, including the lives
and safety of ‘‘those housed at the Justice Center.’’ 39 It expressly barred the use
of ‘‘[t]ear gas . . . to disperse crowds where there is no or little risk of injury.’’ 40
A similar order was imposed in Denver where the court enjoined the use of tear
gas and pepper spray after seeing videotapes ‘‘in which officers used pepper-spray
on individual demonstrators who appeared to be standing peacefully, some of whom
were speaking to or yelling at officers, none of whom appeared to be engaging in

concludes the deputies acted within their authority to disperse the crowd with tear gas in order
to unblock the streets and remove the hazards to others.’’).
34 Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1372 (9th Cir. 1996).
35 Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867, 885–86 (9th Cir. 2012).
36 Black Lives Matter v. City of Seattle, 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103346, at
*9 (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2020).
37 Don’t Shoot Portland v. City of Portland, No. 3:20-cv-00917-HZ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
100801, at *11–12 (D. Or. June 9, 2020).
38 Id. at *13.
39 Id.
40 Id.
26
violence or destructive behavior.’’ 41 The Court however did allow the use of tear gas
and pepper spray when a senior officer gives such an order ‘‘in response to specific
acts of violence or destruction of property that the command officer has personally
witnessed.’’ The court specifically allows for such use ‘‘after an order to disperse is
issued’’ and ‘‘[a]ny and all orders to disperse must be followed with adequate time
for the intended audience to comply, and officers must leave room for safe egress.’’
The Park Police has already argued that such criteria were fulfilled.
Attorney General Barr has stated that he approved the plan but did not give
specific or ‘‘tactical’’ dispersal orders, including the use of the pepper balls.42 The
position of the Park Police is that officers on the scene made these decisions based
on specific resistance and not a general use of non-lethal agents. The Park Police
said that smoke canisters and pepper balls were used when officers reported pro-
testers grabbing their weapons and throwing projectiles at them. In other words, the
position of the government is likely to be that the use of the agents was defensive
and not offensive in this circumstance. That is challenged by witnesses and journal-
ists who allege virtually random use of pepper balls and canisters.
The reasonableness of that response is likely to turn on the record now being
created in this and other forums. The government has produced reports of a high
degree of injuries, including hospitalizations, of Federal officers in this area. It can
also show that serious property damage, including arson, had already taken place
just the day before in the Park. It can also show that property damage has contin-
ued with the defacing and attempted destruction of the iconic Andrew Jackson
statue in Lafayette Park just a few days ago.43 The St. John’s Church itself was
again vandalized and, reportedly with the support of the church, was also cordoned
off with the same fencing erected around Lafayette Park to protect it against further
damage.44 Moreover, there are statements from the Attorney General and high-
ranking Federal officials that on the day of the clearing, officers were injured and
one may have been hospitalized before the decision to clear the park. The fact is
that the record of law enforcement injuries, arson, and property damage contradict
a claim of entirely peaceful protests on that weekend or Monday night, including
media reports.45
A glimpse at the likely government record for trial was supplied by Department
of the Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who has described the prior two days
leading to the clearing of the Park. That includes violence on the Saturday before
the arson at St. John’s and other damage on Sunday:
‘‘Beginning on Saturday, May 30, 2020, the USPP were under a state of
siege, and routinely subject to attack by violent crowds. The incidents are
numerous and include USPP officers having their police cars vandalized;
being subject to bombardment by lighted flares, Molotov cocktails, rocks,
bricks, bottles and other projectiles; and physical assault so violent that to
date over 50 area law enforcement officers have been injured . . . [to]
include[] one USPP officer so violently attacked that he required emergency
surgery.’’ 46
The current record would make it unlikely that the court would treat these dem-
onstrations as entirely peaceful. However, the real significance of this information

41 Abay v. City of Denver, No. 20-cv-01616-RBJ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99523, at *3 (D. Colo.
June 5, 2020).
42 Tal Axelrod, Barr says he didn’t give ‘tactical command’ to clear Lafayette protesters, The
Hill (June 5, 2020, 10:33 PM), https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/501448-barr-says-he-
didnt-give-tactical-command-to-clear-lafayette-protester.
43 Fredrick Kiunkle, Susan, Svrluga, & Justin Jouvenal, Police thwart attempt by protestors
to topple statue of Andrew Jackson near White House, The Washington Post (June 23, 2020),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-police-and-protesters-square-off-near-
whitehouse/2020/06/22/cec8c88c-b4c7-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html. Of course, the Jackson
incident cuts both ways. It shows that these are not purely peaceful demonstrations, but it also
shows that the Federal officers were able to regain control of the area without the use of the
prior level of force. The Park Police is likely to argue that it did not encounter the same level
of resistance around the Jackson statue.
44 Egan Millard, St. John’s church in Washington Vandalized Again, Episcopal News Service
(June 23, 2020), https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2020/06/23/st-johns-church-in-washington-
vandalized-again/.
45 Marissa J. Lang, Michael E. Miller, Hannah Natanson & Peter Jamison, Tensions between
police and protesters flares in front of the White House before vandalism and sporadic fires, The
Washington Post (May 31, 2020, 2:32 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/
trump-accuses-dc-mayor-of-refusing-to-help-secret-service-at-white-house-demonstration-over-
killing-of-george-floyd/2020/05/30/9bb59212-a276-11ea-9590-1858a893bd59_story.html.
46 Letter from David Bernhardt, Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, to Rep. Raúl Grijalva,
Chair, H. Comm. on Nat. Res. (June 5, 2020).
27
will only be established when we look at the specific pattern of injuries over the
course of the three days and particularly those occurring on Monday before the
decision to order the operation to move forward with the clearing of the Park.
C. Summary
There are significant and troubling issues to be addressed over the operation at
Lafayette Park. If we are to effectively address those issues, we need to speak frank-
ly about the record as it stands today, particularly in terms of how a court might
view these facts. First, the widespread claim that the Park was cleared for the
Trump photo op is currently unsupported and contradicted by the available
evidence. Second, it does not appear that tear gas was employed on protesters,
though it has been confirmed that pepper balls with similar effects were used.
Third, it is not true that the protests in the Lafayette Park were entirely peaceful.
There was extensive property damage, serious arson crimes, and continuing attacks
on Federal law enforcement on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Finally, it is also
true that most of the protestors in the Park on Monday evening were peaceful. Our
understanding of these facts may of course change as a result of this and other in-
vestigations. Yet, it is important to focus on what we know and do not know in ad-
dressing legal and policy questions going forward.
A court is likely to find that a plan to close off the park submitted on Sunday
night and approved Monday morning was within the legal discretion of the govern-
ment. It is also likely to recognize that there was some exigency in the operation
to install the fencing due to the proximity to the White House. Given that mixed
record, a constitutional challenge to the decision to clear the park is unlikely to
succeed absent new countervailing evidence. A challenge to the use of pepper balls
as a general means for crowd dispersal could be a closer issue, but might still favor
the Park Police absent additional information on the issues discussed above. From
what I can deduce from video footage and timelines, the actual clearing maneuver
(from the line movement to the establishment of a perimeter line) in the park lasted
less than 30 minutes with no arrests. A court could (as I do) have objections to the
use of the pepper balls and aggressive tactics but still find that this was within the
realm of reasonable discretion of the officers on the scene.
As this and other committees go forward, I would strongly encourage an effort to
secure some of the information highlighted in this testimony. This includes, but is
not limited to: (1) all emails, memoranda, and other records of the planning to clear
the park, including any discussion on Monday for delaying the operation to the fol-
lowing morning; (2) the ‘‘running resume’’ or other record of radio calls and orders
given around the Park from Saturday through Monday; (3) the specific PA system
or technology used to convey the three warnings and any video or audio tapes of
the warnings showing their range and spacing; (4) the equipment record of the exact
number of canisters, pepper ball, and other material used to clear the Park; (5) the
record of all injuries reported and treated in the park for both law enforcement and
non-law enforcement; (6) all property damage and criminal reports filed on those
three days in and around the Park; (7) all pictures, videotapes, body camera record-
ings, and other photographic records on the points of contact between the advancing
line of officers and protests during the clearing operation, including aerial footages
and rooftop surveillance; (8) all reports from officers and other personnel on the inci-
dents of attacks on or near officers and executive officials; (9) any memoranda of
understanding (MOUs) with cooperating non-USPP units on the operation and in-
structions on the operation, including a full list of all non-USPP forces present in
the park during those three days; and (10) any of the above information or material
held by other cooperating non-USPP units or forces, including whether the deploy-
ment of pepper balls or smoke canisters were the actions of non-USPP personnel.
Many of us were upset by what happened on June 1, 2020, so it can be difficult
to even acknowledge such likely judicial findings on the existing record. This is sim-
ply what we know now. Yet, what we know should be enough to focus people of good
faith on both the need for further inquiry and possible reforms. There remains the
question of how the park was cleared and specifically the aggressive response of the
Park Police. We also know that many peaceful protesters and journalists were
placed in an extremely dangerous situation by the use of smoke canisters and
pepper balls to disperse a crowd that already appeared to be moving back. At a min-
imum, the rapid advancement of the police line raises concerns over execution of the
order when further delay might have allowed more people to move out of the area.
Few courts would look kindly on such rapid escalation of force by law enforcement
in the middle of a protest over police abuse.
28
IV. CONCLUSION

The foregoing legal analysis may help answer whether the government acted
unconstitutionally in either the clearing of Lafayette Park or the means used to
carry out that objective. I will end by again stressing that such analysis does not
answer the equally important question of whether that decision was the right one.
I do not believe the decision to disperse the crowd that night was right under these
circumstances, notwithstanding the authority to clear to the Park. In addition to a
rapid advancement of the police line, the move before the curfew only magnified the
confusion for the crowd. The police should have waited until after 7 p.m. to give peo-
ple a chance to move out of the park. The fact that the Park does not appear to
have been cleared for a photo op does not validate the decision to move forward that
evening in such a relatively encapsulated period. The government’s claim that they
cleared the park when necessary due to the late arrival of fencing and additional
law enforcement officers has not been contradicted. Yet, it has also not been ade-
quately explained why that delay did not prompt a decision to delay clearing the
park until curfew or even until the morning so as to avoid direct confrontation with
such a large crowd. The government could have intervened if violence increased or
further property damage occurred that evening. The record seems to suggest that
the operation was simply delayed and immediately moved forward once resources
were in place, without considering the timing and conditions. Even then, the line
might have been able to move forward without the use of the deployment of the
smoke canisters and pepper balls. As a result, civilians and law enforcement officers
have suffered harm. Having the authority to clear the park does not mean that such
authority was used wisely or correctly.
Various investigations are now occurring in both the legislative and executive
branches into this controversy. Federal cases have been filed that will also pursue
discovery on the underlying decisions made in Lafayette Park. All of those efforts
to get a full record are essential to guarantee full accountability, which all parties
should favor.
Once again, thank you for the honor of appearing before you to discuss these
important issues. I am happy to answer any questions that you might have on the
underlying legal standards that apply to this controversy.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIR GRIJALVA TO JONATHAN TURLEY,
SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Question 1. Your written and oral testimony relied heavily on the presumed
veracity of government assertions regarding the June 1, 2020, Lafayette Square inci-
dent, such as statements describing the reasoning and timing of the perimeter expan-
sion, the number of officers injured in the surrounding days (and the nature and
cause of those injuries), and the audibility of the government’s alleged warnings to
the protesters. Even the press reports you cite to support some of your factual
assumptions rely on uncorroborated government/law enforcement claims.
1a. Do you have any objective supporting evidence of any of these government
assertions, and if not, will you amend your assessment of their veracity, consistent
with your calls for investigation of the actual facts?
Answer. Chairman Grijalva, thank you for your question on my June 29, 2020
testimony.
I do indeed cite factual representations made by both sides in the controversy over
the clearing of the area around Lafayette Park on June 1, 2020. The purpose of
those media statements and reports is not to assume the veracity of either side.
Rather, my testimony states that facts that have been stated in the media as estab-
lished (like the decision to clear the area to allow for the Trump photo op in front
of the church) are in fact contested and not established. Rather than assume that
these representations are true, I repeatedly encouraged the Committee to inves-
tigate the allegations and supplied detailed suggestions on how to obtain informa-
tion in such a mass demonstration case. I specifically called for confirming that the
plan and order to clear the area was unrelated to the photo op. Yet, I also stated
that ‘‘even assuming that the order to clear the park was unrelated to the photo
op (as it currently appears), it may still have been unlawful under the standards
laid out in the World Bank litigation and other controlling case law.’’
The thrust of the testimony is that Congress (and the media) should not act on
assumed facts, particularly when the government has publicly stated that those
assumptions are incorrect. The truth is not especially difficult to determine if the
29
Committee wants to do so. The records that I cite in my testimony will conclusively
establish which side is telling the truth on allegations like the clearing of the area
to allow the photo op. I would be happy to comment on any such evidence that you
acquire in your inquiry but I, again, strongly encourage you to pursue the
documents and evidence referenced in my testimony.
What we know is still limited by the absence of discovery or new documents. The
government has supplied details on when the plan was created and when it was
approved. Those statements can now be fully confirmed or refuted by this inquiry.
Thus, I will repeat what I stated in my testimony to the Committee:
‘‘Yet, what we know should be enough to focus people of good faith on both
the need for further inquiry and possible reforms. There remains the ques-
tion of how the park was cleared and specifically the aggressive response
of the Park Police. We also know that many peaceful protesters and jour-
nalists were placed in an extremely dangerous situation by the use of
smoke canisters and pepper balls to disperse a crowd that already appeared
to be moving back. At a minimum, the rapid advancement of the police line
raises concerns over execution of the order when further delay might have
allowed more people to move out of the area. Few courts would look kindly
on such rapid escalation of force by law enforcement in the middle of a
protest over police abuse.’’
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your additional question and I wish
to thank the Committee for allowing me to participate in his important inquiry into
the events at Lafayette Park.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
And let me now recognize our last witness, the Right Reverend
Mariann Budde, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington.
Reverend Bishop, the time is yours. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF MARIANN BUDDE, BISHOP, EPISCOPAL
DIOCESE OF WASHINGTON
Rev. BUDDE. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member
Bishop, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the oppor-
tunity to testify today. As you said, my name is Mariann Budde.
I serve as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, which
counts among its parishes St. John’s, Lafayette Square.
I appear today to express my deep concern about the events of
June 1, when our government resorted to acts of violence against
peaceful protesters, and prevented clergy and lay members of the
church from exercising their ministry on the grounds of St. John’s.
We, in the Episcopal Church, believe that the issues of racial and
social justice are core tenants of the Christian faith. The Bible
teaches that all human beings are created in the likeness and
image of God. As children of God, all are to be treated with equal
dignity and respect.
Embedded in our Nation’s history and institutions is the shame-
ful abuse of Black Americans and other persons of color justified
by the sinful notion of white supremacy, that whiteness is the
human standard from which all other human beings deviate and
are somehow less human, less worthy of equal treatment. And as
Christians, we are called by God to rectify that injustice. Our faith
compels us to join those around the country and the globe who
have engaged in non-violent protest to call for an end to racist poli-
cies and practices, and to say clearly with one voice that Black
Lives Matter.
30

Now, for Episcopalians, the issue of racial justice is a shameful
part of our history, for we were once the church of slave holders.
And like the White House, St. John’s Lafayette Square was built
with enslaved labor. Yet, throughout our history, our noblest mem-
bers have fought for the liberation of the enslaved, full human and
civil rights for all people, and to be a church that welcomes all. We
have and continue to struggle to come to terms with our racist past
and legacy and that of American society as a whole. We strive to
be a voice for peace and the fundamental dignity of all human
beings, knowing that at our most faithful we stand on the side of
justice.
We stand today at this critical moment. When non-violent
protesters began to gather at Lafayette Square, as a church, we de-
cided to be present, to add our voice to the call for justice, to stand
with and minister to all other peaceful protesters gathered there.
This was, and is, for us an act of faith.
Our ministry was suddenly and forcefully interrupted by govern-
ment officials: first on June 1, when the government violently
cleared protesters and clergy alike from the area surrounding St.
John’s; and then, in coming days, when the government denied us
access to the church to conduct a vigil.
These actions and, in particular, the use of violence against
peaceful protesters, were antithetical to the teachings of the Bible
and what we stand for as a church. When our government
announced its intention to use military force against American
citizens in the Rose Garden that day, it struck me as an escalation
of violence that could cause unnecessary suffering. Then, to see the
government carry out that threat moments later, I was horrified.
It was dehumanizing and in violation of the protesters’ rights to be
in that space.
Then, when the President held up a Bible outside our church, as
if to claim the mantle of spiritual authority over what had just
transpired, I knew that I had to speak. Nowhere does the Bible
condone the use of violence against the innocent, especially those
who are standing up for justice. It was a misappropriation of scrip-
ture, and a usurpation of our sacred space.
I raise these issues to call attention to an abuse of power on the
part of our government, which is also at the heart of the larger
struggle for racial justice. While it is true there have been in-
stances of vandalism at St. John’s in recent weeks, we cannot let
those events and others overshadow the fundamental cause of
justice.
People across our Nation are united as never before in recog-
nizing that the way we police our communities needs to change.
The way we treat people of color in this country needs to change.
Yes, we care deeply about our churches as buildings. But in the
end, buildings can be rebuilt, windows can be replaced, pillars can
be repainted. We can never bring back the lives that have been lost
due to horrific police violence.
These deaths are the true outrage. George Floyd, Breonna
Taylor, Elijah McClain, and so many more. I don’t want anything
that has happened at St. John’s, either before the protests or in the
weeks since, to distract us from that fact. Black lives matter, and
our faith compels us to seek equal justice for all people.
31

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Reverend Budde follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RIGHT REVEREND MARIANN BUDDE, BISHOP OF THE
EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF WASHINGTON
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Mariann Budde. I serve
as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and as the spiritual leader of the
Episcopal Church in Washington DC, which counts among its parishes St. John’s
Episcopal Church in Lafayette Square. I appear today to express my deep concern
about the events of June 1, 2020, when our government resorted to acts of violence
against peaceful protesters and prevented clergy and lay members of the Church
from exercising their ministry on the St. John’s grounds and in surrounding areas.
We, in the Episcopal Church, believe that the issues of racial and social justice
are core tenets of the Christian faith. The Bible teaches that all human beings are
created in the likeness and image of God. As children of God, all must be treated
with equal dignity and respect. Embedded in our Nation’s history and institutions
is the shameful abuse of Black Americans and other persons of color justified by the
sinful notion of white supremacy—that whiteness is the human standard from
which all other human beings deviate or are deemed less than human, less worthy
of equal treatment as the beloved children of God that they are. As Christians, we
are called by God to rectify that injustice. Our faith compels us to join the hundreds
of thousands of people across the country and around the globe who have engaged
in non-violent protests to call for an end to racist policies and practices, and to say
clearly, with one voice, that Black Lives Matter.
For Episcopalians, the issue of racial justice is a shameful part of our history, for
we were once the church of slave holders. St. John’s Lafayette Square was built
with enslaved labor. Yet, throughout our history, our noblest members have fought
for the liberation and full inclusion of all people. We have and continue to struggle
to come to terms with our racist past and legacy, and that of American society as
a whole. As we grapple in these times with this complicated history, we strive to
be a voice for peace and the fundamental dignity of all humans, knowing that, at
our most faithful moments, we have stood on the side of justice.
And so we stand today, at this critical moment. When non-violent protestors
began to gather at Lafayette Square, as a Church, we decided to establish a pres-
ence at St. John’s Lafayette Square to add our voice to the call for justice and to
stand with and minister to all other peaceful protestors gathered there. This was,
and is, for us an act of faith. But our ministry was suddenly and forcefully inter-
rupted by government officials—first on June 1, when the government violently
cleared protestors and clergy alike from the area surrounding St. John’s Lafayette
Square, and then in the coming days, when the government denied us access to the
church to conduct a vigil.
These actions, and in particular the use of violence against peaceful protesters,
were antithetical to the teachings of the Bible and what we stand for as a Church.
When our government announced its intention to use military force against
American citizens in the Rose Garden that day, it struck me as an escalation of vio-
lence that could cause unnecessary human suffering. Then to see the government
carry out that threat moments later—tear gassing Americans engaged in peaceful
protests—I was horrified. It was dehumanizing, and in violation of the protestors’
right to be in that space. Then, when the President held up a Bible outside of our
church, as if to claim the mantle of spiritual authority over what just transpired,
I knew that I had to speak out. Nowhere does the Bible condone the use of violence
against the innocent, especially those who are standing up for justice. This was a
misappropriation of scripture, and a usurpation of our sacred space.
I raise these issues to call attention to an abuse of power on the part of our
government. While it is true that there have been instances of vandalism at St.
John’s in recent weeks, we will not let these events and others overshadow the fun-
damental cause of justice. Never before in the history of this country have we been
so united in recognizing that the way we police our communities needs to change.
The way we treat people of color in this country needs to change. It would be unfor-
givable to allow this moment to slip away because our building was damaged. We
care deeply about our churches—many of which are older than our Nation itself.
But in the end, buildings can be re-built. Windows can be replaced. Pillars can be
re-painted. We can never bring back the lives that have been lost due to senseless
police violence. George Floyd. Breonna Taylor. Elijah McClain. And so many others.
32
Their deaths are the true outrage, and I don’t want anything that has happened
at St. John’s—either before the protests or in the weeks since—to distract us from
that fact. Black Lives Matter, and our faith compels us to seek equal justice for all
people.
I look forward to answering your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all for the testimony. Let me now
turn to the questions and recognize Mr. Huffman for any questions
he might have.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
so much to the witnesses for a great testimony. I want to begin by
taking issue, respectfully, with the Ranking Member’s mocking of
the title of this hearing. The hearing is titled, ‘‘The U.S. Park
Police Attack on Peaceful Protesters at Lafayette Square.’’ That is
not dramatization; that is fact. That is exactly what happened.
And if there was a shred of evidence to support the gaslighting
counter-narrative that we have heard from this Administration, I
would think that the gentleman across the aisle would have called
a fact witness to offer that narrative. We have a very thoughtful
explanation of the legal framework from Professor Turley.
Thank you, Professor, for that. We didn’t get any fact witnesses
to support this gaslighting. And I think that speaks volumes.
Before we get into further questions, I want to express my
disappointment that, at least so far, our friends across the aisle
apparently no longer have the same concern about heavy-handed
police tactics, militarization, and other police abuse by Department
of the Interior agencies, concerns they used to speak passionately
about when Barack Obama was President. Apparently those con-
cerns disappeared when Donald Trump became President.
But some of us are old enough to remember the hearings that the
Republican Majority held in 2013 and 2014 entitled—and now we
are talking about those incendiary titles we used to see—entitled,
‘‘Threats, Intimidation, and Bullying by Federal Land Managing
Agencies.’’
And at the time, one of our Republican colleagues described, and
I quote, ‘‘These type of very heavy-handed, SWAT-like teams with
non-DoJ agencies being used as the tip of the spear for Federal law
enforcement,’’ he called it ‘‘heavy handed, intimidating to the
American people,’’ and said it threatened the trust that is so impor-
tant between American citizens and their government. That was
2014, after an all-White armed militia gathered to stop Federal
land agency law enforcement from confiscating Cliven Bundy’s
cattle, which he had been illegally grazing for 20 years.
Law enforcement backed down because of that heavily armed
militia protesting. But at the time, and then again in 2016, during
the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in
Oregon by a similar group, an angry White, heavily armed group
of protesters, we heard a very different tune about Federal policing
tactics from congressional Republicans.
Some of them introduced legislation to eliminate law enforce-
ment authorities from the BLM and the Forest Service on the
grounds that these agencies were, ‘‘armed to the teeth.’’ They
described armed police at Department of the Interior agencies as,
‘‘dangerous, unnecessary, and sending the wrong message.’’
33

Some of our Republican colleagues on this Committee were co-
sponsors of that bill. Talk about defund the police. Republicans in
Congress were eager to do exactly that to make sure that folks like
Cliven Bundy could continue breaking the law with impunity.
Fast forward to the peaceful protests for racial justice at
Lafayette Square. Peaceful, unarmed protesters were met with a
DOI police response far more aggressive, far more militarized, and
far less necessary than anything used against those White militias
in 2014 and 2016.
As our witnesses confirm, as any objective person viewing the
video knows, heavily armed U.S. Park Police carried out orders to
use chemical agents and other forceful means to clear protesters so
that Donald Trump could have a weird photo op with someone’s
Bible. Most people would consider this heavy handed, intimidating,
dangerous, unnecessary, sending the wrong message, all those
exact terms that our Republican colleagues used to describe police
tactics against White militias when they were defending
lawbreaking ranchers in 2014 and 2016.
I am disappointed that we don’t have the same level of concern
from our colleagues across the aisle. But we haven’t heard from
many of them, so maybe we will hear it. It is important that they
not be silent or openly supportive of this heavy-handed, militarized
police abuse directed at Black people, and those supporting them,
who were peacefully protesting for racial justice.
What is so different about the situation today? The President,
the people protesting, and their cause. For our witnesses today,
please know there are many Members of Congress and people
across this country who stand with you and support your rights to
protest injustice. This should not have happened to you. And we
are committed to exercising our oversight authority, even if some
of our colleagues are now sanguine, content with their double
standard, standing with President Trump to the bitter end.
I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mr.
McClintock.
Sir, the time is yours.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we need to
make a distinction between the right to peaceable assembly, which
is sacred and protected under our First Amendment, and violence,
arson, and vandalism, which is not so protected. I think we have
a video of damage done in Washington, DC in the days leading up
to this. I wonder if we could play that.
[Video shown.]
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. These were the events leading up to the
incident on June 1. The Secretary of the Interior described the situ-
ation they were facing thusly: Beginning on Saturday, May 30,
2020, the U.S. Park Police were under a state of siege, and
routinely subject to attack by violent crowds.
The incidents are numerous, and include U.S. Park Police
officers having their police cars vandalized, being subject to bom-
bardment by lighted flares, Molotov cocktails, rocks, bricks, bottles,
and other projectiles, and physical assault so violent that, to date,
over 50 area law enforcement officers have been injured, including
34

one U.S. Park Police officer so violently attacked that he required
emergency surgery.
To describe what happened in Washington, DC as ‘‘mostly peace-
ful protests,’’ I think, is a lot like describing Scott Peterson as a
‘‘mostly faithful husband,’’ or Al Capone is a ‘‘mostly law abiding
businessman.’’
Professor Turley, what are the responsibilities of peaceful
protesters when a protest turns violent?
Mr. TURLEY. Thank you, Congressman. The way that the courts
have addressed this is that they recognize that these protests are,
in fact, the display of a First Amendment right: free speech. How-
ever, the courts have said that areas can be cleared for
unpermitted demonstrations if warnings are given, and they are
not heeded, as long as the demonstrators have an avenue by which
to exit, which actually didn’t occur——
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, let me ask you this. What are the
responsibilities of truly peaceful protesters when an assembly has
been declared unlawful?
Mr. TURLEY. At that point, when they are asked to leave an area,
they are required by law to leave. And that doesn’t go to the means
by which you can move them, but it certainly means that the order
itself to disperse is likely to be held as lawful. And courts also do
allow for that perimeter to be pushed back if you are assembling
something like a fence. How far that parameter should be estab-
lished the courts look at. They often look at—for example, the Park
Police often establish the parameters——
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And that would be a legal question to be
examined by the courts. What course of action would you
recommend to Congress?
Mr. TURLEY. I am sorry, sir?
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What recommendation would you make to
Congress?
Mr. TURLEY. I think that Congress needs to ask a number of
questions. I have listed 10 that are standard questions that are
used in protest cases, including the essential evidence that we
often look at—things like running resumes to determine what
orders were given and when. I encourage Congress to do that.
They also should take a look—and the court will—at the level of
damage and violence on the other side. The government has argued
that 100 officers in the area had been injured, and the Park Police
say that 50 of their own officers had been injured. That is a very
high level of injury rate for law enforcement.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me ask the Chairman of the
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Lowenthal.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank all
the witnesses for attending, taking their time to share their experi-
ences while they were there.
You know, before I came to Congress and was an elected official,
I worked as a community organizer and also as an activist in my
community. And I know that there is a certain amount of risk that
is always involved when you stand up for what you believe is right,
for protesting, for speaking out.
My question is to each of the panelists. First to Mr. McDonald.
35

Why did you feel that it was worth that risk to be at Lafayette
Square that day? And why was it important for you to be there?
Mr. MCDONALD. Well, George Floyd was just 46, 47 years old. I
am 39. I will be 40 this year. So, I believe him dying—it affected
my life. So, I just wanted to make sure I was down there, being
a part of a peaceful protest to voice inequity, injustice in the
Department against Black people. I felt it was my duty to be down
there, and I had a chance to be down there. I never had a chance
to be at another protest, ever. So, I took it upon my duty to go
down there and make sure I was protesting for George Floyd.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you.
Ms. Brace, as a reporter, why did you feel that it was important
for you to be there that day?
Ms. BRACE. As I mentioned in my opening statement, it is imper-
ative to democracy that journalists be on the ground. Journalists
can’t work remotely. We can’t see what is happening on the front
line of an incident if we are standing a block away. So, in order
to fulfill our role in democracy, we have to be standing right in the
middle.
So, I think where we were was incredibly important in terms of
telling the story of what happened that day.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you.
And, Bishop, while you were not physically present, you were
supportive of people in your diocese who were there, and you have
spoken out here, today, and publicly about it.
Why was it important for them to be there?
And why was it so important for you to speak out?
Rev. BUDDE. The issues of racial equity and justice are funda-
mental to the Christian faith, and they are of primary importance
now in our country, when the inequities, particularly in policing,
have become so blatant.
To be honest, I couldn’t have stopped my members from coming,
because they were so determined to add their voice and their pres-
ence to the gathering of non-violent protest.
What we wanted to do, as well, was to acknowledge our presence,
to stand with people, and also to offer whatever we could to ensure
greater safety, providing hand sanitizers, water, and masks, even,
to make sure that whatever we did contributed to the public good,
while we were making our statement in support of a change in
racist practices and policies.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Well, I want to thank all of you for sharing your
stories, why you were there, and your motivations for being there,
all of this, which is protected under the Constitution. I also have
very important questions about the events for the Administration,
and I am very concerned that no one in the Administration has
shown up today to answer the questions.
But Mr. McDonald, Ms. Brace, Bishop Budde, I want to thank
you for standing up for what is your constitutional right to stand
up for, and for standing up for just what is right and just today.
And I am glad that you spoke out on June 1, and that you are
speaking out today. I really appreciate your testimony.
With that, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back, and let me turn to
the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop.
36

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And I was grateful to see Mr. Lowenthal
by video there. In comments that I was doing, unless you are
trying out for the role of Grizzly Adams, I expect you to be without
a beard when you come back here. Deal?
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Almost a deal. I will take that——
Mr. BISHOP. Whatever, whatever, all right.
Dr. LOWENTHAL [continuing]. And ask you to grow a beard.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BISHOP. You would be enthralled with it.
So, look, in light of the statements that were made by Mr.
Lowenthal and Mr. Huffman, as well, even though the Administra-
tion was willing to come and testify, but was not necessarily
allowed in the timeline that the Democrats decided to do, let me
ask at least to put into the record—to give some element of balance
to this.
First, a statement by the Park Police. This is by Chief Monahan,
detailing what he was doing, which includes the fact that 50 police
were injured, and it verifies that there were three warnings that
were issued at that time.
Also, a statement by the National Park Service that goes into the
memorials and statues that have been vandalized in recent
weeks—as of last week, anyway—for the NPS, especially here in
the District of Columbia.
And if I could, I ask unanimous consent to have those placed in
the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And I also would have appreciated the
questions of Mr. Huffman, but they weren’t actually questions. The
two issues that he mentioned that took place back in the West
were dismissed legally because of excesses by the prosecution of the
Park Service at that time—I admit that—which is the question
that we have at hand here, which, unfortunately, this hearing will
not go to, because we do not have any of the Administration
witnesses allowed to be here, which could answer those.
We do have you, Mr. Turley, and I appreciate your willingness
at short notice to come in here and try to be an impartial voice,
or at least a voice that is set aside from personal involvement with-
in this particular situation. Actually, you are the only one that is
doing that.
So, let me just go about the concepts of protests. We know that
the First Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to peaceful
assembly. Can you define what that peaceful assembly would look
like, very briefly?
Mr. TURLEY. Well, peaceful assembly means that you cannot be
stopped from appearing at a demonstration, a protest, a gathering,
and particularly speaking against the government, as long as you
comply with the Federal and State laws. It does not give you a
license to violate laws. It, obviously, doesn’t give you a license to
commit arson or any other crime.
It also does not give you license to be in an un-permitted space
if you are given warnings and opportunity to leave. That is the
position of cases like Barham and Chang that I go through in my
testimony.
37

Mr. BISHOP. And what you did is you simply elaborated where
there is a constitutional limit that can be placed on those par-
ticular rights.
Mr. TURLEY. Well, there are limits on—there are no absolute
rights in the Constitution. And the courts actually have handed
down some really, I think, quite profound opinions on this. The
Supreme Court has talked about how important it is to give
breathing room to free speech and protest, but has also said that
this not an absolute right. This is a right that is enjoyed within the
confines of Federal and State law.
Mr. BISHOP. So, I think you did this in your opening statement,
and also in your written testimony. But in, like, 15 seconds or so,
can you just re-identify the facts, the conditions that would legally
permit law enforcement to disperse an assembly like happened on
H Street?
Mr. TURLEY. Right. The park, actually, had been—the day before,
the Park Police had already cleared the immediate park area.
When we talk about Lafayette Park, we are talking about a larger
area now. And the question was can they push forward that
perimeter in order to establish a fence line?
In my view, a court is likely to find that order to be lawful,
because of the degree of property damage, the injuries to the
officers. That order is likely to be upheld. The question is the
means used—was this done properly?
Mr. BISHOP. Right, and let me go into that, specifically.
Mr. TURLEY. Right.
Mr. BISHOP. Because there is the allegation floating out there
that this was done for a photo op. I think you mentioned something
in there. Can you make a firm connection between the actions and
the photo op opportunity, or were they things that just happened
to be in a similar time frame?
Mr. TURLEY. Well, on the current record, this appears to be a
case of correlation without causation. The Attorney General, the
head of the Park Police, and others have said that this plan was
actually approved 48 hours in advance. They presented evidence
that the operation itself was delayed because of the fencing and re-
inforcements that were brought forward. And they have denied
knowledge of the photo op when these orders were given.
Mr. BISHOP. You had 3 seconds, and you did that very well.
Thank you, sir. There may be other questions we have for the
record, but my time is up.
Mr. TURLEY. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me recognize Mr. Gallego, Chairman of the
Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States. Mr.
Gallego.
Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the record, I
actually have been pepper-sprayed. I have done gas—all for
training in the military, by the way—pepper spray, gas training,
gas mask training numerous times, probably, like, eight times in
my life, as well as I have had rifle control training with the United
States Marine Corps. So, I do have some experience, both in the
uses of batons, formations, as well as—the most important thing
that they also taught us is de-escalation.
Mr. McDonald, what was your rank when you were in the Navy?
38

Mr. MCDONALD. I was a yeoman.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK. What type of training did you receive, if any,
in terms of dealing with civilian situations?
Mr. MCDONALD. We didn’t really deal with de-escalation.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK.
Mr. MCDONALD. This was 1999. We didn’t have a——
Mr. GALLEGO. OK. Well, thank you, sir, for your service, and
thank you for participating in the Black Lives Matter protests,
because it does matter.
Mr. Turley, you talked about a legality of the Park Police being
able to clear the area. Do you have background in the necessity or
the requirement of de-escalation?
Mr. TURLEY. Well, there is training on de-escalation. My only
background, as I note, is counsel in protest cases.
Mr. GALLEGO. Yes——
Mr. TURLEY. I don’t have your experience of dealing directly with
things like these chemicals.
But all the departments that I know of, certainly ones I have
encountered, are supposed to be trained in de-escalation.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK.
Mr. TURLEY. And that goes to—the area that I think it would be
useful for the Committee to make an inquiry on really was cap-
tured in the video when you see the line move rapidly forward.
Mr. GALLEGO. Right.
Mr. TURLEY. If I was counsel, I would look at that, as to why the
line moved. And also at what point was the last warning given
before the line moved forward at that rapid pace.
Mr. GALLEGO. I will come back to that.
Ms. Brace, did you hear any warnings?
Ms. BRACE. No.
Mr. GALLEGO. When you were attacked by this police officer,
were you resisting?
Ms. BRACE. No.
Mr. GALLEGO. Was your cameraman resisting?
Ms. BRACE. No.
Mr. GALLEGO. You had your back to them, if I remember, and
you were fleeing.
Ms. BRACE. That is correct.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Turley, as a lawyer, what was that Park
Police officer doing when he was attacking a fleeing protester?
Ms. BRACE. As I have said, I think that that attack was unlaw-
ful. From the video, it seems clear to me that any officer could have
seen that the Australian journalists were, in fact, journalists. They
identified themselves correctly as journalists. I thought I saw
media credentials on them. But also, they knew that there were
journalists in the area.
So, this one doesn’t strike me as a very close call. This was——
Mr. GALLEGO. And I am not trying to be rude, I just want to
make sure I get my questions in.
Mr. TURLEY. Sure, of course.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. McDonald, did you hear any warning sounds?
Mr. MCDONALD. No.
Mr. GALLEGO. Ms. Brace, in the days before that, had you heard
warnings before, while you were in the protest zone?
39

Ms. BRACE. Not that I can recall.
Mr. GALLEGO. Not—OK. What was the reaction in Australia to
this?
Ms. BRACE. There was certainly alarm about what was seen. As
I mentioned, the Australian Government immediately became
involved, contacting the Ambassador here, and calling for an
investigation.
Mr. GALLEGO. What was the public, though—you know, Australia
is one of the Five Eyes, one of the nations that we always share
our intelligence with, because we trust them so much, because we
have fought and bled with them for almost every war since World
War I. What was the Australian public thinking when they saw
this attack happening?
Ms. BRACE. Well, as I said, it played out live to our audience.
There was certainly alarm and concern, which I think then
morphed into outrage, obviously, given that Australia also puts the
freedom of the press at a level of significant importance.
Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you. One of the things that, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to get hold of is the training manual for these Park
Police officers, because when I was in the Marine Corps and we did
riot control training—I never would have ever been told to rush for-
ward with your batons swinging.
No. 1, it escalates the situation to the point where you could
create a stampede of people, it is very dangerous.
No. 2, it actually is tactically stupid to do that, because your
lines are exposed. Right? So, the only reason you would actually
move in that manner is for pure intimidation, which is not the pur-
pose of a deterrent front, which is what you are trying to do. You
are trying to keep people away.
As a matter of fact, the way to have done it is to go down the
line and move slowly and slowly and slowly. That would have actu-
ally allowed the protesters time to understand what is going on.
They would have actually had the opportunity to escape, like Mr.
Turley said, and probably not have made this all illegal. But there
was a purpose to this all, and the purpose to this all was to show,
‘‘law and order’’ for the President before he came out to hold his
photo op with a Bible.
With that, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Fulcher, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In listening to the
testimony and seeing the video thus far, it appears like there is no
monopoly on blame here. But I would like to just make absolutely
certain that we get the entire story.
I think we have a video that shows some assaults on law
enforcement. If we have that, can we play that, please?
[Video shown.]
Mr. FULCHER. In my remaining time, first of all, I had the oppor-
tunity to travel, work, and be in a lot of nations around this world,
a lot of them where rule of law is not enjoyed. And, generally
speaking, their lack of prosperity reflects that. That is why this en-
tire situation is so incredibly troubling to me.
I would like to ask Mr. Turley. As unfortunate as it is, from a
legal perspective can you define what peaceful assembly looks like?
40

What are the parameters of that? And where does it cross the line
from not being legal?
Mr. TURLEY. Right. This touches on the earlier question. Where
courts tend to define what constitutes peaceful is often as a result
of determining qualified immunity decisions. That is, was the
officer correct in the use of the level of force in the case?
And the courts have said that they defer to officers because of
what they—the court—refer to as making split-second judgments,
they are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. That is how the
Supreme Court referred to it, I believe, in Graham.
So, what the courts look at is whether protesters ignored orders
to disperse, and whether they were obstructive or violent. And this
gets to that critical period, which I think this Committee is going
to have to look at, of that period after the warnings were given, be-
fore the line moved forward, what were those officers facing. And
that is what a court will do. And a court is going to demand very
clear evidence on both sides to determine whether that could be de-
fined as a peaceful situation, where this is not warranted, and the
police escalated it, or whether they were responding to a threat to
their safety or the safety of others.
Mr. FULCHER. Thank you for that. And then, just quickly, there
is one other thing I would like you to address with us, if you could.
Assuming we can get some good dialogue, some peaceful dialogue
here, step us through, very quickly, the legal process for how
should we be doing this? If we want to change some of these monu-
ments, how should we be doing that?
Mr. TURLEY. Well, first of all, there have been great suggestions
in both houses about police reforms, including having a national
database of the issues that many of us have raised in the past.
But in terms of this incident, I gave 10 questions that would be
a useful start for this Committee. It would get you the base infor-
mation you need, including actual calls made by officers, the so-
called running resume evidence. In a protest case that is the first
thing we ask for, is the running resume.
Also, you have objective sources in the claims of injuries to law
enforcement officers, injuries to protesters. Those things can be
acquired.
The other thing that I encourage you to get at very quickly is
non-U.S. Park Police agencies and their roles. I can tell you, in
terms of evidence, that is the stuff I am most concerned with. It
is the stuff that is most difficult to get. And you may be able to
get a lead on that by asking for what are called MOUs. And MOUs,
these memorandums of understanding, are often cut with non-
Federal agencies or non-Park Police personnel. Those may give you
an indication of who was involved at that scene.
I can tell you in the Pershing Park case, we started out with the
Park Police, the DC police, the Secret Service, and ended up with
a long list of units that we had no idea were present.
Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Cox, the Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. COX. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, all the
witnesses, for being here today.
41

I want to say, Reverend Budde, thank you so much for your
statement and your testimony. I think you may have turned a
Catholic into an Episcopalian today, because, I tell you what, I am
certainly here, as we are all, as Members of Congress, because of
my faith, as you said so eloquently, to seek justice, equal justice,
for all people. So, thank you so much for that.
And I want to apologize on behalf of the Committee if you were
called a vandal, an arsonist, or other pejorative. Likewise, Mr.
McDonald and Ms. Brace, as well, because you were there at
Lafayette Square on June 1.
And Mr. McDonald, I want to thank you for your service in the
United States Navy. And I am sure when you enlisted, you took a
very similar oath of office that we did when we took the oath of
office to be a Member of Congress to protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.
And in that first article, where the Congress will make no law
to abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of
people to peacefully assemble.
And, if you could, say why you were there that day, peacefully
assembled.
Mr. COX. I am a Black man. I share the same views of the Black
Lives Matter movement and everyone who was down there.
On June 1, it was a peaceful protest from the minute I got down
there until the minute we were attacked. We were chanting for in-
justice. We didn’t hear any warnings to move. And I was there
strictly to peacefully protest, for my voice to be heard.
Mr. COX. You were exercising your rights, your constitutional
rights——
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, exactly.
Mr. COX [continuing]. As a citizen that you had sworn previously
to uphold. You were exercising those. And do you feel that those
were abridged that day?
Mr. MCDONALD. Can you say that again?
Mr. COX. Do you feel that those rights were infringed upon that
day?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, most definitely. Absolutely.
Mr. COX. And, as an objective citizen from another country, Ms.
Brace, is that what you saw, as well?
Ms. BRACE. Yes, it is.
Mr. COX. Professor Turley, I also sit on the Ag. Committee, and
I have been taught that if something looks like a duck and sounds
like a duck and walks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
And the idea that the White House had no idea that day that the
park had to be cleared is beyond the pale. Just all of a sudden that
the President is making his speeches, to do something right away,
and lo and behold, the park gets cleared—would he have gone out
there to have his photo op if the park hadn’t been cleared?
Mr. TURLEY. What I suggest in my testimony is, first of all, I do
think you need to establish that, and you can establish that. The
account from the Attorney General and others is that the plan was
approved in the morning on Monday. The order was issued at 2.
There was a delay on fencing and National Guardsmen. All that
can be confirmed by this Committee.
42

But that doesn’t necessarily answer the question as I raised in
my testimony. What I would be more interested in, unless all those
are lies, would be was there any last-minute discussion as to
whether this should be delayed.
In my view, it should have been delayed. It should have been
delayed to the following morning. But it is at that juncture, that
twilight moment, if I was counsel, that is what I would be looking
at.
And also, I would be looking at whether the perimeter size
pushed to I Street was impacted by anyone suggesting the need for
the photo op. All of that should be attainable by the Committee.
Mr. COX. And we will look at that. Thank you so much.
And we have seen video from Los Angeles and New York and
Chicago, and video on May 31 and June 26. Is that at all relevant
to the peaceful protest that was going on on June 1?
Mr. TURLEY. No, I don’t think a court would take that into con-
sideration. A court would consider what happened in Lafayette
Park in the area the day before.
Mr. COX. How about the day of?
Mr. TURLEY. No, the day of is the most important criteria. There
is no question the court will be looking at the conditions——
Mr. COX. There were painters in the park.
Mr. TURLEY. Right.
Mr. COX. There were clergy offering medical support and——
Mr. TURLEY. Right. The court would be looking at——
Mr. COX. A kumbaya moment. I think that is a textbook
definition of a peaceful assembly.
Mr. TURLEY. Yes, I think that the way the court would look at
it is that what happened the day before justified the order to clear
the park and establish the fencing, including the wider parameter.
But then the court, I think, would focus on what was actually hap-
pening at that moment as to whether the level of force deployed
was lawful and reasonable.
And that is where your point, I think, is a salient one, and that
is where I think this Committee could make some real progress in
defining.
Mr. COX. Thank you so much. And I do have a couple of other
questions about the secret police, but we will have to get those on
another day. I yield.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. Mr. Gohmert, you are
recognized, sir.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all the
witnesses being here. Nobody could see the video of George Floyd
being killed and not be very moved. No question about that.
And I greatly appreciate the Floyd family urging peaceful
protests and not violence. That is not what they wanted for
George’s legacy. So, there are important issues that need to be
addressed here.
But Mr. McDonald, thank you for your service in the Navy to our
country. And I see from your statement the ship you were stationed
on. How long were you in the Navy?
Mr. MCDONALD. Nine months.
Mr. GOHMERT. Nine months? Did you run into prejudice in the
Navy, racial prejudice?
43

Mr. MCDONALD. No, I did not.
Mr. GOHMERT. In your statement, you had mentioned that the
police stopped pushing forward at the urging of protesters when a
man had fallen and was being given aid, and they began using less
lethal force. What was the difference in force before and after the
individual fell?
Mr. MCDONALD. Are you talking about the Black man that fell
in my statement?
Mr. GOHMERT. Yes.
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, he fell, and we asked the police to stop. At
that moment they established a perimeter.
Mr. GOHMERT. Right.
Mr. MCDONALD. Maybe enough for, like, 6 seconds for us to get
him up and move him. But the minute we moved him, they started
running at us. They didn’t stop to help us.
Mr. GOHMERT. But what force were they using at that time?
Mr. MCDONALD. Their batons and their shields.
Mr. GOHMERT. Baton and shield?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes.
Mr. GOHMERT. OK. And Ms. Brace, obviously, that had to have
been rather traumatic. Obviously, you and your cameraman came
prepared with the goggles. With your experience you have been in
a lot of protests, apparently around the world. I appreciate your
coverage.
And having looked back just through June 8, apparently just
through June 8, there have been 17 people who have died in inci-
dents stemming from the unrest from George Floyd’s death, includ-
ing David Dorn, David McAtee, Chris Beaty, Dorian Murrell, and
Italia Kelly. And, of course, I don’t know how anybody cannot be
moved seeing her sister saying she wasn’t shot by the police, it was
one of you, it was one of the protesters.
When protests get out of hand, people get hurt. You are far more
experienced in these type of protests. Is there a point at which you
can tell this is about to turn violent at protests?
Ms. BRACE. You can never be certain, obviously. You can
certainly feel, I guess, tension rising in protests.
In saying that, I certainly have never had any reason to expect
violence from the police as working press.
Mr. GOHMERT. But when things get crazy at a protest, you can’t
be sure. Like seeing those bricks being thrown at the police re-
cently. If you are a civilian in the way, just like Italia Kelly, you
may be hit by a protester’s brick. It has to be hard to tell.
Ms. BRACE. I saw nothing on June 1 that made me feel in any
way alarmed before that line of police surged forward.
Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Were you out at the protest the night that
St. John’s had a fire started?
Ms. BRACE. Yes, the night of May 31.
Mr. GOHMERT. Did you see how anybody got into the church to
start the fires?
Ms. BRACE. No, I didn’t.
Mr. GOHMERT. Could you understand why law enforcement
might be concerned about others getting into the church, either
legally or illegally, to cause more damage?
44

Ms. BRACE. I, obviously, can’t speak to the motivation of the
police.
But as your colleague, Mr. McClintock, pointed out, there is an
important distinction. I have said in my statement that the night
before I did see much more widespread chaos. But on the day of
June 1, in question at the moment, I did not see anything that
warranted the movement of police that we witnessed.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you.
And Bishop Budde, I appreciate your effort at social justice.
What do you think is the hope for those in Washington, DC
protesting?
Rev. BUDDE. I can’t speak for all protesters, but I think the mon-
iker, Black Lives Matter, is the way we are expressing a collective
cry that we have equity in our policing, that Black and Brown per-
sons can expect the same level of treatment and safety when they
are encountering police, and that we have a reckoning in this coun-
try for all manner of policies and practices that would cause Black
and Brown people in this country to fear for their lives when
encountering the very people who are meant to keep them safe.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Bishop.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. There were African-American
ministers that said our hope is in Jesus Christ.
I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. Let me recognize the
gentlelady from New Mexico, the Chair of the Public Lands
Subcommittee, Ms. Haaland.
You are recognized.
Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for convening
today’s panel. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
Our colleagues have said it already, but the events of June 1 will
no doubt go down as one of the darkest days of this presidency.
And that is saying something for a president who has put children
in cages, protected his friends from prosecution, and opened our
elections to foreign interference.
Attacks on the Constitution aren’t new for this President, but
clearing a peaceful demonstration for a photo op with his cabinet
is an unbelievably new low. While we will rightly focus on those
actions of June 1, we cannot lose sight of the larger moment that
we are all in.
Today’s hearing is also about a larger trend of systemic racism,
in which militarized police intimidate and kill in communities of
color, while defended from prosecution. The President’s recent
actions brought that excessive force to the fore in a new and
unconstitutional way, but this is by no means an isolated incident.
And while I respect the work Federal civil servants do every sin-
gle day, there are times they do things our Nation is not proud of.
In November 2017, the U.S. Park Police murdered Bijan Ghaisar
just over the river in Arlington, while he drove his car. Still, his
family has not had justice.
Earlier this year, in my state of New Mexico, Charles Gage
Lorentz was driving back to his home in Colorado when he was
murdered by a U.S. Park Ranger in one of our national parks. I
spoke to his mother’s attorney recently, but I couldn’t explain why
45

that killer still patrolled one of our national parks, and why he
hadn’t been brought to justice.
Today, we are here to talk about the President and his illegal
and unconstitutional actions. But we also need to discuss power, to
discuss fear, to discuss unequal treatment under the law, because
we did not choose to live in a society where the President wields
the power of our government to break up peaceful protests, any
more than communities of color across this Nation choose to live
in fear of unequal policing.
Let’s try to understand what breakdown of norms led to this hor-
rible injustice of the clearing of Lafayette Square on June 1. But
let’s also make sure we keep in mind the culture of systemic op-
pression that allows the same fear and power to control and kill
in communities across our country. Because, as I have stated, this
was not an isolated incident.
Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace—and Mr. McDonald, you can go
first, and then Ms. Brace—at any time did you see any Park Police
or law enforcement officers stop or double back to provide medical
assistance or facilitate medical assistance when somebody was
clearly injured?
Mr. MCDONALD. No. ma’am.
Ms. BRACE. No, I did not.
Ms. HAALAND. And again, Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace, do you
expect law enforcement to provide basic care and/or call medical
assistance when someone is hurt?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, I do.
Ms. BRACE. Yes, I do.
Ms. HAALAND. And Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace, why do you
have that expectation?
[Pause.]
Ms. HAALAND. I am sorry?
Mr. MCDONALD. [Inaudible] public.
Ms. BRACE. Again, I would expect the police to protect civilians
and also working media.
Ms. HAALAND. Thank you so much. In fact, part of the mission
of the United States National Park Police is to protect lives. It is
to protect lives. That is part of their mission, is to protect lives.
I appreciate all of you being here today.
The Right Reverend Mariann, thank you so much for your calm-
ness, for your heart, and for your leadership in this troubled time.
I appreciate it very much.
And Chairman, I yield.
The CHAIRMAN. I recognize Mr. Westerman for your questions,
sir.
Mr. Lamborn, you are recognized.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s see. A couple of
my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked
about how the Park Police wasn’t here to present any statement or
facts. And yet I have been led to believe that they were constrained
from being here because, like Assistant Chief Monahan said in a
letter to you, Mr. Chairman, that to be on the same panel with a
person who is suing them in a case of active litigation would make
him legally constrained and not able to testify at the same time.
46

So, I wish you could have structured this hearing today where
that was not an impediment to hearing from the Park Police. I
think that would have been very helpful. And that is what I ascribe
their absence to, is the legal constraints.
And Mr. McDonald, you have filed suit against the Department
of the Interior and other parties, haven’t you, seeking money
damages?
Mr. MCDONALD. One against Trump, a violation of my First
Amendment rights.
Mr. LAMBORN. OK, and that includes the Department of the
Interior.
Mr. MCDONALD. ACLU has a lawsuit I am part of for a violation
of my First Amendment rights.
Mr. LAMBORN. OK. So, Mr. Chairman, I wish you could have
structured things so that we could have heard from all of the inter-
ested parties here today.
Second, I would like to ask unanimous consent to have inserted
into the record a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police, United
States Park Police Labor Committee, dated June 19. This letter
was sent to the editor of The Washington Post, but they have not
seen fit to print this letter. But it explains some things from the
perspective of the police on the Park Police force.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert this in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Lamborn

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
U.S. PARK POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE
WASHINGTON, DC

June 19, 2020

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
The nearly 375 officers of the United States Park Police Labor Committee
welcome any serious investigation into the events at Lafayette Square on June 1st
because we know that every one of our officers acted with honor and integrity in
the face of a very challenging and dangerous environment.
The Post editorial on June 17th entitled ‘‘The U.S. Park Police’s Reputation is in
Tatters’’ is unfortunately riddled with unfair accusations and assumptions. Here are
the fundamental facts that we look forward to sharing with legislators and
investigators in the weeks and months ahead:
One, George Floyd was brutally murdered in Minneapolis. Not a single officer of
the United States Park Police believes otherwise.
Two, protecting the safety and rights of peaceful protesters is at the very core of
our mission. Park Police officers take great pride in our unique role as front line
defenders of First Amendment expression.
Three, while a great majority of the protesters in the area have been peaceful,
during the weekend of May 30–31 the area surrounding Lafayette Square was infil-
trated by dozens of violent anarchists who took advantage of the protests to destroy
property and violently attack law enforcement. They threw bricks, frozen water
bottles, rocks, road flares, explosives and caustic liquids thereby creating a very
dangerous environment not only for the officers and surrounding property, but for
the protestors themselves.
Four, over that weekend 51 USPP officers required medical treatment for injuries
sustained on duty, including 11 transported to the hospital and 3 admitted. Inciden-
tally, our officers would like to publicly thank the many protestors who tried to
assist the injured officers by intervening with those who were launching the
47
projectiles. In any event, violence was rapidly escalating and, by the night of May
31st, the need to erect fencing around Lafayette Square was painfully obvious. The
tension was intensifying and we were increasingly concerned about our ability to
safeguard against an all-out riot. Our decades of experience in crowd management
led us to conclude that the installation of fencing would enhance safety for everyone
in the area.
Five, USPP officers followed standard crowd control procedures to enable contrac-
tors to safely erect the fence on June 1st. Our mission was based solely on securing
the Square for the anticipated ongoing protests and, at the same time, limiting
violent behavior that had begun to occur. Our officers were not aware of President
Trump’s planned walk through the park until it was already underway.
Six, the installation of the fence worked and erecting it was the right decision.
Protestors have continued to express their views and the violence has since
deescalated. Importantly, since the fence has been installed there has been a
dramatic reduction in injuries sustained by officers.
Seven, no USPP officer fired CS gas on protestors (peaceful or otherwise) during
the Lafayette Square incident. There may be video evidence of other agencies doing
so, but the allegations that USPP officers deployed CS gas is patently false.
Finally, USPP officers understand that policies and procedures can always
improve. We will certainly support common sense law enforcement reform, begin-
ning with enhanced training opportunities for officers. Our labor committee is
committed to working with our agency and Members of Congress to identify new
ways to cultivate the special bond our officers feel with those who peacefully come
to Washington DC for the purpose of contributing to democracy.
Sincerely,
KENNETH SPENCER,
Chairman
U.S. Park Police

Mr. LAMBORN. And then, third, I would like to talk about attacks
on journalists. I went to journalism school, myself, so I am not
happy to hear about attacks on journalists, whether it is from
police or whether it is from protesters. Journalists should be able
to do their job. I would like to play a video called ‘‘Assaults on
Journalists.’’
[Video shown.]
Mr. LAMBORN. [Inaudible] protesters is something that should
not be part of a peaceful protest. Ms. Brace?
Ms. BRACE. Yes, of course.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Turley?
Mr. TURLEY. Yes.
Mr. LAMBORN. And Mr. McDonald?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes.
Mr. LAMBORN. OK. And Mr. Turley, how would incidents like we
saw in the video, where journalists are being attacked by protesters
turned into rioters, affect the legality of a decision to disperse the
protesters?
Mr. TURLEY. Well, any violence in the area of Lafayette Square
is going to be considered by a court as a part of the justification
for expanding the perimeter, for setting up the fence, for clearing
the area.
There was a high level of violence that was being reported by the
Park Police: 50 officers is a lot of officers to be injured, I have to
tell you, in a protest case. And if it is as high as 100, that is pretty
high. And there was, obviously, some arson. There was damage to
property. I think a court would conclude that the protests through
48

that 3-day period were not entirely peaceful, and that law enforce-
ment was facing threats.
Now, as the Member earlier alluded to, the court, in looking at
the means used to push back the line will look specifically at the
level of violence at that time. So, I think the court is going to con-
sider both, the whole context, in other words, of the——
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, my time is up.
Mr. Chairman, could I also insert into the record with
unanimous consent the letter dated June 24 to you from the
Department of the Interior explaining Mr. Monahan’s ability to
testify or not.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Lamborn

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, DC

June 24, 2020

Hon. RAÚL GRIJALVA, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Grijalva:
Thank you for the invitation to testify before your Committee at an oversight
hearing regarding the June 1, 2020, interactions between protesters and law
enforcement at Lafayette Square Park. Your invitation has been extended to the
Assistant Chief of the United States Park Police, Gregory T. Monahan.
Assistant Chief Monahan would like to accept your request to appear before the
Committee to present the facts that occurred on the ground that evening. However,
because of the ongoing protests and accompanying violence and destruction of
memorials and monuments by some individuals, the United States Park Police must
currently continue in its highest operational status. As you are aware, just two
nights ago another ‘‘peaceful protest’’ led to more violence and destruction in the
park.
For this reason, Assistant Chief Monahan offers to appear before your Committee
after these activities and actions have subsided. At this point, we suggest mid- to
late July.
We expect, for this potential hearing, as we would for any hearing involving
Departmental personnel, that the Committee adhere to the long-recognized principle
of seating executive branch witnesses on their own panel, both as a matter of
respect for a co-equal branch of government and recognizing the sensitive nature of
law enforcement matters being discussed.
In addition, as Assistant Chief Monahan has been named as a party in certain
lawsuits pertaining to the lawful performance of his official duties on June 1, 2020,
there are legal interests which will necessarily frame the discussion of the events
of that day. This discussion would be further constrained, if not completely cir-
cumvented in its entirety, were an adverse party to such a lawsuit also asked to
testify at that same hearing.
We look forward to working with the Committee on this issue.
Sincerely,
COLE ROJEWSKI, DIRECTOR,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs
49

The CHAIRMAN. Let me now recognize Mrs. Napolitano for her
questions.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question
for Ms. Brace. Ms. Brace, did you have a lanyard with media in big
words, identifying you as media?
The CHAIRMAN. We couldn’t hear the question.
Ms. BRACE. I’m sorry, could you please repeat that question?
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Did you have an identification in the front,
with a lanyard identifying you as media?
Ms. BRACE. No, we don’t like to wear press passes around our
necks for safety reasons.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Did you hear them use a bullhorn to
disperse people at all?
Ms. BRACE. No, I did not.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Reverend Budde, the square is very adjacent
to your church. Am I correct?
Rev. BUDDE. That is correct.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Have you ever seen that entire area forcibly
cleared like it was on June 1?
Rev. BUDDE. No, I have not.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you have any idea why your church was
chosen to focus on racial injustice in particular?
Rev. BUDDE. My sense is that St. John’s Lafayette Square has
been a place of protest, historically, in the Nation’s Capital for
many years, due to its proximity to the White House, and that
public space of the actual park where people have been allowed to
peaceably protest.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Your church has decided to champion racial
injustice. Why do you feel this is important to the people? Is it
because of the proximity to the White House?
Rev. BUDDE. Well, we took advantage of the proximity of the
White House to add our voice to the protest that was gathered
there. All of our congregations across the city and, indeed, the
entire diocese are committed to racial justice in their own——
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I commend you for that, because it is
very important. All lives matter. It is just important that we recog-
nize that the injustices to all people of color have been going on for
many generations, and nothing is going to stop it until the word
and the change come from the top. And, apparently, we don’t have
the will at the top to do that.
And then, as President Trump stood for his photo op in front of
your church holding his Bible, and was about to open and read
from it, what went through your mind when you saw that?
Rev. BUDDE. As I have said before, I was outraged. And I felt
that it was a misuse of both the space and the Bible for him to
claim in that moment—having just said what was said in the Rose
Garden and witnessed what we witnessed in the park, I felt as if
he was putting on a mantle of spiritual authority to justify those
actions.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Has he issued any memo or any letter, any
phone call to you, apologizing?
Rev. BUDDE. No.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is important for us to recognize that this
isn’t the first time, and probably not the last time, we will have
50

injustices toward people of color. What do you think the govern-
ment must do to anybody to start the motion to rectify those
officers at the top level for a change in attempting to deal with
racial issues?
Rev. BUDDE. Thank you for asking. It is not my expertise to
weigh in on how the policy should be changed. But at the very min-
imum, there should be equity and responsibility for illegal actions,
no matter who is at fault, and that our Black and Brown fellow
citizens should be able to feel the same degree of security and safe-
ty that White Americans feel when encountering police.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Ms. Brace?
Ms. BRACE. Again, I don’t presume to come here to tell the
American people how to run their police force or the government,
but I would expect for peaceful protesters to be allowed to peace-
fully protest, and for the media to be able to safely cover such
events.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. McDonald?
Mr. MCDONALD. I think the bottom line is just respect the
Constitution and how it was drafted up. I think we wouldn’t have
a problem with overall policing. I am here to talk about what hap-
pened June 1. If they had just honored our rights to peacefully pro-
test and freedom of assembly, we wouldn’t have any issue at all.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you all for testifying, and I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields. Let me recognize Mr.
Westerman. Sir, you are recognized.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today. I can say that I heard your per-
sonal testimony. It angers me to think what happened to you, and
your firsthand account of the things that went on. And part of the
function of oversight is to make sure that the law is being carried
out, that justice is administered, and, if it is not, that we rectify
that. So, it is important to have oversight hearings like this.
Also, I realize that your firsthand accounts were bits and pieces
of a bigger story. And I think that there is more for us to learn that
we can’t learn from the meeting here today. And I think there are
voices that aren’t being heard, and we need to hear all voices and
find out where the real problems are.
I have a letter here from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association. It says, ‘‘While otherwise peaceful protests were co-
opted by radical groups focused on destruction versus dialogue,
Federal law enforcement officers were thrust into roles of pro-
tecting and preserving the safety of not only city streets, but also
our Nation’s monuments, and our history that we all hold dear.’’
They went on to further say, ‘‘No clearer was that role than here
in Washington, DC, where Lafayette Park was besieged by radical
and violent groups of individuals. These are the same individuals
that set fire to and vandalized St. John’s Church, attacked and
vandalized monuments in and around our Nation’s Capital, includ-
ing the World War II memorial, a tribute to an entire generation
of Americans that kept our world free, and then attacked the very
law enforcement officers that were originally sent there to monitor
and ensure the safety of the individuals peacefully assembled.’’
Much of this work fell to the officers of the U.S. Park Police.
These brave men and women came under daily, almost hourly
51

attacks from unpeaceful and violent rioters, and were constantly
pelted with frozen bottles of urine, fireworks, bricks, stones, street
pavers, and all manner of other unknown substances. Other
Federal law enforcement officers, including the uniformed division
of the Secret Service, various DoJ entities, and officers from the
Metropolitan Police Department joined the U.S. Park Police at
times to try to quell the violence, stop the destruction, and allow
the voices of the peaceful protesters to be heard.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this to the record.
Mr. Lamborn referred to a letter, or an Op Ed from the Fraternal
Order of Police that was denied publishing in The Washington Post
to counter an article that the Post put out. And they said here that
over the weekend 51 U.S. Park Police officers required medical
treatment for injuries sustained on duty. And it goes on and on.
What I am saying is there is another side of this story, and we
need to hear all of that. And there is an investigation being taken
on by internal affairs at the Park Police, and also by the Inspector
General at the Department of the Interior. I wish we could have
waited until we had that evidence, and we could get more
witnesses here to be heard.
That being said, I have no reason to doubt what you are saying.
And I think we have to take an open look at these things, going
forward.
Mr. Turley, if indeed those members of the Park Police were
injured, transported to hospital, all these things going on, in your
opinion was it legal for the Park Police to clear Lafayette Park?
Mr. TURLEY. I think a court would likely say that it was a lawful
order to clear the park. As I say in my testimony, they had all the
elements, particularly if they gave the three warnings and an op-
portunity to disperse. That doesn’t answer the secondary question
of the level or means used.
I also have to say that when I saw the figures of the 50 injured
Park Police officers, the claim of 100 injured Federal officers, I was
quite surprised. That is a very high number of injuries. So, I think
a court would probably approach this question—without saying
that this was an entirely peaceful protest—to the contrary, I think
the court would recognize that there were security issues that were
valid for the Administration. I think the court would likely say that
the original order was lawful, and then would focus in, as I talked
about, on that critical period. And what concerns me the most is
that critical——
Mr. WESTERMAN. I am going to have to move on here.
So, finally, we talk about the Christian thing to do, certainly to
work for justice and equality. I believe that and try to practice
what the Bible teaches. But it also talks about being in subjection
to governing authorities. Paul said that. Peter said to commit your-
self, for the Lord’s sake, to every human institution. Even Jesus,
when he was prodded to rebel against the government, said,
‘‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.’’
And I would just like to ask the Bishop, do you believe that it
is a Christian’s duty, when working for justice and equality, to
follow the law, and submit to those in authority, and condemn
violence and unlawful acts, such as rioting and arson?
52

Rev. BUDDE. I absolutely believe that it is necessary to condemn
violence and arson. But I also would take issue at an interpretation
of scripture that does not include the long legacy of the struggle for
liberation and freedom, and the opportunity, when given time and
time again, the scripture tells us that we must obey the laws of
God and not the laws of men, especially when they are unjust.
So, particularly in a democracy, we have a fundamental
responsibility to ensure that the laws are just, and that they are
justly enforced by those who are entrusted with the sacred respon-
sibility of overseeing the governance of our people.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Are you saying laws against violence and arson
are unjust?
Rev. BUDDE. I am not.
Mr. WESTERMAN. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. Let me recognize Mr.
Levin for his comments, questions.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Chair Grijalva, and thank you to today’s
witnesses.
In particular, I want to thank you, Bishop Budde, for your testi-
mony. My family attends St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church in San
Juan Capistrano, California. So, it is very meaningful to have you
here today.
Chair Grijalva, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
enter into the record a Washington Post article contributed by
Reverend Gini Gerbasi, Director at St. John’s Episcopal Church in
Georgetown.
Bishop Budde, as you know, Reverend Gerbasi was at St. John’s
Church in Lafayette Square the evening of June 1. Her description
of the scene is powerful. As she wrote, she got to the church around
4 p.m. that day to, as she puts it, offer peaceful and prayerful sup-
port to the protesters. She describes the scene as upbeat and peace-
ful. She wrote, ‘‘My colleagues and I passed out water and snacks.
People exchanged prayers and elbow bumps. Things were so calm
that, by 6 p.m., most of my colleagues had left.’’
Bishop Budde, do you have any reason to believe that Reverend
Gerbasi was not being truthful in her description?
Rev. BUDDE. Absolutely none.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace, does this description
generally align with the scene you saw, as well?
Ms. BRACE. Yes, it does.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. McDonald and Ms. Brace, did any of the videos
my Republican colleagues played look like the scene at Lafayette
Square on June 1 before police attacked?
Mr. MCDONALD. No, it did not.
Ms. BRACE. No, they did not.
Mr. LEVIN. In fact, as Reverend Gerbasi writes on, ‘‘We see that
the scene of peace and camaraderie dramatically changes around
6:15 p.m., as the officers move from Lafayette Park into the street.’’
After hearing the first loud bang of a flash grenade, she describes,
and I quote—‘‘yelling and panic.’’ And then she says, and I quote—
‘‘I couldn’t believe my eyes. A wall of police, full riot gear, was
physically pushing people off the St. John’s patio, maybe 15 feet
away from me.’’
53

So, we have a firsthand account of U.S. Park Police answering
peaceful protests with brutality, which was the subject of the
protests to begin with.
Bishop Budde, when you heard that Reverend Gerbasi and her
colleagues were being physically pushed off St. John’s patio, what
went through your mind?
Rev. BUDDE. I was stunned and horrified and concerned for their
safety and the safety of all of those who were gathered. And like
others who have expressed their civic response, I was outraged that
the Park Police and others were acting in that manner——
Mr. LEVIN. Reverend Gerbasi went on and described President
Trump’s photo op with the Bible. She called it, and I quote,
‘‘sacrilege.’’ Would you agree with that statement?
Rev. BUDDE. I have thought about that. And yes, I would,
because it was taking something sacred and misapplying its mes-
sage to justify something that was violent and that was abusive,
an abuse of power. And there is nothing in the scriptures that will
condone that behavior.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Bishop.
Ms. Brace, I would like to turn to you. Thank you for your testi-
mony. And, as you note, the video of you and your cameraman
being violently attacked speaks louder than words.
Since being sworn into office and taking his oath to protect the
Constitution of the United States, this President has repeatedly at-
tacked the free press, calling the media, ‘‘The enemy of the people,’’
limiting access to his press conferences, filing libel lawsuits, and
sending cease and desist letters about news stories he doesn’t like.
The list goes on and on.
On June 1, Park Police violently attacked you and your
cameraman, as we saw, despite you clearly identifying yourselves
as members of the press and having news-gathering equipment. Do
you believe that the President’s rhetoric and actions toward the
free press has impacted the way the media has been treated by law
enforcement?
Ms. BRACE. I can’t speak to the motivation of members of law
enforcement here in the United States. I can certainly say that
there has been a noticeable trend in the treatment of the media by
members of the police force, both the example of myself and Tim—
my fiance was working in Minneapolis as a member of the
credentialed press, and he was arrested while working legally. And
we have seen a number of other instances across the country where
the press has been targeted, even during these protests, by mem-
bers of the police.
So, while I can’t say why that is happening, it is certainly what
I see as a trend. And that is very worrying for a free press.
Mr. LEVIN. And do you believe this will have lasting impacts on
journalism in the United States and abroad?
Ms. BRACE. I think anything that deters journalists from being
able to do their job safely could deter people from becoming
journalists, or doing their jobs without fear or favor, which is ex-
actly what we are meant to be doing.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Ms. Brace. In the words of my friend, the
late Elijah Cummings, we are better than this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
54

The CHAIRMAN. Let me recognize the gentlelady from Puerto
Rico, Miss González-Colón.
The time is yours.
Miss GONZÁLEZ-COLÓN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to yield my time.
The CHAIRMAN. To whom?
Mr. BISHOP. Who did she yield to, me? OK. Thank you, I
appreciate that.
I appreciate this. And Mr. Lacy, you notice what I am doing. This
is specifically for you. Oh, good. But it is specifically for you. If you
can find a Cardinal one, you can do that.
I just have two quick questions to ask. As I was sitting here
listening to the testimony, I started reading, Ms. Brace, some of
your testimony here in which you simply said, having seen the
nature of the protests on May 31, you and your cameraman pur-
chased protective equipment—eyewear, specifically. Is that accu-
rate? Was that for one specific instance, or was it for a series of
events, or was it simply a trend that you saw?
Ms. BRACE. We purchased our eyewear on May 31, so before we
were covering the protests that day.
Mr. BISHOP. Was it for a specific incident or a trend?
Ms. BRACE. I would say it is because of what we had seen in
Minneapolis earlier in the week.
Mr. BISHOP. I will accept that as trend, then.
Can I then ask one other question? Because I found it interesting
when Ms. Napolitano asked you—and she is no longer here, but—
if you were wearing a lanyard, and you said no. Did you indeed say
that you don’t want to identify yourself as media, for fear of
protection?
Ms. BRACE. No, I did not say that.
Mr. BISHOP. What did you actually say to her? Why did you not
emphasize yourself or identify yourself as media with a lanyard or
something? What did you actually tell her?
Ms. BRACE. I did have my State Department press identification.
I don’t like to wear it around my neck for safety reasons.
Mr. BISHOP. For safety.
Ms. BRACE. It is something that can be pulled in a protest.
Mr. BISHOP. All right. That is—I am sorry, that was just
interesting and fascinating to me.
Mr. Turley, I have one last thing to ask you at the same time.
I was looking more at the stuff that we put into the record from
the Interior Department.
According to the Department, the LRAD that was used by the
Park Service is a 100X model. Hopefully it means something to
you, it doesn’t mean anything to me. But it means it is 20 to 30
decibels louder than a typical bullhorn or vehicle-based PA system.
So, the model that was used has a maximum range of about 2,000
feet, with a peak output of 140 decibels. Compare that with a jet
engine that produces 140 decibels at 100 feet, produces 140
decibels. So, that is the size of it.
The Department informed the Committee staff that the script
read as follows. ‘‘This is Major Mark Adamchik with the United
States Park Police. For safety and security reasons, Lafayette Park
and H Street are closed to pedestrians. You are ordered to depart
55

the area immediately. This your first warning.’’ And they said that
there were two more warnings like this one given. The last one
said this was a final warning.
According to the legal standards that you have been talking
about, is that warning sufficient to satisfy the warning require-
ments of law before dispersing demonstrators like they did on
June 1?
Mr. TURLEY. It is sufficient. And, in fact, in my testimony I
suggested that the LRAD may have been used. I noted in the testi-
mony that the Park Police has the LRED system. It is a huge im-
provement over prior years, where they would use the PA systems
off of patrol cars. This has a much broader range by magnitude of
dozens, in terms of the penetration of that system.
It doesn’t mean that you can’t have canceling noise in a protest.
Basically, if you have objects around you. But that is the gold
standard for amplification in these types of situations.
Mr. BISHOP. So, it is much easier to hear than simply a bullhorn
would have been. And then one of the questions you need to
ask——
Mr. TURLEY. Yes, that is the recommended system for many civil
libertarians. It is a system that has a very significant penetration
range.
Now, that doesn’t mean, once again, you don’t have
circumstances where—I entirely understand—where people might
not have heard it. You could have people around you, they could
be screaming in your ear. Those are canceling noises. But this
really is the gold standard, in terms of the use of application.
Mr. BISHOP. All right, and I have 30 seconds for this one. If
someone heard a statement from a policeman saying, ‘‘Move,
move,’’ is that the kind of legal qualification that would be used?
Mr. TURLEY. When an officer tells you to move back, particularly
after these warnings, you are expected to comply.
Mr. BISHOP. All right. So, if somebody in their written testimony
were to say they heard the officers say, ‘‘Move, move,’’ that would
be the legal justification and the expectation, the lawful citizen,
they would then move.
Mr. TURLEY. Yes, you are expected to follow the orders of the
officers, particularly after the issuance of those warnings.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady from Puerto Rico
for yielding. I hope things are going well for you down there.
Mr. Grijalva, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Neguse, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. NEGUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for this Committee
and this Congress to effectively fulfill our oversight duties, we
absolutely must have a detailed understanding of the events that
unfolded earlier this month. So, I thank each of the witnesses for
appearing today and for your testimony.
I want to ask a question of Ms. Brace. I wonder if you could
share what your reaction was when you heard that the U.S. Park
Police Acting Chief stated that the, ‘‘U.S. PP officers and other
assisting law enforcement partners did not use tear gas or OC Skat
Shells to close the area at Lafayette Park,’’ despite your experience
being the opposite?
56

Ms. BRACE. Well, I am not an expert in ballistics, or the use of
gas, particularly what was used. But I am certain that there was
a chemical irritant used, and I was certainly hit by some sort of
non-lethal projectile. So, that is completely opposite of my
experience.
Mr. NEGUSE. Do you have any concerns that if journalists and
others who were there had not, rather, shared photos of empty OC
and CS canisters and videos of what had occurred, that we may not
have known the truth?
Ms. BRACE. In that instance I guess we would be relying on first-
hand accounts. Also in our recording, our video, you can hear the
use of automatic weapons, which again goes to what I was saying.
Mr. NEGUSE. Well, it certainly underscores why a hearing like
this is so important, and why it is important to hear from folks
who have firsthand accounts as to what happened late last month.
I also want to register my displeasure with the lack of a witness
from the executive branch testifying before our Committee today.
With much respect to my friend, my good friend from Colorado,
I did read the letter that was sent to Chairman Grijalva from the
Department of the Interior dated June 24, 2020, and I think it is
important to clarify for the record. While this letter does intimate
an expectation that the executive branch witness would be pro-
vided a separate panel, that is not the reason for the declination
of appearing to testify before this Committee.
Ostensibly, what they purport as a justification for declining to
appear before this Committee is timing, that they are too busy, and
that they will, therefore, consider appearing later in the month, in
mid or late July.
So, I guess I wonder whether the panelists have any thoughts.
Professor Turley, do you think it is reasonable for this Committee
to expect to be able to hear from the Assistant Chief, or another
relevant witness from the executive branch?
Mr. TURLEY. Absolutely. I think this Committee should ascertain
a number of the facts that I pointed out, which will be the first
facts that the courts isolate. There are a number of these facts
which will be determinative in any review of this conduct, and that
includes what was used at the scene.
You know, this became a sort of colloquial versus technical
debate as to what constitutes tear gas. If the Park Police’s later
statement was correct, the impact on an individual is going to be
much the same. It is an irritant. And courts have often grouped
them together as to when you can use this.
I personally believe that, as this Committee drills down, it is
going to find itself more and more focused on that twilight period
when you see that charge. That is a charge. That is a line charging.
And the question is was that warranted in that circumstance.
Mr. NEGUSE. I agree with you, Professor Turley, with respect to
the need for this Committee to engage in that inquiry. And I must
confess, I am less than optimistic that we will have as much suc-
cess as perhaps the judicial system will, in terms of potentially de-
posing some of these Administration witnesses, because the track
record of the 116th Congress, in terms of its ability to get executive
branch witnesses to appear before the Congress, is less than stel-
lar, with a Secretary of Defense who is refusing to appear before
57

the Armed Services Committee to talk about this particular set of
issues, with a Secretary of State who declines to appear before the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
Of course, you may remember we have had an exchange
previously, 8, 9, some-odd months ago before the Judiciary
Committee during the impeachment process about obstruction of
Congress, and the lack of any ability to, again, get these witnesses
before the legislative branch.
So, I fear—I must say, because, as I read this letter, it is part
and parcel to this pattern that this Administration has pursued re-
lentlessly since the days that I was sworn into Congress. And I
would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
join us in our efforts to, again, get to the bottom of it, and have
folks from the Administration testify.
Because invariably—and I think, as you have referenced in the
past—administrations change, right? We have elections. And at the
end of the day there may very well be another administration and
a Congress that is hoping to seek witnesses from that particular
administration. And I would hope that we could treat these issues
with the respect that they deserve.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields.
Next, Ms. DeGette, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I have been
here at the hearing since the very beginning, and it is very impor-
tant. And it is important to hear from our witnesses.
Like all of us, I have been shocked by the unrestrained use of
force by the Federal law enforcement agencies. And we are here
today because one of those agencies, the Park Police, violated its
own use of force policies in following President Trump’s directive
to clear Lafayette Square.
Mr. Chairman, your staff has a copy of the U.S. Park Police’s Use
of Force Policy, General Order 3615, updated November 1, 2019.
And I would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter that into
the record right now.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This policy governs the
conditions under which the Park Police’s use of force is appropriate.
Ms. Brace and Mr. McDonald, I want to ask you about some of
the parts of this policy, and whether they are consistent with what
you saw on June 1. And I would appreciate yes-or-no answers, if
you are able.
The policy, which was updated last fall says, ‘‘An officer is
expected to employ only the minimum level of responsible force
necessary to control a situation.’’
Now, Ms. Brace, I believe you testified that you have covered a
number of demonstrations. Is that correct?
Ms. BRACE. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. DEGETTE. So, in your experience being at that protest, did
you view the U.S. Park Police and other law enforcement officers
employing only the minimum level of reasonable force necessary to
control the situation?
Ms. BRACE. No, I don’t.
58

Ms. DEGETTE. The policy also says—oh, Mr. McDonald, I want
to ask you the same question. You testified that you served in the
military, and so I assume you have seen people using force. I want
to ask you, did you view the U.S. Park Police and other law
enforcement employing only the minimal level of reasonable force
necessary to control the situation?
Mr. MCDONALD. I believe they used excessive force.
Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Now, Ms. Brace and Mr. McDonald,
did either of you see a situation where the Park Police use of force
seemed to be required, and then did they stop it once it didn’t seem
to be required?
Ms. Brace, we will start with you.
Ms. BRACE. No, not that I saw.
Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. McDonald?
Mr. MCDONALD. Can you repeat the question?
Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. My question is did either of you see a situa-
tion where they seemed to need to use the force, and then they
stopped it once it wasn’t required any more?
Mr. MCDONALD. No, I did not.
Ms. DEGETTE. OK. The policy also says an officer shall, if
possible, first attempt to diffuse the situation through advice,
warning, verbal persuasion, tactical communication, and other de-
escalation and conflict negotiation techniques.
Ms. Brace, did you see the police doing anything like that?
Ms. BRACE. No, I did not.
Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. McDonald?
Mr. MCDONALD. No, I did not.
Ms. DEGETTE. Finally, the policy says the goal of de-escalation
tactics is to gain the voluntary compliance of a subject, when
appropriate and consistent with personal safety, to reduce or
eliminate the necessity to use force.
Ms. BRACE. Ms. Brace, did you see the police doing that?
Ms. BRACE. No, I did not.
Ms. DEGETTE. How about you, Mr. McDonald?
Mr. MCDONALD. No, I did not.
Ms. DEGETTE. Now, did you see anybody at that particular
protest who was not complying voluntarily?
Mr. MCDONALD. No, ma’am.
Ms. BRACE. Not from what I saw.
Ms. DEGETTE. Were each of you complying voluntarily?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, I was.
Ms. BRACE. Yes.
Ms. DEGETTE. OK. So, Mr. Chairman, just looking at the U.S.
Park Police’s Use of Force Policy, it seems to me that they were
violating their very own policy, which is what the purpose of this
hearing is. And I find it very telling that the Administration didn’t
even show up to explain any of this today.
I just want to take one more minute of personal privilege and,
Bishop, tell you how proud I am of you, as a woman of God, to
stand up for the right of peaceful protesters. I am a Presbyterian
in Denver, and my church is very involved with the Black Lives
Matter movement. And we are involved in these protests. And we
think that is part of the very fabric of Christianity, and the very
fabric of America. Thank you.
59

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me recognize Mr. Clay.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for conducting this
hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony in observ-
ance of what you saw that day.
My wife and I happened to be in our living room, watching in-
credulously, especially after Attorney General Barr went out to the
square to survey, and then ordered the clearing of that square—
how outrageous, how un-American—just so somebody could take a
photo op.
Let me ask you, Mr. McDonald. Let me first thank you for your
service to this country and for your activism. Given your testimony
from what you saw on that day, did you see any protesters act vio-
lent, or did you see any of the demonstrators throw projectiles at
law enforcement?
Mr. MCDONALD. No, I didn’t see anyone throwing anything. I
didn’t see anyone acting violent.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that. And for me, for a Black man who
served his country, when you hear this Administration and
President say time after time that he does a lot for the Black com-
munity, then to be treated like a hostile, what goes through your
mind?
Mr. MCDONALD. I mean, it fits the rhetoric of where a Black man
is always persecuted. I am out there for just reason. I have an
Administration—not just an administration but a government—
that is trying to clear me for exercising my First Amendment
rights.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that. And let’s put politics aside. Does
the President’s narrative seem consistent if peaceful demonstrators
cannot peacefully protest the racial injustices we see and face on
a daily basis?
Mr. MCDONALD. I think probably the last 10 protests have been
very peaceful. The whole world has seen us peacefully protest. I
think those rioters and all that stuff was an isolated incident.
Ninety percent of the protests I have been to—well, 100 percent I
have been to have been positive, and about 90 percent I have seen
on TV have been very positive.
Mr. CLAY. Having a military background, do you consider the
training of those law enforcement personnel that you came up
against on June 1 to be in a posture of warrior or guardian?
Mr. MCDONALD. Warrior.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Ms. Brace, have you covered other protests where you have expe-
rienced law enforcement treating media in a similar manner to
your experience in Black Lives Matter Square?
Ms. BRACE. No, I have not.
Mr. CLAY. You have not. And as has already been mentioned,
this Administration’s story around what happened that day and
why it happened keeps changing. When you hear the Administra-
tion’s changing explanations, what goes through your mind, as a
journalist?
Ms. BRACE. Well, obviously, I am here to observe what is hap-
pening, not to speculate on why it is happening. But all I can tell
you is that on that day, on June 1, the plan seemed to change,
60

because we were expecting the curfew to be enforced at 7 p.m., and
it was enforced at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. CLAY. And during your broadcast, you mentioned that the
police were being indiscriminate, and didn’t seem to change their
actions after you stated you were members of the media. Do you
think at all that the treatment of you was intentionally directed at
you, due to your status as a journalist?
Ms. BRACE. I can’t say whether we were targeted because we
were working press. I can say it was clear we were working press,
and even after my cameraman, Tim Myers, was assaulted and it
was acknowledged very clearly that we were press, I was then hit
across the back with a truncheon as I was trying to move away,
as directed.
Mr. CLAY. Did you say that you got hit with a projectile?
Ms. BRACE. Yes.
Mr. CLAY. A rubber bullet?
Ms. BRACE. I am not sure whether it was a rubber bullet. It was
a projectile. A non-lethal bullet.
Mr. CLAY. I see.
And Mr. McDonald, did you get hit with an object?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, I got a plume of tear gas exploded right
below my feet, and they threw a flash grenade right at my ankles,
to the point it exploded. When I felt all the pellets, I asked the
officer on film, I said, ‘‘What did you throw at me?’’
And I saw something like smoke from the ground. I correlated
both together. I said, ‘‘Did that—whatever you threw, did it blow
up on the ground, and the asphalt hit me?’’ And I thought it may
have hit because the loud sound—I was oblivious to what it was.
When it hit the ground I just felt something hit me, and I thought
it was the asphalt—it was that powerful, where it blew the asphalt
up. And I asked, ‘‘What was that?’’
Mr. CLAY. All right, my time is up. But this is not how civilians
in this Nation should be treated who are trying to exercise their
constitutional rights. And I defy anyone on this panel to refute
that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Let me now recognize Mrs. Dingell for your 5 minutes. Thank
you.
Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking
Member, who it is always good to see. I want to thank you both
for having these hearings. And I think it is really important to say,
as we start this, that I don’t think any person on either side of this
aisle thinks that violence is ever OK at a protest. And I don’t think
you see people here saying that.
And I want to say that to some of my Republican colleagues. I
have actually been—the woman who you couldn’t force out of her
house 3 weeks ago—have been at 17 vigil marches and protests in
the last 2 weeks, because the people of my communities have orga-
nized them. And some are areas that do them all the time, and
some are ones that do them none of the time. And the first ones
that I went down river—most of them were organized by young
people.
61

One of my police chiefs immediately said to me, ‘‘What are you
doing here?’’ And not because he was upset that I was there, but
he had thought I was just going to the city hall. And people had
just arrived that they were trying to not let the young people see
with bricks, and arrived to cause trouble. And I know which orga-
nization they are with. But throughout these, my police chiefs have
walked with the young people. They have been alert. They have
worked together.
And I have had 2 bad incidences out of the 17, one where a
woman ran a car through us, and the second where young people
heard the word—a word that they should never hear once. And I
was called a White—several not pleasant words.
But our police chief handled them. And I think that that is what
we want to talk about today, because I think Americans have the
right to peacefully assemble and protest. It is a fundamental right
of our democracy. And how these get handled is really important.
So, we have to ask these questions because we don’t have a witness
today, as has been said. We have to make sure that that freedom
of speech and that freedom—I am proud of some of the young
people that I have seen out there, but we don’t want to see
windows—and some of these areas have deliberately been broken.
And my law enforcement knew that I was being targeted by some
people, and I wasn’t going to let that stop me, either.
But I want to ask some questions of both Mr. McDonald and Ms.
Brace.
Mr. McDonald, some of my colleagues across the aisle have
attempted to use the actions of a few protesters at a separate pro-
test against police brutality to depict the peaceful protests that you
were part of as violent, or call it a riot. I want to be clear, Mr.
McDonald. Did you personally witness violence or rioting prior to
the police attacking the protesters on June 1?
Mr. MCDONALD. No, ma’am.
Mrs. DINGELL. Ms. Brace, would you agree with Mr. McDonald?
Did you witness violent activity or any sort of similar events prior
to the police moving against the protesters on June 1?
Ms. BRACE. No, I did not.
Mrs. DINGELL. Furthermore, during these attacks you identified
yourself repeatedly as a member of the media. Correct?
When you did that, when you announced yourself, did they
refrain from violence?
And they went after your cameraman, so even if they didn’t see
your media credential, which—people have raised a question—it
was pretty obvious that your cameraman was a member of the
media, correct?
Ms. BRACE. Yes, absolutely.
Mrs. DINGELL. And can you talk about the injuries you and your
cameraman sustained, and the damage your equipment took?
Ms. BRACE. Tim suffered what I would describe as a harder hit
than what I did, as you saw in that video, with the shield to his
stomach. And then the camera was punched, which pushed it back
into his face.
He also was hit with a non-lethal projectile in the back of the
neck. As you saw, I was struck across the back with a truncheon.
And I was hit a few times in the legs by non-lethal bullets. I was
62

hit quite directly in the back side, so that would be my most
significant injury.
In terms of our gear, the camera, obviously, that Tim was hold-
ing up to his face was damaged when it was punched. A separate
lens that I was carrying in my backpack was damaged when I was
hit. And also, our live transmission device—we call it a TDU—was
significantly damaged when it was hit by——
Mrs. DINGELL. So, several thousand dollars’ worth of damage. I
want to ask you one more quick question, Mr. McDonald. You men-
tioned in your testimony that you took pictures and videos during
the attack. Why did you feel like it was important to document
everything that was happening?
Ms. BRACE. I believed it was a pivotal point in history, just to
be out there amongst those diverse protesters. And second, it was
for my safety, because Trump had made the threat of using
weapons and dogs on us, and I really took it literally. So, that was
the second main reason why I recorded.
Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. My time is up, but thank you, all of
you, for being here. And the Bishop, too.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Garcı́a.
Mr. GARCÍA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me express my
gratitude to all of our witnesses this morning, to the Ranking
Member, as well.
During this difficult moment in our history, we are grieving more
than a senseless murder of George Floyd. This is not new. The out-
rage is not new. We are grieving the 400-year legacy of the inter-
generational trauma from slavery, lynchings, the Jim Crow era,
and police brutality. The racial injustice in our country’s history is
still costing us innocent lives.
What we are seeing today is the result of historic injustices that
have kept people living in poverty, in communities where schools
have fewer resources, and where people live less long, due to lack
of health care, coupled with aggressive policing.
Earlier this month, organizers and protest participants were
attacked while demonstrating against police brutality in DC, and
this hearing brings that out. Facing protests over the use of force,
the U.S. Park Police responded with more force.
Mr. McDonald, thank you for being here. In your testimony, you
shared that you received training in CS gas, also known as tear
gas, during your time in boot camp. Can you describe the condi-
tions under which you were instructed to use tear gas during your
training, and how that compares to what you witnessed at
Lafayette Square?
Mr. MCDONALD. Well, first of all, in boot camp it was controlled.
It was around medics, and they had personnel there, because it
was done in a safe environment. What I witnessed at Lafayette
Square was excessive force. They did it without any kind of medical
people around. They knew people would get injured behind this.
The Navy did it in a much better, safer way, and it was done be-
cause we were in boot camp, a controlled environment. Although
we were protesting, they threw that. I just think that we weren’t
prepared for that. They shouldn’t have used that on protesters.
They are not soldiers.
63

Mr. GARCÍA. Based on your training, the U.S. Park Police didn’t
follow the proper protocols, in your opinion?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, that can’t be a necessary way to remove
people.
Mr. GARCÍA. Thank you.
Black and Brown communities are already being ravaged by the
deadly virus and an unprecedented economic crisis. Now they are
being terrorized by militarized police. Militarization of law enforce-
ment and the unjustified use of force against organizers and com-
munity members must end. Tear gas is a chemical weapon banned
in war, and it should never again be used against demonstrators,
but especially not during a pandemic.
We have heard countless stories of organizers and protest partici-
pants suffering traumatic injuries at the hands of law enforcement,
or, like Mr. McDonald, who was, ‘‘met with tear gas and flash
bangs, which exploded with shrapnel.’’
That is why my colleagues and I introduced a bill to stop the
escalation of such police tactics against peaceful demonstrators,
and ban the use of chemical weapons in our streets. The bottom
line is the rightful demonstrations that we are witnessing in the
wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other
Black lives taken by the police should never have been met with
the deadly force from law enforcement.
The U.S. Park Police and other police and military forces forcibly
removed peaceful protesters with chemical irritants. And for what?
For the President’s photo op?
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. Let me recognize Mr. Soto
for his questions and his time.
Mr. SOTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The whole Nation wit-
nessed videos showing President Trump, White House Justice and
Defense officials authorize use of force to remove peaceful pro-
testers. Lafayette Square Park and the adjacent Pennsylvania
Avenue, an area right in front of the White House, is our Nation’s
public square. This a traditional area for Americans to express our
First Amendment rights, the infringement of which deserves
heightened scrutiny.
It was particularly disgraceful that these tactics were used so the
President could engage in a photo op. Many have testified that the
incident occurred 1 hour before curfew. I do agree with other mem-
bers of this Committee that city officials should be wary about cre-
ating curfews of otherwise peaceful protests. These dictated
curfews often create unnecessary conflict between police and peace-
ful protesters. We know, based on the testimony, this was not the
case in this incident.
I want to welcome Professor Turley to the Committee. I would
be remiss if I didn’t say this hearkens me back to 14 years ago in
your Supreme Court class at GW Law. And I want to thank you
for being such a great teacher.
Professor Turley, some evidence suggests that the crowd was
cleared for purposes of a photo op. Other evidence suggests the
President wanted to display a show of strength after damaging
coverage of him retreating to a bunker a few days earlier. I am con-
cerned that the President may have specifically intended to
64

intimidate or silence political speech, or simply that he didn’t care
about the injuries that would occur as a result of his actions in
those last minutes that you really focus on before they begin
clearing the area.
If President Trump or other responsible officials harbored either
specific intent to intimidate or silence political speech or, at the
very least, had a reckless disregard for the safety and First Amend-
ment rights of protesters, would either of those states of mind be
relevant in determining a violation of their First Amendment
rights?
Mr. TURLEY. Thank you very much for that question. This is, in
fact, my ideal, to have a former student asking me a question, look-
ing at two counsels on either side of the Chair that are both GW
grads, and a photographer who is a GW student. So, I could not
be in a happier spot.
But to answer your question, most certainly the intent does mat-
ter. My testimony first starts out with the motivational question.
That motivational question, I think, we will get more salient
information with the inquiry of Congress.
And one of the things that, personally, I would look at, is it
seems to me that there is evidence that the plan was put into place
48 hours before, in terms of development. It was approved in the
morning. An order went out at 2. That does not mean, however,
that it answers, even if those facts are true, whether the
President’s photo op played a role in the size of the perimeter, the
decision to move people all the way to I Street, for example. Those
are things that are legitimate questions.
And as I said, if Attorney General Barr cleared that area for the
purpose of the photo op, despite knowing him for many years, being
a graduate of our law school, I would immediately call for him to
step down, because that would be an outrageous use of power.
So, the answer is yes. If this was done to intimidate people, this
would be a serious problem. The Supreme Court said in Bose that
protests are classically political speech. And that is why the courts
have been so protective.
So, I think that your question is a relevant one. And more
importantly, we can get those answers as we get more of these
facts confirmed from Congress.
Mr. SOTO. Thank you, Professor Turley.
Mr. McDonald, thank you for your service to our country. On
behalf of the U.S. Government, I would like to apologize for your
brutal treatment you received by your own government.
We recently passed the Justice in Policing Act of 2020. It stops
the militarization of police by stopping a Federal program that
gives local police surplus military equipment. As a veteran familiar
with the differences between the objectives of military and police,
how important is it to stop the de-militarization of our police force?
Mr. MCDONALD. It is very important. I mean, you lose control
once you militarize too much. The military is there for a certain
reason, and city cops are there for a certain reason. We have distin-
guished who does what, and I just think, giving the city police and
Park Police reasons to act like a military unit isn’t good for any
kind of protest, going forward.
65

Mr. SOTO. Thank you. Ms. Brace, on behalf of the U.S. Govern-
ment, I would like to apologize for your brutal treatment by this
government. I am appalled about how you and Mr. McDonald were
treated.
We have seen an increasing level of violence against members of
the press in the United States as of late. What do you suggest
needs to happen to better protect members of the press in the
United States?
Ms. BRACE. Again, I wouldn’t presume to tell the American
people how to run their government or their police force.
I think, basically, the First Amendment needs to be enforced, in
that the media needs to be able to work freely and without fear,
especially from law enforcement.
Mr. SOTO. And finally, Bishop Budde, you were installed on
November 12, 2011, so you have had a lot of experience with
Lafayette Square. How often do you see people protest in Lafayette
Square?
Rev. BUDDE. I don’t know that I could count, but it is, as I said
before, it is the park where people gather, and it is a common sight
for protests. I think there are protests there every day, actually.
Mr. SOTO. Thanks, and I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me recognize Mr. Horsford.
You are recognized, sir.
Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know all
too well the pain and loss that the Black community has faced be-
cause of law enforcement’s abuse of force. What took place at
Lafayette Park stands against our Nation’s ideals. Peaceful
protestors were exercising their First Amendment constitutional
rights.
Unfortunately, the President, in an effort to have an ill-advised
and unnecessary photo op, decided to upend the First Amendment
rights of peaceful protesters at Lafayette Park by using tear gas
and firing rubber pellets on them.
It is important that lawmakers can look outside their windows
and see and hear protesters. They are letting their government
know that change must occur. Instead, this President acted like an
authoritarian dictator, and used excessive force so he could stage
a 3-minute photo op at the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church.
This is simply wrong.
As a Black man, as a father of three children, two young boys,
I know we must find more common ground and enact real reforms
across this Nation and for my home state in Nevada. We need to
continue to have honest dialogue about race and other injustices
and, more importantly, act boldly for the change that we need
throughout our society.
Unfortunately, those actions taken by the President at Lafayette
Square do not bring us closer to solving these problems. In fact,
they make it worse.
Mr. McDonald, can you tell us what brought you to the protest,
and what were your general feelings about your fellow protesters?
Were they peaceful? Did you see anybody doing anything different
than exercising their First Amendment rights?
Mr. MCDONALD. Well, my reason for being there was for my First
Amendment rights, protesting the inequity in the Justice
66

Department. Everyone I saw, from the minute I started recording
at 6, until the minute they attacked us, was peaceful.
Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you.
Mr. MCDONALD. I didn’t see anything being thrown, other than
verbal things they were saying. No one attacked those officers.
Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. And what was your first reaction
when police in riot gear used tear gas on you and your fellow
peaceful protesters?
Mr. MCDONALD. It was confusion first, because you know it is 30
minutes before curfew. Then you wonder why are they doing this.
Like, what happened? You would have thought something dras-
tically happened for that to change from a peaceful protest to, like,
literally 3 seconds they switch and turn into a military unit.
Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you.
Mr. MCDONALD. It was confusion.
Mr. HORSFORD. Ms. Brace, seeing the way you were treated in
that video was shocking, to say the least. You were clearly identi-
fied as a member of the press. You were in an area designated for
members of the press. And yet those officers were completely indis-
criminate in their attack.
In your years of experience as a reporter, have you or your
cameraman ever been treated this way before?
Ms. BRACE. No.
Mr. HORSFORD. When you set up to work that day, did you
assume you would be safe from violence at the hands of law
enforcement?
Ms. BRACE. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. HORSFORD. Why?
Ms. BRACE. Because of the First Amendment and the respect for
the media in a democracy.
Mr. HORSFORD. Can you tell us more about the conduct of law
enforcement that you have observed as a reporter, and what was
it that happened at Lafayette Square the first time that you have
experienced this?
Ms. BRACE. Well, as you saw in the video, we were there to
report on what was happening, expecting the curfew to come into
effect at 7 p.m.
Then that line of police came through very early, very suddenly,
and very quickly. We moved right to the side, where we were very
much out of their way. There is nothing that would have prevented
them walking past us easily. And that is when they turned on us,
and we were both physically assaulted.
In terms of the protest itself, I would say that it was largely
peaceful. It was very different to the night before, where we did see
those fires and looting. That was nothing of the sort on the after-
noon of June 1.
Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you.
Right Reverend Budde, can you please talk about the teachings
of the Episcopalian faith, and whether those are in line with the
current President’s actions of using tear gas by police in riot gear
against peaceful protesters?
What was your reaction when the current President used a Bible
for the sole purpose of a photo op?
67

Rev. BUDDE. As I have stated before, there is nothing in scrip-
ture or in the teachings of our church that would condone violent
actions of State officials against innocent protesters. So, I would
say that it is completely antithetical to the teachings of our church.
When I saw the President hold the Bible in front of the church,
as I said, I felt he had usurped a spiritual—he was taking a spir-
itual message, or claiming a spiritual authority that he did not
have to justify or to bolster a message that was counter to our
teachings and our attempt to follow Jesus and his way of love.
Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. TONKO. OK, great. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to
our witnesses also. Thank you.
I am devastated that this hearing is needed, but it is absolutely
needed. I see massive pain in this country, our country, right now.
For many, this pain comes from the nervous uncertainty of living
in a world dominated by a deadly, highly contagious virus. The last
4 months have shown many of us what it is like to live in a society
where you don’t get to write the rules.
Black Americans have known that feeling for 400 years. They are
the descendants of the people kidnapped into slavery. They are the
product of pervasive and systematic racist policies, not just
Southern Jim Crow laws, but racist Federal policy, as well. Black
Americans were forbidden from claiming land in the Homestead
Act, excluding them from the largest and most permanent wealth
giveaway in our American history. They were effectively excluded
from the New Deal and the GI Bill, which can be argued as the
foundation for our American middle class. They were, and in many
cases still are, legally allowed to be profiled against by a police offi-
cer, who could use that power to investigate, intimidate, and, far
too often, end a life. And now, thanks to the compendium of institu-
tional racism, they are getting sick and dying from COVID at a
much higher rate than White Americans.
But Black Americans are, sadly, used to living in a society
where, for the longest time, they didn’t get to write the rules. I am
a 71-year-old White man, and I will never know what that feels
like. But I am brokenhearted that, as a member of our society, I
share some responsibility for the pain Black Americans feel.
Let me begin by first addressing my questions to Her Excellency,
Bishop Budde. And Bishop, did I pronounce your last name
correctly?
Rev. BUDDE. You did.
Mr. TONKO. OK. What does Christianity teach us to do if we
have harmed others?
Rev. BUDDE. To seek restitution, forgiveness, and at all times
mercy, because we all fall short in the sight of God.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you. In Lafayette Square on June 1, and
repeatedly since then across the country, it is asking, begging for
an end to this pain.
Rev. BUDDE. Yes.
Mr. TONKO. And as a fellow believer, it seems this is the
moment, if any, where we should be asking for such forgiveness,
and then doing what we can to eliminate pain into the future.
68

Mr. McDonald, can you remind me again how the peaceful
protesters were treated?
Mr. MCDONALD. We were treated with weapons of war. We were
treated like criminals. We were treated like we were breaking the
law. We were only exercising our First Amendment rights.
Mr. TONKO. Well, I think that, as we have learned today, nothing
in this response sounds compassionate to me. Nothing in this re-
sponse sounds like a teaching we would find in any book of faith
that would guide any one of us. Nothing in that response sounds
forgiving to me. And as one who has practiced my faith, I think
that it is part of some of the fundamentals that we all share in
making certain that we are a just and loving society.
So, I deeply implore our Nation’s President and any of her
leaders to refer to some of the scripture, and certainly scripture
found in that book that he held outside of St. John’s Church that
day. And I would encourage him to revisit the verse from Micah
6:8, which reads, ‘‘What does the Lord require of you but to do
justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?’’
I think that is instruction for all of us.
Mr. Chair, we have to do better. Let us heed the words of Micah.
As a Nation, let us resolve to go forward, to build a fairer Nation.
Let us now do the hard work of laboring for justice, denouncing vio-
lence, loving kindness, and, most certainly, walking humbly but
hurriedly on the path to what we all respect, a more perfect union.
With that, I yield back and, again, thank our witnesses for being
here today, for adding what they did to today’s discussion, and
providing that sort of clarity that we are all looking for.
And, Mr. Chair, again, I do yield back, and thank you for the
opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. And thank you, sir, for, I may say, very profound
and important comments that you made. Thank you.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the witnesses. I appreciate it
very much, all four being here today.
My colleagues, through the 21⁄2 hours that you have been here,
have asked a lot of the questions that were important to me.
I think that we heard a lot of important information today about
the attack on the protesters at Lafayette Square on June 1.
But we didn’t hear a peep from the Administration. We invited
Acting Park Police Chief Monahan. We jumped through hoops, as
different requirements were presented to us in terms of his coming
forward. The latest one was that he was too busy, and there could
be a conflict because of potential litigation down the road.
And it would have been very helpful to have him here, or a rep-
resentative of the Department, so we could understand which
version of the truth they have offered—and they have offered
several since June 1—is actually the correct one, and so that there
is no mistake, and nothing is being hidden from the American
people, that it is out there, and it is transparent. And it is our re-
sponsibility to provide that oversight.
And one thing as well today, is that we looked at what my col-
leagues said today, and the analysis from my respected Republican
colleagues, the main witness—the analysis, as I got it, depends on
the Administration telling the truth. Now, that would, I think,
69

create some skepticism and doubt among many, many, many
Americans at this point.
We also heard from our colleagues about a lot of things that
didn’t happen that date. The assumption is that the protesters in
Lafayette Square were dangerous by association, and that is not
the way it should have been approached. Pre-judging a group of
people based on unrelated actions, actions separate from them, of
others might be at the very heart of the problem here.
Maybe the protesters—and to deal with this in a bipartisan way,
I remember the calls for de-escalation, restraint, extended patience
when we were dealing with the takeover of a park facility by armed
individuals. And the struggle over the Bundy family and their re-
fusal to pay fees for grazing on public lands, and action by the
Federal Government to try to redeem that. I hope that that same
bipartisan attitude of restraint and—not create a double standard
in which—because perhaps the message in this one is not what you
wanted to hear in Lafayette Square. But just like the message that
the Bundys were having when they refused and armed them-
selves—I didn’t want to hear, but that is what the Park Police
chose, that is what the U.S. Marshal chose, that is what the FBI
chose: restraint, patience—prolonged patience, I might add.
I also want to talk a little bit about leading up to this hearing,
a lot of the discussion about issues having to do with what led up
to this. And that is why I made my point about people shouldn’t
be associated with anything that is going on, that the protesters
are the enemies, that they are not American citizens exercising
their right under the First Amendment, that it is about the
statues, that it is about the isolated series of violence.
Let me guarantee you, I have been around long enough, have
been to enough protests, and been arrested for civil disobedience
myself to know and to be able to say that the tail is not wagging
the dog on this movement that is going on in America right now.
The dog is in charge. And that is the American people. And those
outlier issues of opportunism, whether in appropriating the Black
Lives Matter movement for either a narrow ideological point or a
criminal point, should not be reflected onto what people are trying
to say out in America, period.
And I also have felt that this has opened up many things. And,
the irony of ironies, you have Mr. Pendley, who Trump is recom-
mending to run the other BLM, the Bureau of Land Management.
And he is one that did an Op Ed piece that said that the Black
Lives Matter movement is built on terrible lies. And it goes again
to make those associations. And he will be in charge of the biggest
land mass agency that we have in this country if the Senate
approves.
I think these contradictions, the fact that we are asked to believe
and that the Administration won’t come forward and allow a full
questioning and a full disclosure and transparency of all the infor-
mation related to what happened June 1, I think leads us to con-
tinue to press for the issue, not only of accountability, but of reform
with our Park Service police that has to change. And hopefully,
this hearing and you as witnesses—thank you so much.
70

Members might ask you questions. You have a period of time as
well to return your responses. I appreciate your time and I appre-
ciate all the patience you have shown today.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I have one other—I ask unanimous
consent to add one more letter into the record, which was sent by
the Secretary to you, inviting you also to visit.
And I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan manner,
because the Administration did have an option of willingness to
come here and talk about their point of view. We need to make
sure that that is there, and that is accommodated in the future.
Thank you.
And just one last thing. Be careful about when you are talking
about the experience in the West, which was supposedly done in a
non-violent way, because it did leave one of the citizens of my state
dead in the snow.
The CHAIRMAN. On that uplifting note, let me adjourn the meet-
ing, and thank you very much, all of you. I appreciate it. We all
do.
[Whereupon, at 2:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBRA A. HAALAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Chair, thank you for convening today’s panel. This is a necessary conversation
that is long overdue.
Our colleagues have said it already, but the events of June 1 will no doubt go
down as one of the darkest days of this presidency. And that is saying something
for a President that has put children in cages, has protected his cronies from
prosecution, and has opened our elections to foreign interference.
Attacks on the Constitution aren’t new for this President but clearing a peaceful
demonstration for a photo-op with his cabinet is an unbelievable new low. While we
will rightly focus on those actions of June 1, we cannot lose sight of the larger
moment we are in.
Today’s hearing is also about a larger trend of systemic racism in which milita-
rized police intimidate and kill in communities of color while defended from
prosecution.
The President’s recent actions brought that excessive force to the fore in a new
and unconstitutional way, but this is by no means an isolated incident. And while
I respect the work Federal civil servants do every day to improve our country, there
are times they do things our Nation is not proud of.
In November 2017, the U.S. Park Police murdered Bijan Ghaisar just over the
river in Arlington. Killed him while he drove his car. Still, his family has not had
justice.
Earlier this year, in my state of New Mexico, Charles Gage Lorentz was driving
back to his home in Colorado when he was murdered by a U.S. Park Ranger. I
spoke to his mother’s attorney recently, but I couldn’t explain why that killer still
patrolled one of our national parks, why he hadn’t been brought to justice.
Today, we are here to talk about the President and his illegal and unconstitu-
tional actions. But we also need to discuss power, to discuss fear, to discuss unequal
treatment under the law. Because we did not choose to live in a society where the
President wields the power of our government to break up peaceful protests any
more than communities of color across this Nation choose to live in fear of unequal
policing.
Let’s try to understand what breakdown in norms led to the horrible injustice of
the clearing of Lafayette Square. But let’s also make sure we keep in mind the
culture of systemic oppression that allows this same fear and power to control and
kill in communities across our country. Because this wasn’t an isolated incident.
We’ve seen this excessive use of force by Park Police and park law enforcement.
We’ve seen this excessive use of force in the District, and we’ve seen it in our
communities. It is time for us all to stand up and say, enough.
71

Submission for the Record by Rep. Bishop

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, DC

June 5, 2020

Hon. RAÚL GRIJALVA, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Grijalva:
Thirty years ago, on May 14, 1990, I was fortunate to witness an oral argument
at the Supreme Court of the United States. The matter before the Court that day
concerned whether the First Amendment permitted prosecution for flag burning in
violation of the Flag Protection Act of 1989. When the Court handed down its
verdict a few weeks later, I stood and watched a peaceful demonstration on the
steps of the Court. The Court’s determination was that the prosecutions under the
Flag Protection Act were not supportable under the First Amendment.
Since that moment, I have profoundly appreciated the Constitutional protections
that we, as Americans, enjoy and the seriousness with which any effort by the
government to limit those rights is, and should be, viewed. The ability to freely
express our views is fundamental to our society, even when some might find the
words or ideas being expressed offensive or disagreeable. Just as our Constitution
protects such forms of speech, it guards our right to peaceably assemble.
After the Nation witnessed the horrific killing of George Floyd, seeing with their
own eyes a loss of life that should never have occurred, many reacted. In doing so,
many have sought to exercise their rights peacefully; some have not, turning instead
to unlawful activity. The scope of the violence and destruction is significant. Neither
the American people nor the peaceful demonstrators are defined by those who seek
to terrorize our cities, vandalize our national memorials, ignite our sacred sites, or
attack our law enforcement officers and fellow citizens. But the presence of these
criminals and their acts of violence last weekend and into this week is indisputable.
The men and women in law enforcement, particularly the U.S. Park Police
(USPP) in this instance, are charged with safeguarding lives, protecting our
national treasures and symbols of democracy, and preserving the natural and
cultural resources entrusted to the Department of the Interior. They do this with
great honor. Since last Friday, however, our colleagues at the USPP have been
subjected to violence; several sustained injuries, and some were hospitalized.
Beginning on Saturday, May 30, 2020, the USPP were under a state of siege, and
routinely subject to attack by violent crowds. The incidents are numerous and
include USPP officers having their police cars vandalized; being subject to bombard-
ment by lighted flares, Molotov cocktails, rocks, bricks, bottles and other projectiles;
and physical assault so violent that to date over 50 area law enforcement officers
have been injured to some degree and even taken to local hospitals. This includes
one USPP officer so violently attacked that he required emergency surgery.
These acts of violence were accompanied by vandalism and disorderly conduct,
such as the setting of numerous fires, including the burning of an historic structure
at Lafayette Park as well as at St. John’s Church; profane graffiti scrawled upon
numerous public structures, including the World War II Memorial and the Lincoln
Memorial; and multiple attempts to break through fence lines, bike racks, and other
barriers designed to restrain crowds from entering secure areas. These are just a
small sampling of the incidents faced by law enforcement prior to the gathering on
June 1, 2020.
In light of the activities on last Friday and Saturday—and at the request of
USPP—I requested the assistance of the National Guard through the Secretary of
Defense to ensure we could maintain the security of President’s Park, the National
Mall, and other public properties. Fortunately, my request for assistance was
accepted.
On the evening of June 1, 2020, crowds gathered near the White House complex
and once again began assaulting law enforcement with projectiles while threatening
to storm the secured areas. Law enforcement personnel at the scene issued an order
for the demonstration to fall back. When the crowd failed to comply with this lawful
order, police at the scene, including the USPP, responded by pushing the crowd
back. While standard equipment, including shields, batons, and pepper balls where
72
used to accomplish this, no tear gas was used by USPP or associated units at
Lafayette Park, contrary to widely and erroneously reported assertions.
In working diligently to curtail the violence that was underway, acting USPP
Chief Gregory T. Monahan has publicly stated that the USPP is following its estab-
lished policy. The motto of the USPP is Integrity, Honor, Service. These special men
and women display an unwavering commitment to serve and protect this great
Nation, our national treasures and symbols of democracy, and the natural and
cultural resources entrusted to us. I have personally visited Lafayette Park multiple
times over the last week. I have seen firsthand the damage and destruction. I have
talked to our men and women in blue. They exemplify continued bravery, serving
with distinction. Politicizing their solemnity is unconscionable.
President Trump and I support justice and peace for every American. The
President has committed his Administration to the expansion of economic
opportunity and prosperity for all Americans. Under his leadership, criminal justice
reform has been enacted, investments in underserved communities have been
encouraged through opportunity zones, and, before the novel coronavirus outbreak,
the unemployment rate among African Americans was recorded at its lowest in our
Nation’s history.
This Administration also remains absolutely and fundamentally committed to the
peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. However, violence to our citizens,
attacks upon our officers, and destruction of our Nation’s resources is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, your letter repeats and amplifies a narrative that is harmful to the
credibility of our law enforcement personnel and to the rule of law. That is also
unacceptable.
The men and women of the U.S. Park Police are public servants charged to
protect and serve. They take this charge seriously. I invite you to join me in visiting
with our injured officers so you can see and hear, firsthand, their accounts. A
similar letter is being sent to Representative Debra Haaland.
Sincerely,
DAVID L. BERNHARDT,
Secretary of the Interior.

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE
COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Submission for the Record by Rep. DeGette
— General Order for Use of Force No. 3615 approved by Gregory
T. Monahan, Acting Chief of Police, dated November 1, 2019.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Bishop
— Letter from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
dated June 29, 2020.
— NPS Document on Memorials and Statues Vandalized in
Recent Protests from June 19–23.

###
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE U.S.
PARK POLICE’S JUNE 1 ATTACK ON PEACE-
FUL PROTESTERS AT LAFAYETTE SQUARE—
PART 2

Tuesday, July 28, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 1324
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Sablan, Huffman, Lowenthal,
Gallego, Cox, Neguse, Levin, Haaland, Cunningham, Velázquez,
DeGette, Dingell, Brown, Soto, Cartwright, Garcı́a; Gohmert,
Gosar, Westerman, Graves, Hice, and González-Colón.
Also present: Representative Beyer.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The Committee on
Natural Resources will come to order. The Committee is meeting
today to hear testimony on the Unanswered Questions About the
U.S. Park Police’s June 1 Attack on the Peaceful Protesters in
Lafayette Square.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hear-
ings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member or
his designee. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner
and help Members keep to their schedules. Therefore, I am asking
for unanimous consent that all other Members’ opening statements
be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the
Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess subject to
the call of the Chair.
As described in the notice, statements, documents or motions
must be submitted to the electronic repository HNRCdocs@mail.
house.gov.
Additionally, please note, as with our fully in-person meetings,
Members are responsible for their own microphones. As with our
fully in-person meetings, Members can be muted by staff only to
avoid inadvertent background noise.
Anyone present in the hearing room today must wear a mask
covering their mouth and nose. The Speaker of the House and the
Sergeant at Arms, acting upon the recommendation of the
Attending Physician, require face coverings for all indoor gath-
erings over 15 minutes in length, such as this Committee meeting.
Accordingly, to maintain decorum and protect the safety of
Members and the staff, the Chair will not recognize any Member
in the hearing room to speak who is not wearing a mask. According
to House Rule 17 and Committee Rule 3(d), the Chair retains the
(73)
74

right of recognition of any Member who wishes to speak or offer a
motion. This right includes the responsibility to maintain decorum.
As should be noted, it is permitted by the Sergeant at Arms,
through his guidance, that exceptions for Members briefly remov-
ing their mask to facilitate lip reading by viewers who are deaf or
hard of hearing.
Finally, Members or witnesses who experience technical
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
With that, I will now recognize myself for the opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAÚL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
The CHAIRMAN. Today, we continue examining the June 1
decision by the U.S. Park Police and its partners to violently re-
move peaceful protesters from the area around Lafayette Square.
At our hearing last month, witnesses told us that law enforce-
ment officers assaulted peaceful protesters and journalists without
warning, using tear gas and batons. We heard that the clergy at
St. John’s Church were forced off their own property for President
Trump’s photo op, which the diocese called a sacrilege.
Many questions remain unanswered. Who gave the street-
clearing order and why? Who authorized the police to assault and
gas non-violent protesters? Was this a premeditated plan to domi-
nate the battle scene, as Administration officials described it? Was
the non-violent crowd given a clear warning and a safe way to
leave?
We had hoped the Administration could help us answer these
questions at the June 29 meeting. They refused to testify, so I am
very glad that Mr. Gregory T. Monahan, Acting Chief of the U.S.
Park Police, is with us here today. We are also fortunate to wel-
come Major Adam DeMarco. As the D.C. National Guard’s liaison
to the Park Police on June 1, he relayed the orders from the Park
Police to the D.C. National Guard as they unfolded. Your presence
here is very important and shows much courage, and I thank you
for your decorated service to the country, which includes your
participation here today.
As the events have shown, Lafayette Square was a test run for
what is an illegal and ongoing crackdown by the Trump adminis-
tration that is being inflicted on cities across this country and at-
tempts to escalate those confrontations. Rather than deal with and
admit what did occur on June 1 was wrong, the Administration is
doubling down on its response to unarmed civilians in cities like
Portland, despite the mayor’s demands in Portland that they leave.
And what we saw with civilians being abducted off the streets
without probable cause and taken away in unarmed vans without
insignia or identification on the part of the law enforcement that
took them away. And questions continue about Chicago and
Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the President has threatened to
use similar tactics. President Trump openly says he is sending
paramilitary forces to these cities because they are run by
Democratic mayors.
This raises a crucial question. Was this Park Police-led assault
on June 1 motivated by partisan hostility directed from above to
those demanding justice for George Floyd and so many other Black
75

men, women, and children and a very diverse group of people exer-
cising their First Amendment rights from the Washington, DC
region?
My friend and our friend, John Lewis, made one of his last public
appearances at the scene of the Park Police attacks on protesters,
only 6 days before the June 1 incident. He spent his life doing what
most of us know is the right thing, fighting for fair and equal treat-
ment of Black Americans and all Americans.
I believe it is our duty in Congress, as Americans, and as human
beings, to ensure that others fighting for basic fairness do not suf-
fer the same brutality that Mr. Lewis had to endure in his quest
for fairness and equity for all people.
I think we can do better, and we can be better. And that is why
we are here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAÚL M. GRIJALVA, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES
Today, we continue examining the June 1st decision by U.S. Park Police and its
partners to violently remove peaceful protesters from the area around Lafayette
Square.
At our hearing last month, witnesses told us that law enforcement officers
assaulted peaceful protesters and journalists without warning using tear gas and
batons. We heard that clergy of St. John’s Church were forced off their own property
for President Trump’s photo op, which the diocese called ‘‘sacrilege.’’
Many questions remain unanswered. Who gave the street-clearing order and why?
Who authorized Park Police to beat and gas nonviolent protesters? Was this a pre-
meditated plan to ‘‘dominate the battle space’’ as Administration officials described
it? Was the nonviolent crowd given a clear warning, and a safe way to leave?
We had hoped the Administration could help answer these questions at our June
29th hearing. They refused to testify. So, I’m glad Mr. Gregory T. Monahan, Acting
Chief of the U.S. Park Police, is here today.
We are fortunate to welcome Major Adam DeMarco. As the DC National Guard’s
liaison to the Park Police on June 1, he relayed the orders from the Park Police to
the DC National Guard as they unfolded. Sir, your presence here is an act of pro-
found courage. I thank you for your decorated service to our country, which includes
your participation today.
As events have shown, Lafayette Square was a test run for the illegal, ongoing
crackdown the Trump administration is inflicting on cities across the country.
Rather than admit what they did on June 1st was wrong, the Administration is dou-
bling down on its violent abuses of unarmed civilians in cities like: Portland, where
paramilitary agents are abducting civilians off the streets without probable cause
and taking them away in unmarked vans, in flagrant violation of the Constitution
and the Portland mayor’s demands that they leave; and Chicago, where the
President has threatened to use similar tactics.
President Trump openly says he’s sending paramilitary forces to these cities
because they are run by Democratic mayors.
This raises a crucial question—was his Park Police-led assault on June 1
motivated by partisan hostility to those demanding justice for George Floyd and so
many other Black men, women, and children?
My friend, Congressman John Lewis, made one of his last public appearances at
the scene of Park Police attacks on protestors only 6 days before June 1. He spent
his life doing what most of us know is the right thing: fighting for the fair and equal
treatment of Black Americans.
It is our duty—as Members of Congress, as Americans, and as HUMAN
BEINGS—to ensure that others fighting for basic fairness do not suffer the same
brutality Mr. Lewis suffered.
We must do better and BE better. That is why we are here today.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, let me now turn to the designee for the
Ranking Member.
76

Sir, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JODY B. HICE, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are here today really
at what can only be considered Act 2 in the Democrats’ political
theater regarding the events in Lafayette Square. Even just the na-
ture of today’s title, that somehow the U.S. Park Police attacked
peaceful protesters is ludicrous. The assertion that these were
peaceful protests is completely ignoring the facts.
We know that there were acts of arson, there was vandalism,
and there were assaults on police officers in the days leading up
to June 1. This is even acknowledged by the Democrats’ second
panel witness in his written testimony, which states that the wit-
ness learned that Federal law enforcement officers from Park
Police and U.S. Secret Service had sustained injuries.
However, today’s hearing title does aptly note that there are
some unanswered questions. I was confident these would remain,
because the one witness who might be able to answer them was not
at the previous hearing and the Majority knew that, and yet con-
tinued with the hearing for show.
Chief Monahan, I am glad to see you here today. We are honored
to have you and we appreciate you testifying before the Committee.
You might not have all the answers today, but will probably be
able to provide some of the facts that were missing from the pre-
vious hearing on this topic. So, we are grateful for that.
My hope is that we will be able to see beyond the biased scope
through which the Democrats are viewing these actions and estab-
lish a truthful history of what happened on that day. For example,
we need more details about the warnings that were provided, and
the opportunity protesters were given to disperse. In the last hear-
ing, Democrat witnesses claimed that there were no warnings
heard. But a CNN reporter, Kaitlan Collins, live tweeted, ‘‘Park
Police is now warning protesters to leave. They have given three
warnings over a loudspeaker.’’ That tweet came at 6:32 p.m. on
June 1, so who are we to believe?
But we cannot talk about the events of June 1 in a vacuum; they
must be viewed in a larger context. What plans were made prior
to June 1 about expanding the perimeter? How did the levels of
violence and destruction factor into the decision?
We should also compare the scenarios of Lafayette Park to other
protests that have occurred in the city. Americans frequently exer-
cise their rights to assemble and protest in Washington. We have
numerous, and from all ideological perspectives. We have a number
of examples from the Women’s March, the March for Life, March
for Our Lives, just to name a few. The difference between those
events and the events at Lafayette Square are the acts of violence
and destruction.
While the predetermined narrative surrounding the events at
Lafayette Park and other events occurring throughout our Nation
outlines a story of law enforcement squashing rights, the reality of
the situation is quite different. In this case and in others, law
enforcement agents acted to secure an area and restore peace, tak-
ing reactive measures after acts of violence and destruction. The
77

provokers, the true culprits responsible for thwarting peaceful pro-
tests are the vandals and the rioters. Bad actors have hijacked an
important national conversation to push their agenda of violence
and disorder.
If we are looking to lay blame, those are the individuals you
should cast as the villains in this plot, those who ignored the law
and created an unsafe environment for peaceful protesters and law
enforcement alike. These are the individuals who are responsible
for limiting the ability of others to express their thoughts and
opinions.
Although I do not believe this is the closing act of this political
drama, perhaps this is the story line’s plot twist where this
Committee focuses on facts instead of political points. And maybe,
just maybe, we will get to the truths about the realities facing the
men and women who serve our communities as law enforcement
officers and answer questions about the decisions that were made
on June 1.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hice. The gentleman yields back.
Now we will turn to our first panel. Mr. Gregory T. Monahan is
the Acting Chief of the United States Park Police. He has been
with the Park Police or the Department of the Interior Law
Enforcement for over 23 years. Thank you very much, Chief, for
being here today.
I will just remind the witness that, under our Committee Rules,
you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the timer will begin. The lights in front of you
will turn yellow when there is 1 minute left, and red when time
is expired.
I recommend that Members joining remotely use active speaker
thumbnail view, so they may pin the timer on their screen and see
Members in the room.
The Chair now, again, thanking Chief Monahan for being here
with us today, recognizes Acting Chief Monahan for his testimony.
Sir, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MR. GREGORY T. MONAHAN, ACTING CHIEF,
UNITED STATES PARK POLICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. MONAHAN. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and
members of the Committee, my name is Gregory Monahan and I
am the Acting Chief of Police for the United States Park Police.
The United States Park Police is the oldest uniformed Federal
law enforcement agency in the United States and provides law
enforcement services, including the protection of visitors and park
resources to designated National Park Service areas, primarily in
Washington, DC; New York City; and the San Francisco metropoli-
tan areas. Here in Washington, that includes the National Mall
and Lafayette Park on the north side of the White House at H
Street, between 15th and 17th Streets, NW.
Each year, the United States Park Police facilitates hundreds of
First Amendment demonstrations and special events in and around
the District, some with permits and some with not, to ensure the
78

safety of the public and the protection of national cultural assets.
In facilitating these demonstrations, the Park Police partners and
coordinates with numerous public safety and protection agencies
within the National Capital Area.
In the days following the death of George Floyd, videos from wit-
nesses and CCTV became public and ultimately led to protests in
cities throughout the United States and abroad. The District
became the focal point for demonstrators and one of the most
highly concentrated areas of protests was in and around Lafayette
Park, which is recognized as a public forum for speech and
assembly.
The Park Police is accustomed to managing large and occasion-
ally unruly public demonstrations and spontaneous events at
Lafayette Park, as well as throughout the National Capital Area.
In these instances, we have an obligation to protect the safety of
peaceful demonstrators, maintain law and order, and keep our law
enforcement officers safe.
Beginning on Friday, May 29, public use of Lafayette Park
became a danger to public safety, good order, and health, and was
inconsistent with the preservation of National Park Service
resources. Violent demonstrations occurred between May 29 and
June 1, and included projectiles aimed at law enforcement officers,
including bricks, rocks, caustic substances, frozen water bottles, lit
flares, fireworks, and 2x4 sections of lumber. Protesters were phys-
ically combative with members of law enforcement. The violent pro-
testers injured 50 officers from the United States Park Police alone.
Eleven of my officers were transported to area hospitals and three
of them were ultimately admitted.
The unprecedented and sustained nature of violence and destruc-
tion associated with some of the activities in Lafayette Park and
the surrounding areas required de-escalation. And late Saturday
evening, on May 30 into Sunday morning, May 31, the U.S. Park
Police, in consultation with our partners from the Secret Service,
decided to temporarily restrict access to the park and the adjacent
streets and sidewalks by ordering and installing anti-scale fencing
across the north side of Lafayette Park.
The installation of the fence met resource and protection de-
escalation goals while enabling First Amendment activity to con-
tinue. Once we made that decision, installation of the fence was
dependent on two factors. First, we were required to have sufficient
resources on scene to safely clear Lafayette Park and H Street. And
second, the fencing had to be present at the park. Both of these re-
quirements were not met until later in the day on Monday, June
1. Once the fencing arrived, an on-the-ground assessment of the
violence and danger presented by the crowd led to the clearing of
the park and the installation of the fence.
The Park Police has faced a significant amount of criticism on
the heels of the June 1 operation. However, the installation of the
no-scale fence on the north side of Lafayette Park was a key tactic
that served to greatly de-escalate the violent behavior of bad ac-
tors. Violence dropped dramatically on June 2 and afterward in
that area, and First Amendment activities continued.
In this case, I believe the United States Park Police acted with
tremendous restraint in the face of severe violence from a large
79

group of bad actors, who again caused 50 of my officers to seek
medical attention. Our actions that day centered around public
safety and the safety of my officers. And the decision to install the
fencing was in furtherance of that commitment toward de-
escalation.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering questions the
Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Monahan follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY T. MONAHAN, ACTING CHIEF, UNITED STATES
PARK POLICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Good morning Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the
Committee. My name is Gregory Monahan and I am the acting Chief of the United
States Park Police.
The United States Park Police, established in 1791, is the oldest uniformed
Federal law enforcement agency in the United States. An urban law enforcement
unit, the United States Park Police provides law enforcement services to designated
areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS), primarily in the
Washington, DC, New York City, NY and San Francisco, CA metropolitan areas,
protecting the safety of visitors and park resources.
In the District of Columbia, the Park Police has primary jurisdiction over Federal
parkland, including the National Mall and Lafayette Park. Each year the Park
Police facilitates hundreds of First Amendment demonstrations and special events
in the Washington DC area, some with permits and some without, to ensure the
safety of the public and the protection of national cultural assets. In facilitating
these demonstrations, the Park Police partners and coordinates with numerous
public safety and protection agencies within the National Capital Area of Region 1.
In the days following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, videos
from witnesses and CCTV became public and ultimately led to protests in cities
throughout the United States and abroad. The Nation’s capital became a focal point
for demonstrators. One of the most highly concentrated areas of protest occurred in
and around Lafayette Park, which sits on the north side of the White House on H
Street between 15th and 17th Streets, NW. Lafayette Park is recognized as a public
forum for freedom of assembly and speech. The Park Police is accustomed to man-
aging large, and on occasion unruly public demonstrations and spontaneous events
at the Park, as well as throughout the National Capital Area of Region 1. In these
instances, we have an obligation to protect the safety of peaceful demonstrators,
maintain law and order, and keep our law enforcement officers safe.
Unfortunately, beginning on Friday, May 29, 2020, public use of Lafayette Park
became a danger to public safety, good order, and health, and was inconsistent with
the preservation of NPS resources. Violent demonstrations occurred between May
29 and June 1 and included projectiles aimed at law enforcement officers that
included bricks, rocks, caustic liquids, water bottles, lit flares, fireworks, and 2x4
sections of wood. Protestors were also physically combative with members of law
enforcement. These violent protestors caused injuries to over 50 officers of the
United States Park Police. Of those, 11 officers were transported to the hospital and
3 were ultimately admitted.
The unprecedented and sustained nature of the violence and destruction
associated with some of the activities in Lafayette Park and surrounding park areas
immediate and adjacent to the White House required de-escalation. Late Saturday
evening of May 30 into Sunday morning May 31, the United States Park Police, in
consultation with the United States Secret Service, decided to temporarily restrict
access to Lafayette Park and the adjacent streets and sidewalks by ordering and in-
stalling no-scale fencing across the north side of the Park. The installation of the
fence would meet the resource protection and de-escalation goals while enabling
First Amendment activity to continue.
Once we made the decision to order the no-scale fence, the installation of the
fence was dependent on two factors: the first was that we were required to have
sufficient resources on scene to safely clear Lafayette Park and H Street; and the
second was that the fencing had to be present at the Park. Both of these require-
ments were not met until later in the day on Monday, June 1. Once the fencing
arrived, an on-the-ground assessment of the violence and danger presented by the
crowd led to the clearing of the Park and the installation of the fence.
The United States Park Police has faced a significant amount of criticism on the
heels of the June 1 operation. However, the installation of the no-scale fence on the
80
north side of Lafayette Park was a key tactic that served to greatly reduce the vio-
lent behavior of bad actors. The Park Police takes seriously its commitment to pro-
tect the public and our Nation’s parklands and cultural assets, and the decision to
install the fencing was in furtherance of that commitment. Fortunately, that deci-
sion had the intended effect—violence dropped dramatically on June 2 and
afterward in that area and First Amendment activities continued.
I believe the vast majority of law enforcement officers throughout this country are
dedicated public servants who pursue this noble calling with courage in their hearts
and decency in their actions. On the whole, the United States Park Police acted
with tremendous restraint in the face of severe violence from a large group of bad
actors who caused 50 of my officers to seek medical attention. Our actions as an
agency on June 1 centered around public safety and the safety of my officers.
I look forward to answering any questions the Committee has and I thank you
for the opportunity to testify today.

The CHAIRMAN. For the testimony, reminding the Members of the
rule imposing a 5-minute limit on the questions. The Chair on our
side of the dais will recognize the Chairs of the Subcommittees and
then proceed on a first-come-first-served basis going forward.
With that, let me turn to Mr. Huffman for your 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Monahan, welcome. You have spoken a lot in your testi-
mony about the time frame from George Floyd’s murder until June
1, and you have talked with respect to Lafayette Park about the
period between—your words, between May 29 and June 1. This
Committee in this hearing is focused entirely on June 1, and the
chronology matters.
Are you suggesting that some of these violent incidents by pro-
testers, the throwing of caustic liquids and bricks and projectiles
and harming officers occurred on June 1?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir, I am. On June 1 and throughout that
operational period, we saw sustained violence from a number of
bad actors in Lafayette Park and on H Street.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Can you provide this Committee with documenta-
tion of that? Because that directly contradicts other firsthand
evidence that we have, including video evidence.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. Any request for any documents, I am
happy to——
Mr. HUFFMAN. We want to see everything you have on that.
Now, did that happen before or after 6:35 p.m., when your
officers and others began advancing on the protesters?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, so the level of violence that we were
subjected to on June 1 was——
Mr. HUFFMAN. No, no, no. A very direct question. Did the
violence that you are referring to happen before 6:35 p.m.?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. I understand the question. And the
violence that we were subjected to was throughout the entire
operational period, before and after.
Mr. HUFFMAN. All right, thank you. And, again, we really do
want to see that evidence, sir.
Mr. Monahan, you have been with the Park Police for a long
time, so you are surely familiar with the settlement your agency
entered into in 2015 after 13 years of litigation. You ended up pay-
ing millions of dollars to almost 400 peaceful protesters that you
had advanced on with forceful means. And as part of that legal
81

settlement, the service police was required to make very specific
policy changes. Are you familiar with that settlement?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record that 2015 settlement agreement.
At the top of page 8, that agreement requires the Park Police to
update its procedure to provide audible warnings to protesters to
disperse. And there are four significant parts of that legally en-
forceable commitment that your agency made. The first is officers
must be positioned in the rear of the crowd, so that they can actu-
ally hear the warnings that are given before the police advance.
The second is that they need to use sound amplification as needed.
And, third, that they need to warn the protesters that they are in
violation of a specific law. There is a substantive requirement as
part of that warning. And fourth, maybe most significantly for
June 1, the arresting officers positioned in the rear of the crowd
are required to give a verbal and/or physical indication to the offi-
cers in the front who are giving that warning, so that your officers
can confirm that it was audible and that it had been heard by the
protesters.
Were all of these procedures followed on June 1?
Mr. MONAHAN. The directives on June 1 were followed.
Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. I just want to get your direct answer,
and you say that every one of those procedures was followed.
I am going to ask to play a video that we believe suggests other-
wise, Mr. Chief. I would like to ask staff to play the clip entitled
Warning One.
[Video shown.]
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Monahan, could you understand the warning
that was recorded in this video? Could you hear it? Was it audible
to you?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, I could hear the warning. Yes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. You must have superhuman hearing. Because I
don’t think any of us could hear it. And wouldn’t you agree, just
from own lying eyes, we could see protesters who were clearly con-
fused, who did not appear to be told that they were about to be
advanced on, who did not appear to be told that they were in
violation of a specific law, as your settlement requires.
Do you feel that that was understood by those protesters as
evidenced by that video footage?
Mr. MONAHAN. I think when you take into account video footage,
there is context. And based on other video that I have viewed from
June 1 and specifically around this time frame when the first
warning was given, throughout the first warning through the third
warning, you can see a number of demonstrators leave the area
and heed the warning that was given from the incident commander
that——
Mr. HUFFMAN. All right, well, Chief Monahan, we do look
forward to getting the evidence that backs up your account of this.
But, Mr. Chair, from everything we have heard, from everything
we have seen, it sure appears as if the Park Police ignored their
own legal requirements in the settlement to follow these proce-
dures, almost as if they wanted the crowd to be confused, so that
82

they could go in with maximum force and perhaps appease a
president who just hours earlier had urged police to act that way.
I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. Let me recognize Mr.
Westerman for your 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Monahan, thank you for your testimony. This hearing is
about politics and I apologize to you and the rest of the officers in
the United States Park Police for having to endure a political at-
tack. This is not the first hearing we have had on this; it probably
won’t be the last hearing.
If my colleagues across the aisle were concerned about police
reform, I don’t think that their colleagues in the Senate would have
described Senator Tim Scott’s bill as a token bill. I don’t think the
Speaker would have dismissed it as attempted murder or whatever
words she used about Senator Scott’s bill.
We are here today to find out facts, not to play politics with a
serious situation. My colleagues are supporting defunding the
police. They seem to have no problem with defacing public prop-
erty. And we all agree that Americans are allowed to protect peace-
ably, like the Constitution says. So, the question is, were these
peaceful protests or were they violent protests?
You have testified that 50 of your officers were injured. Can you
describe some of those injuries?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. Like I said in my opening statement, 50
U.S. Park Police officers were injured between May 29 and June
1. On May 29, we had 13 officers that were injured during violent
protests at Lafayette Park and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Eleven
of those injuries were blunt trauma related injuries to the head,
upper body, and lower body. One of those injuries was sustained
by a sergeant from the United States Park Police, who was wearing
this helmet here on the table. He was struck in the helmet by a
brick that was thrown at him by a violent protester. And you can
see the damage that had occurred to the left side of this helmet
that is sitting here on the table. That officer was later hospitalized.
To this date, he has still not returned to work.
On May 30, there were 37 injuries up at the White House.
Twenty of those were for the U.S. Park Police, and those injuries
were blunt trauma related injuries to the head, upper body, and
lower body, the most significant of which was an officer from the
U.S. Park Police, who was on the line on the north end of Lafayette
Park, and he was struck in the testicles by a protester who threw
a brick and struck him in the groin. He suffered a significant in-
jury. He just returned to work this past Sunday.
On May 31, we had 16 patient encounters of U.S. Park Police
personnel, six of those were blunt trauma related injuries to the
head, upper body, and lower body. And on June 1, we only had one
injury. An officer was punched in the face by a protester when we
were clearing H Street, and he suffered a facial laceration.
Mr. WESTERMAN. I find it hard to see how anybody could call
that a peaceful protest. And was the protocol followed to give three
warnings? And what kind of device was used to do that?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. The protocol was followed to give three
warnings, the first of which was given at 6:23 p.m. There were
83

three warnings given. And they were given utilizing a long-range
acoustic device, it is called an LRAD, and that is what it stands
for. That was the device used.
Mr. WESTERMAN. I just want to get some things straight for the
record here. Did Attorney General Barr order the Park Police to
clear the square?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir, he did not.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
order the Park Police to clear the square?
Mr. MONAHAN. No.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Did anyone at the White House order the Park
Police to clear the square?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Did Secretary Bernhardt order the Park Police
to clear the square?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, he did not.
Mr. WESTERMAN. It seems pretty cut and dry to me what hap-
pened. I wish that Congress could work on renewing hope in
America, on restoring the America that we love, and work on over-
coming this pandemic and rebuilding our future, rather than con-
tinuing to drag issues like this through the mud, when it is clear
that my colleagues across the aisle do not want to work for solu-
tions. A very thoughtful, bipartisan bill was put out on police
reform by Senator Scott and it was essentially laughed at.
With that, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. Let me now turn to the
Vice Chair of the Committee, Ms. Haaland, for any questions you
might have.
Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Monahan. I would like
to talk about the missing Park Police radio recordings from June
1. Mr. Monahan, did the Park Police communicate over radio with
other agencies regarding the orders and coordination of June 1 that
we are talking about today?
Mr. MONAHAN. In terms of the radio transmissions made by the
United States Park Police, they were to other members of the
United States Park Police. We had face-to-face contact with partner
agencies on June 1.
Ms. HAALAND. So, just to be clear, the radio interaction,
communication, was just between the Park Police, and any other
communications between other agencies were in person?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am.
Ms. HAALAND. OK. Is it standard procedure for Park Police to
record radio transmissions between each other, like this?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, standard procedure for every incident is to
have a record of any radio transmissions.
Ms. HAALAND. And can you explain to us why the radio
transmissions should be recorded?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am. If you go back to September 2018,
the United States Park Police were utilizing an analog radio
system at the time. We were preparing to transition to a digital
radio format.
In September 2018, we experienced a critical failure in our
analogue radio system. We transitioned to the digital format. When
84

our radio technicians were conducting this transference, only our
main radio channel was configured to record. Our administrative
channel that we utilize for large special events, such as the one on
June 1, was not configured to record at the time.
Ms. HAALAND. So, it was not configured to record at the time.
Are there radio recordings of the Park Police for the time period
between May 29 and June 2 at all?
Mr. MONAHAN. For our normal operations, yes, but not for the
special event in the demonstration at the White House.
Ms. HAALAND. And I’m sorry. Why is that?
Mr. MONAHAN. So, again, when we transitioned to our digital
radio system, the radio technicians that were setting up that
system only set up our main dispatch channel to record. It was an
error. They did not set up our administrative channel to record.
Ms. HAALAND. OK. So, that was an error you say?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, it was.
Ms. HAALAND. OK. Were there any notes or logs of those
transmissions because there was an error in having those commu-
nications recorded?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. For any special event, a large special event
or demonstration like the one on June 1, we establish a written
record or a written log of transmissions that are utilized within the
command bus to send out situational reports or updates via e-mail.
So, that was done in this case.
Ms. HAALAND. Can you provide any notes or logs of those
transmissions to the Committee please?
Mr. MONAHAN. I will work with the Department’s Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs on any request that you
have.
Ms. HAALAND. And is it regular practice to take such notes or
logs or does it only happen when you know the radio recording is
not working?
Mr. MONAHAN. That is a good question. As I mentioned earlier,
for large special events or demonstrations like we had on June 1
and the days leading up to June 1, we established a redundant
process of having a written log.
Ms. HAALAND. OK. So, is it standard procedure to record radio
transmissions, but there is no recording of radio traffic from Park
Police for June 1, which just happens to be the day the
Administration did a test run of the brutal crackdown on protestors
we continue to see now in cities across America?
And I would imagine having that recording would answer many
of the questions that we and the public have at this moment.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am, and I agree. I think every incident
should have a complete record, and in this instance, we have a
written record.
Ms. HAALAND. OK. And you will provide that written record to
the Committee at your earliest convenience or make sure of that?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. I will work with the Office of Congressional
Legislative Affairs on fulfilling your request.
Ms. HAALAND. Thank you.
Regarding your radio recording technology—you are saying it
was not actually broken, it was just an error in making sure that
85

the recordings actually recorded. So, it was not set up that way. It
was not really broken. Is that correct?
Mr. MONAHAN. That is correct, and we did not recognize the
error until we attempted to pull the radio run on June 10. We have
since, as soon as we were alerted to the fact that it was not config-
ured to record, we have corrected that error.
Ms. HAALAND. OK. And I am sorry. Whose fault was the error?
Mr. MONAHAN. If you go back to September 2018, the radio tech-
nicians, it was an oversight on their part and they did not
configure the administrative channel to record.
Ms. HAALAND. OK.
Mr. MONAHAN. And as I said, every incident should have a
complete record, and in this instance, we have a written log.
Ms. HAALAND. OK. And right now the radio recordings are
working. Is that what you are telling me?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am, that is correct.
Ms. HAALAND. So, if we were to have a repeat of June 1, we
would have the recordings that you could send over to us?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. Our administrative channel is configured to
record, yes.
Ms. HAALAND. OK. Thank you, Chairman. I am sorry. I yield.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Hice, you are recognized.
Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned the long-range acoustic device that was used.
What is the range of that device when it comes to warning the
crowd?
Mr. MONAHAN. Sir, it has been some time since I read the actual
specs of the long-range acoustic device, but I want to say it is 600
meters.
Dr. HICE. OK. Were the protesters within that range?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. I would estimate that they were where we
had it set up, which was we were in the center of the park and on
the northeast section of the center of the park, and I would say we
were within 45 meters of the protesters.
Dr. HICE. So, they were in range of hearing.
I would also note that protesters must have the ability to leave
an area. What courses of actions did the Park Police consider when
discussing that issue?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. When implementing our plan to clear the
north side of Lafayette Park and H Street, we moved the crowd
from east to west, and then their path of exit was either north on
16th Street toward I, India, Street or continued west to 17th and
H or Connecticut and H.
Dr. HICE. So, that is the direction that the officers were pushing
the protesters?
Mr. MONAHAN. That was the movement from east to west,
correct.
Dr. HICE. OK. Were the protesters in any way prevented from
leaving the Square by police?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, they were not.
Dr. HICE. OK. You mentioned earlier the various acts of violence,
the projectiles that were being thrown, and the injuries that were
86

sustained. There was everything from frozen water bottles to
bricks, caustic liquids.
In a weekend of violent protests, you mentioned 51 officers
injured. Of course, we know about the arsons at the St. John’s
Church and so forth.
I would also note from intelligence reports that there were calls
by police officers, again, regarding violence against them. There
were also caches found of glass bottles, baseball bats, and metal
poles, along the way.
I am curious from the time from then to now has there been any
type of investigation to see whether or not there were any specific
groups or a group that was involved in organizing all of this.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. The United States Park Police has coordi-
nated with a number of our Federal partners in follow-up
investigations on some of the violence that we saw, the assaults on
officers. We have been successful in obtaining a number of arrest
warrants for individuals that were either involved in assaults
against police officers or damage to park resources.
In terms of a nexus to larger groups, that is an ongoing effort.
Dr. HICE. When do you think that may be determined?
Mr. MONAHAN. I don’t know if I could say as I sit here today.
Again, these are ongoing investigations, and as we gather more in-
formation and as additional arrests are made, all of the intel that
is gathered from those arrests contributes to any nexus to a larger
effort.
Dr. HICE. It just appears that in some other places throughout
the country there are specific groups that are behind it. I was curi-
ous if that was the same here, but that investigation is still under-
way is what you are saying?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Dr. HICE. Recently there was a video that was circulated that
shows Representative Jerry Nadler, of course, Chairman of the
Judiciary, stating that many of these protests were, in essence, a
myth as far as the violence within the protests. Would you agree
with that?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir, I would not agree. I think based on the
level of violence and sustained violence that we saw beginning on
May 29 through June 1, this was one of the most violent protests
that I have been a part of in my 23 years with the United States
Park Police.
Dr. HICE. One of the most. What would be another one that
would rank up there in your memory?
Mr. MONAHAN. The Occupy DC demonstrations from several
years ago and then the World Bank demonstrations.
Dr. HICE. OK. It is just amazing to me, as Representative
Westerman mentioned, that this is just nothing more than political
theater to come here and somehow pretend as though these were
peaceful protesters where the evidence is abundant, everything
from arson to vandalism to 51 injured officers. This was anything
but peaceful, and the reason it did not sustain that kind of momen-
tum in Washington, DC, is because the Park Police and others got
involved to put a stop to it.
87

So, I want to thank you for your service in that regard in
maintaining the safety of Washington, DC, and beyond. We are ap-
preciative of that.
And, Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I do have a letter from the
Federal Law Enforcement Officers that I would ask unanimous
consent to have submitted to the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
Dr. HICE. Thank you, sir. I yield.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lowenthal. You are recognized, sir.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Acting Chief Monahan, for being here.
The questions that I have, Mr. Monahan, have to do with the
reasons given for clearing the protesters from Lafayette Square. I
think you mentioned that the reason was that the area was need-
ing be cleared to put up fencing to seal off Lafayette Park and
create a new perimeter.
When was that decision made?
And was there any specific time when this fencing was supposed
to go up?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. The decision to pursue other options
based on the increased level of violence that we saw beginning on
May 29 was initially discussed Saturday evening into Sunday
morning.
Based on a number of factors, we knew that we were likely going
to have on Monday a late report time for our personnel, but also
a late arrival time for the fencing.
The fencing did arrive on Monday in the late afternoon. At 3 p.m.
on Monday, the site manager arrived. At 3:30 p.m., the employees
arrived. The fencing arrived at 5:15 p.m. and then was staged on
17th Street by the United States Secret Service.
As I spoke earlier, at 6:23 p.m., we gave the first of three warn-
ings. The initial movement to clear the north side of Lafayette
Park and H Street was commenced at 6:30 p.m., and it was
concluded at 6:50 p.m.
At 6:55 p.m., the Secret Service escorted the trucks with the
fencing inside the White House area and staged them on the west
side of Lafayette Park at Jackson Place. They began to install the
fence at 7:30 p.m., and the fencing build-out was completed at
12:50 a.m.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Let me understand. You said this operation
about the fencing, that its happening in the early evening was in-
evitable, given that you needed both the resources and the fencing
to do this.
Was there ever any discussion that it would be better to start
this process of fencing after the curfew or at night to start it in-
stead of in the evening when the crowd was going to be at its peak?
What is the standard of timing for setting up security fencing
and a new perimeter?
Mr. MONAHAN. In this particular instance, we were not nec-
essarily operating on a timeline. We were operating on the need for
logistical strength in the terms of having ample resources to safely
implement our plan and then having the fencing in place.
In terms of the curfew, that was not something that factors into
our decision making. And if you look at the level of violence that
88

we were subjected to over the three previous operational periods,
it increased throughout the day and as nightfall came upon us, it
increased even from that point on.
So, if the previous night was any indication, which was the first
night where we had the curfew, waiting until curfew did not ap-
pear likely that the rioters in the crowd would peacefully disburse.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. So, let me just understand this. In his state-
ment, Major DeMarco also mentioned that shortly after Attorney
General Barr left Lafayette Square at 6:20 p.m., after conferring
with the Park Police, the inaudible warnings began.
Shortly after the clearing finished in a fast paced and rushed
manner, about 30 minutes later, the President was having his
photo op at about 7:05 p.m.
Now, I need to understand. Either the clearing was for a photo
op or that is an amazing coincidence, do you not think, Mr.
Monahan?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, I do not think it is a coincidence. Our oper-
ation was solely centered around the clearing of H Street and the
north end of Lafayette Park to de-escalate the sustained level of
violence that we saw over the previous 3 days and then again on
June 1.
In order to do that, in order to successfully de-escalate that, a
common practice is to install physical barriers or boundaries
between protesters and law enforcement. And in this case, the best
avenue to do that was to install that anti-scale fencing. And to my
point, if you fast-forward to June 2, we saw a dramatic decrease
in violent behavior at Lafayette Park on June 2.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, and I am going to yield back. But
it just strikes me as an amazing coincidence. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. Ms. González-Colón, you
are recognized.
Miss GONZÁLEZ-COLÓN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my 5
minutes to Mr. Hice.
Dr. HICE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Let’s talk about
this—the Democrats’ second witness submitted written testimony
that the materials to erect the fence did not arrive on the scene
until around 9 p.m. Can you confirm that testimony? If not, what
time did the material arrive and the fence start being erected?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. Mr. DeMarco was mistaken. The
fencing—as I said earlier, the site manager arrived at 3 p.m. The
employees arrived at 3:30 p.m. The first truck with the fencing ar-
rived at 5:15 p.m. But they were staged on 17th Street south of
Pennsylvania Avenue. They were escorted into the White House
complex at 6:55 p.m. And that was after we cleared the north end
of Lafayette Park and H Street. And at 7:30 p.m., they began to
build the fence.
Dr. HICE. OK.
Mr. MONAHAN. 7:30 p.m.
Dr. HICE. All right. So, the testimony of the next witness is not
accurate as it relates to the fence. Since the time that the fence
was put up, how many officers have been injured?
Mr. MONAHAN. After the fencing was built out, we have zero
injuries from U.S. Park Police officers.
Dr. HICE. All right. Why does Lafayette Park remain closed?
89

Mr. MONAHAN. The fencing was taken down shortly after. I think
June 10, it was taken down. We saw sort of a second phase of vio-
lence in DC that was directed at statues and other Federal prop-
erty. And Lafayette Park was closed down through the 31st of this
month in an effort to restore and repair some of the damage that
was done in Lafayette Park.
Dr. HICE. It seems clear to me that fencing is effective in
deterring vandals. Would you agree with that?
Mr. MONAHAN. In this case, just based on the geography, it was
a meaningful and deliberate move and a change in tactics on our
part in furtherance of de-escalation. So, yes, it did work.
Dr. HICE. Yes, it did work. You had zero injuries since then. I
think the evidence speaks for itself. Is there currently a fence
around St. John’s church?
Mr. MONAHAN. There is anti-scale fencing around a portion of St.
John’s church, yes.
Dr. HICE. Has there been any further damage or vandalism done
to the church since the fence was erected around the church?
Mr. MONAHAN. Not to my knowledge.
Dr. HICE. Not to my knowledge either. Who requested this fence
to be erected?
Mr. MONAHAN. The concept or the idea of utilizing anti-scale
fencing was a conversation that we had between the U.S. Park
Police and our counterparts with the United States Secret Service.
And, again, that discussion began Saturday evening into Sunday
morning.
Dr. HICE. According to your testimony, the fence was a key tactic
that served to greatly reduce the violent behavior of bad actors.
And from your testimony here this morning, it was effective in ac-
complishing that strategic mission. The Park Police has an obliga-
tion to protect the safety of peaceful demonstrators while, at the
same time, maintaining law and order. We get that. And we have
to protect our law enforcement officers. So, how does the erection
of the fence in this case and in other cases help accomplish these
obligations?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. It is a good question. It is a physical barrier.
And what we saw on the days preceding it, so on the 29th, 30th
and the 31st, the barriers that we had between protesters and law
enforcement in the park were two rows of bike rack, which is
maybe 4 feet high. And we had numerous attempts, successful at-
tempts, of demonstrators jumping over the bike rack that was lined
with police tape to not cross.
Erecting an anti-scale fence was a logical move and a change in
tactic to prevent those types of behaviors. It did not prevent projec-
tiles from continuing to be thrown in the days subsequent to that.
But it provided a suitable barrier between law enforcement and
those bad actors that were showing their violence toward law
enforcement.
Dr. HICE. Well, let me ask you this in my final question here.
Who specifically were the personnel involved in the actual installa-
tion of the fence? Were the national guardsmen who are part of the
detail installing the fence? Who was it?
Mr. MONAHAN. No. The fencing company itself installed the
fence.
90

Dr. HICE. OK. Thank you very much. I yield.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. Let me now recognize Mr.
Gallego for his questions.
Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Acting Chief, who ordered
the clearing on June 1? Who told the men to advance?
Mr. MONAHAN. I am sorry. Your second question?
Mr. GALLEGO. Who told the men to advance on the crowd?
Mr. MONAHAN. The order was given by the Incident Commander
from the United States Park Police.
Mr. GALLEGO. Great. Were you on site?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, I was.
Mr. GALLEGO. Did you have any conversations with Attorney
General Barr on site?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, I did not.
Mr. GALLEGO. You did not interact with him at all when he came
outside of the White House?
Mr. MONAHAN. I saw him in the park, but I did not have any
interaction with him.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK. So, tell me again why you didn’t wait until
7 p.m., because that actually sounds totally illogical to me. At 7
p.m., you could probably actually make a statement saying now
this is an illegal operation. You need to disperse because there is
a curfew. But you decided to do it, coincidentally, 40 minutes
earlier, because somehow you think that de-escalates.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we were not
operating on a timetable.
Mr. GALLEGO. But why didn’t you? It actually makes more logical
sense for you to wait until 7 p.m.
Mr. MONAHAN. I would respectfully disagree. And I say that
based on our experience the night before—when the 7 p.m. curfew
arrived the night before, no one left the area.
Mr. GALLEGO. But that day, you only had one injury. What time
was that injury at? You testified June 1, one injury. What time was
that injury at?
Mr. MONAHAN. The injury on June 1 was during the clearing
operation of H Street.
Mr. GALLEGO. So, that whole day was peaceful protesting until
the clearing. And, yet, you decided that somehow there was going
to be violence. So, therefore, you initiated something before the 7
p.m. curfew.
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir. That is inaccurate. What I stated earlier
was that we saw violence throughout the operational period.
Mr. GALLEGO. I am not asking that. I am asking on June 1.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes.
Mr. GALLEGO. Let me give you an example. When I was in the
Marine Corps and I had to clear all these cities, I had to react to
what was happening that day. I may have gotten shot at, thrown
at, tried to be mortared, IED’d—actually, it happened every day.
The next day, I went out and patrolled like a professional. On June
1, by your testimony, you had largely peaceful protesters up until
the time you actually forcibly tried to remove them. Your decision-
making process should have been based on the ground on what was
happening on that day.
91

Mr. MONAHAN. All of our decisions on June 1 were based on an
on-the-ground assessment of the level of violence that was directed
at law enforcement.
Mr. GALLEGO. But not of that day.
Mr. MONAHAN. My testimony today——
Mr. GALLEGO. But not of that day.
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir. That is inaccurate.
Mr. GALLEGO. That is very unprofessional if you were actually
telling me that you made decisions of what to do June 1, and you
decided that that date required a level of escalation because, later
on, one person would get injured once you start moving through
the crowd.
Mr. MONAHAN. My testimony to you today is our operation on
June 1 was solely based on an effort to de-escalate the violence.
And it was based on an effort to provide for the safety of those——
Mr. GALLEGO. No, no. You claimed that you want to de-escalate
the violence by putting the fence up, which I actually agree with.
That is actually a very good move. And I think that was important
to actually de-escalating. But de-escalating the violence does not
mean sending men swinging their batons and using pepper spray
or CS gas, whatever you guys claimed it to be, 40 minutes prior
to a curfew. It just doesn’t make logical sense. Anybody who—and
I actually have been trained in de-escalation. I have been trained
in riot control also.
The one thing you try to do is you try to find the moments to
actually de-escalate. So, 7 p.m. when the curfew is about to hit,
when you are also probably going to have some backing at least
maybe from the Washington Police Department, would have been
the most logical sense. Instead, we have this weird scenario that
you are telling me that there was so much violence that day that
nobody was injured, by the way, until you guys advanced on them
that you had to make that decision then. It makes no sense. If I
had acted this way when I was in the Marine Corps, I probably
would have been busted down a couple of reps. Also, there were
two police officers that assaulted Australian TV news crew. Are
they being held responsible?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. The incident on June 1 involving the
Australian media is being investigated by the Office of Professional
Responsibility for the United States Park Police. That investigation
is underway at this time.
Mr. GALLEGO. Did you see the video yourself?
Mr. MONAHAN. I have seen the video, yes.
Mr. GALLEGO. Was the conduct professional that these police
officers were engaging in?
Mr. MONAHAN. It is an ongoing investigation, and it would be
inappropriate for me to comment on that officially.
Mr. GALLEGO. And just to be clear, your police officers that day,
on June 1, they were all Park Police officers. People weren’t
brought in for ICE or DHS. That was all Park Police?
Mr. MONAHAN. On June 1, we were operating under unified
command with the United States Secret Service.
Mr. GALLEGO. No, I get that. The National Guard was here. Who
were the people that were assaulting and pushing forward on the
protesters? Were they all Park Police?
92

Mr. MONAHAN. No. The other agencies that have assisted with
the operation and the clearing of H Street and the north end of
Lafayette Park——
Mr. GALLEGO. So, you cleared protesters with people that have
different standards, different procedures for clearing, because you
train your Park Police all along one standard—right?—in terms of
riot control. Did you know what standards and procedures those
other elements were used to?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. They receive the same training that we do.
Mr. GALLEGO. They do?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK. Can you provide documentation for that?
Mr. MONAHAN. I am sorry?
Mr. GALLEGO. Can you provide documentation for that?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, any request you have, I will facilitate and
work with the Office of Congressional Legislative Affairs from the
Department on addressing.
Mr. GALLEGO. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cox, you are recognized.
Mr. COX. Thank you so much, Chairman. And thank you so much
for being here today, Chief. The hearing today isn’t so much about
whether the fence went up, or people were painting in the park,
or peaceful protests—well, in fact, it really was peaceful protests—
it is whether or not that the Park Police and yourself really have
a duty and obligation and a fealty to the Constitution. Chief, I am
sure that you and your officers take note to protect and defend the
Constitution.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. COX. And if you were given an order to forcefully bear Blacks
or women from voting at polling places, would you abide by that
order?
Mr. MONAHAN. I am sorry, sir. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. COX. If you were given an order to forcefully bear women or
African-Americans from polling places, would you abide by that
order?
Mr. MONAHAN. I am not sure I understand your question, sir.
Mr. COX. Let me ask you another question. If you were given an
order to have your officers forcefully take firearms away from law-
abiding citizens, would you abide by that order?
Mr. MONAHAN. Again, I don’t know the context in which you are
asking the question, I guess——
Mr. COX. It is going to get down to the point that—if you and
your officers are asked to violate the very First Amendment of the
Constitution which allows people to peacefully assemble, would you
abide by that order?
Mr. MONAHAN. On June 1, there were peaceful demonstrators on
H Street, and there were bad actors on H Street. When we gave
the first of three warnings, those were warnings that we were
clearing this area for safety reasons and it was a temporary
closure. Once that third warning was given, everyone on the north
end of Lafayette Park and H Street was required to vacate that
area. When we did the operation from east to west to clear H
Street, we gave them avenues of exit.
93

Mr. COX. Well, thanks very much. We have heard that
explanation. Now, we are going to hear from the next witness—
right?—that what they were asked to do was contravene their oath
to the Constitution. All right? And what we are being asked today,
and what you are basically testifying to, is that there was no cor-
relation at all between your orders to clear the square and with the
President’s photo op. Now, would you agree or tell me otherwise?
Did the park need to be cleared in order for the President to take
his photo op?
Mr. MONAHAN. Our goal that day was to——
Mr. COX. No, no. Would you answer that question? Did that park
need to be cleared? Did that area need to be vacated by any other
citizens for the President to take his photo?
Mr. MONAHAN. We did not clear the park for a photo op.
Mr. COX. No, no, no.
Mr. MONAHAN. We cleared the park for public safety reasons.
Mr. COX. No, that is not the question, whether or not you did.
Did it need to be cleared? In your professional opinion—and you
are not with the Secret Service. But did that area need to be
cleared in order for the President to march from the White House
to Lafayette Square to take a photo in front of St. John’s Square?
Mr. MONAHAN. I don’t think I am the person to answer that
question. Our focus was on public safety that day.
Mr. COX Well, you are a national citizen. You have been around.
Would you think that the place needed to be cleared? And it was
just a convenient coincidence.
Mr. MONAHAN. I am only here to speak to——
Mr. COX. You see, I mean, I hope you can appreciate how—I
mean, it begs to reason that the place would have to be cleared.
And all of a sudden, as my colleague, Mr. Lowenthal was saying,
that just magically and very coincidentally that area was cleared.
And you just happened to be doing that because fencing absolutely
had to go up right at 6:30 p.m. because you have been waiting be-
cause contractors were making overtime.
Mr. MONAHAN. Our focus that day was to install that fencing.
And as I spoke earlier, the timing of that was somewhat——
Mr. COX. So, what you are absolutely testifying—and I’d like you
to make the statement that there was absolutely no correlation, no
direction to clear the square for the President’s photo op?
Mr. MONAHAN. There is 100 percent zero correlation between our
operation and the President’s visit to the church.
Mr. COX. OK. And what would the President have done if the
square hadn’t been cleared? Would he have gone out there?
Mr. MONAHAN. I don’t know if I can answer that question,
respectfully, sir.
Mr. COX. OK. And, as I said, we are going to hear from our next
witness about why he has come forward to testify today because
what he was asked to do is to contravene his oath to the Constitu-
tion. Do your officers ever get any training when they are put into
these types of situations, when they are asked to contravene their
oath and their duties to the Constitution when they are given an
order that they can’t abide by?
Mr. MONAHAN. I believe every action taken by the United States
Park Police on June 1 is——
94

Mr. COX. No, no. Are they ever given any training with regard
to that situation when they are put into an untenable situation like
that?
Mr. MONAHAN. I wouldn’t characterize the situation as
untenable.
Mr. COX. OK. Thanks so much for your time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Gosar, you are
recognized, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. Thank you. Well, this is like living in Groundhog’s
Day, an alternative universe. The other side is on a fishing expedi-
tion here, trying to get you to say something very different, Chief.
Now, real quick question to you, a quick yes or no. As your officers
worked to clear Lafayette Square, were they aware that a mob had
attempted to burn down St. John’s Church?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes.
Dr. GOSAR. Is that an exercise of the First Amendment, burning
down a church?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir. It is not.
Dr. GOSAR. Hmm, interesting. So, now, in Lafayette Square, your
officers were facing off against violent anarchists who spent the
better part of several days there, true?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. That is accurate.
Dr. GOSAR. Defacing the World War II Memorial, a remembrance
of a grateful nation to all who served actually during the fighting,
fascism, damaging the Lincoln Memorial, a tribute to the
Republican president who led a nation to end slavery and saving
our union, tearing down monuments around the city and attempt-
ing to burn down and deface the historic St. John’s Church. Mean-
while, as your officers on foot attempted to push these anarchists
away from the White House, their real target to destroy and de-
face, they were pelted with water bottles, fireworks, and called
some of the most vile, disgusting names directly to their faces.
Yet, at all times, your officers behaved, by all reports, respon-
sibly and worked in a tremendous professional manner. Now that
the area has been cleared, I have a few questions about the statues
on Lafayette Square. Chief, counter to the narrative being pushed
by the media, Lafayette Square was cleared in order to allow for
a fence to be erected. The fence was put up as a means to enhance
security at the square. In the time since the fence has been put up,
how many officers have been injured?
Mr. MONAHAN. There have been no injuries sustained by the
United States Park Police since the fence was put up on June 1.
Dr. GOSAR. Once again, I want to ask why does Lafayette Square
remain closed.
Mr. MONAHAN. Currently, it is closed due to ongoing restoration
efforts and damage assessments based on the damage to the stat-
ues and other areas within the park, to include the comfort station
that was burned down in the days preceding June 1.
Dr. GOSAR. So, once again, the First Amendment, does it allow
you to desecrate, destroy, and defame public property?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir. It does not.
Dr. GOSAR. Wow. But I keep hearing that it is a peaceful
demonstration. Do you keep hearing that too?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
95

Dr. GOSAR. That is that alternative universe again. Is there cur-
rently a fence around St. John’s Church, the church in which a fire
was lit the night before the square was cleared?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. There is currently fencing around the front
of the church.
Dr. GOSAR. Who requested that fence to be erected?
Mr. MONAHAN. Metropolitan Police from DC.
Dr. GOSAR. Since the fence has been put up, has there been any
further destruction or vandalism of the church?
Mr. MONAHAN. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. So, according to your written testimony, the fence
was a key tactic that served to greatly reduce the violent behavior
of the bad actors. And that violence dropped off dramatically. The
Park Police has an obligation to protect the safety of peaceful dem-
onstrators, maintain law and order, and keep our law enforcement
officers safe. How does a fence help promote those obligations?
Mr. MONAHAN. I am sorry, the last part?
Dr. GOSAR. How does the fence help you keep those obligations?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, so, I mean, based on the previous day’s vio-
lence, it was clear to us that the longer we waited to install the
fence, the likelihood that the situation would get worse on June 1.
We saw acts of violence on June 1 throughout the day. We saw pro-
jectiles being thrown at officers. We had angry protesters and riot-
ers attempt to, and in some cases, jump over the double row of bike
rack on the north side of the park.
Our assessment from those that were on the ground who wit-
nessed the previous day’s violence and were faced with the violence
in front of them on that day was that the aggression from the
crowd, the increased aggression that got even worse after 7 p.m.
and the curfew even though we were not abiding by a curfew, was
that to erect that fence was a logical next step for de-escalation.
Dr. GOSAR. No, I think everybody here at the dais would say that
we want to make sure to protect a citizen’s right to protest peace-
fully. Can you describe the typical role Park Police plays during
these protests and marches?
Mr. MONAHAN. It is our goal—excuse me. Our goal for any dem-
onstration is to provide for the safety of those that are there to
peacefully assemble, to protect the resources, to maintain law and
order, to ensure that any lawful demonstration can continue
uninterrupted but also to ensure the safety of our personnel.
Dr. GOSAR. What we are seeing is anarchists. We are seeing
desecration and hiding behind people claiming for peaceful
assembly. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Levin, you are recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent
to enter into the record a New York Times article from June 18,
2020, entitled, ‘‘Park Police Head Had Been Accused of Illegal
Searches and Unreliable Testimony.’’ This is an article about Mr.
Monahan.
Mr. Monahan, I want to get your reaction to additional video
from June 1. These clips show the moments immediately before
and then during the law enforcement surge around 6:30 p.m., a
half hour before the Washington, DC curfew went into effect.
Please pay particular attention to whether the police were
96

responding to any actual physical threats from the crowd, the
speed and aggression of the police surge, and the weapons officers
used on the protesters. Can the Committee staff please play the
clips?
[Video shown.]
Mr. LEVIN. I believe there is one more.
[Video shown.]
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Monahan, our time is limited, so I ask that you
please answer these questions with a simple yes or no. Were the
officers that we saw surging against the crowd and assaulting a
news crew? Yes or no? The officers you saw in those clips, were
they surging against the crowd and assaulting a news crew? Yes
or no?
Mr. MONAHAN. So, again, as to the——
Mr. LEVIN. That is not yes or no, Mr. Monahan. I am just asking
you, yes or no.
Mr. MONAHAN. And respectfully, I don’t think I can answer it
with a yes or no.
Mr. LEVIN. So, it is your contention they weren’t surging against
the crowd? They weren’t assaulting the news crew? A picture
speaks a thousand words.
Mr. MONAHAN. Sure. And I think the video shows a moment in
time. As to the second video, I will not comment on it. It is an
ongoing investigation.
Mr. LEVIN. Yes. I heard you say that. Did the clip show any
violence from the protesters before the officers surged on them?
Simple yes or no.
Mr. MONAHAN. Again, I don’t think there is a simple yes or no.
If you look at the first video that you showed, it has some
content——
Mr. LEVIN. I think we all saw the video and I think you would
acknowledge that there was no such violence. And the Administra-
tion has contradicted itself on whether the alleged violence was ac-
tually the reason for the use of force. Other statements, including
from Attorney General Barr, said the area was cleared to move the
perimeter one block. I think we have seen statements that water
bottles and such were thrown. But it is obviously not justification
for such a response. Did you see the officers shove protesters with
their shields in that video? Again, simple yes or no.
Mr. MONAHAN. I saw the video that you showed, and it shows
officers clearing H Street.
Mr. LEVIN. So, that is a yes. We are getting somewhere. That is
good. Did you see officers attack reporters, one of whom was an
Australian correspondent, Amelia Brace, who testified at our last
hearing, even as they tried to get away? Again, yes or no?
Mr. MONAHAN. Again, respectfully, I won’t comment on an
ongoing investigation.
Mr. LEVIN. Well, it was on the video that that happened, and we
heard from Ms. Brace that it happened. Did you see officers throw
or fire chemical munitions into the crowd?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, I did.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you for acknowledging that. And did officers
throw flashbang or Stinger Ball Grenades into the crowd?
97

Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. And our rules of engagement dictated on
June 1 that we would only use force if we were met with violent
resistance.
Mr. LEVIN. And did we see any of that violent resistance in those
videos, Mr. Monahan?
Mr. MONAHAN. Again, looking at a video——
Mr. LEVIN. It is a simple yes or no question.
Mr. MONAHAN. Not in the context of the video that you showed.
Mr. LEVIN. So, that is a no. So, are you willing to tell this
Committee and the American people that the force those officers
used against the crowd was not excessive and unjustified?
Mr. MONAHAN. The use of force that the United States Park
Police employed on June 1 was in line with our policies and
procedures.
Mr. LEVIN. Well, I heard you in your introduction say that this
was tremendous restraint used by your officers. And I just find
that hard to believe. But do you stand by that statement based on
the video we just saw that this was tremendous restraint?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. I do.
Mr. LEVIN. Well, I will just remind my fellow colleagues of the
title of that New York Times article from June 18 and ask you to
read it. With that, I will yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. Let me recognize Mr.
Garcı́a.
Mr. GARCÍA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Monahan, for being here today where we finally get to have a dia-
logue with you about the events of June 1. My first question relates
to the first video clip that I think Mr. Huffman had played at the
beginning of the hearing. Did you see any violence on the part of
the protesters in that brief clip?
Mr. MONAHAN. The video that was shown——
Mr. GARCÍA. Yes or no, the first clip.
Mr. MONAHAN. It captures a moment in time, and in that clip—
you would have to play it again for——
Mr. GARCÍA. It was a peaceful assembly that we saw per that
clip. You mentioned that on June 1, there was actually only one
officer who regretfully had to be treated because of some injury, not
50 as you had stated previously over a several-day period. Do you
know the circumstances of that treatment, what led to those
injuries or his treatment?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. His injury was sustained during the
clearing operation of H Street. During that clearing operation, he
was engaged in a violent interaction with a protester, and he was
punched in the face by the protester.
Mr. GARCÍA. Fair enough. One officer. Do you know the approxi-
mate size of the crowd that had assembled at Lafayette Square?
Mr. MONAHAN. It varied throughout the day. I would say——
Mr. GARCÍA. At about 6:30 p.m., sir.
Mr. MONAHAN. I would say several thousand people.
Mr. GARCÍA. One thousand, 50,000?
Mr. MONAHAN. It was less than 50,000. I would estimate 1,000
to 3,000.
Mr. GARCÍA. Good. Any guesstimate of what percent of those
assembled were behaving in violent ways?
98

Mr. MONAHAN. No, I don’t. But the only thing that the——
Mr. GARCÍA. Let the record show that you do not know.
With respect to the use of tear gas, are you aware that tear gas
is a chemical weapon banned in war?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, I am not aware of that.
Mr. GARCÍA. I am glad we are having this conversation.
We have all seen the chilling images of peaceful demonstrators
being attacked and gassed by Federal law enforcement officers, in-
cluding those under your command, and it should never again be
used against demonstrators, but especially not during a pandemic.
That is why Representatives Takano and Ocasio have joined me
in a bill that seeks to ban the use of this chemical agent, especially
during a pandemic against peaceful demonstrators.
Mr. Monahan, do you believe in the First Amendment and
people’s rights to organize peacefully?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir, of course I do.
Mr. GARCÍA. I am glad to hear that.
Do you believe that people are reasonably upset over the deaths
of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black lives taken by
police officers?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. GARCÍA. And do you believe that demonstrators are in their
right to take to the streets after persistent police brutality against
communities of color?
Mr. MONAHAN. I believe that individuals have the right to
peacefully assemble and demonstrate, yes.
Mr. GARCÍA. Then why were you on board with the eagerness to
disburse the crowd when it was maybe 30 minutes before the cur-
few was to take effect, a curfew that people were quite well aware
of by the time of this violent encounter in Lafayette Square?
What was so urgent about things when we saw a video that the
protesters were, in fact, largely peaceful?
And one of the witnesses that appeared before this Committee,
the head of the church that was referred to earlier, said that they
were participating and the members of that church were partici-
pating in peaceful actions, and that it included many gatherings of
family members, including children that were participating in their
right to free speech.
Mr. MONAHAN. To your first question, the United States Park
Police did not use tear gas on June 1.
To your second question, were there people there peacefully dem-
onstrating? Yes, but there were a number of bad actors, and once
the three warnings were given, everyone there needed to vacate
that area.
Mr. GARCÍA. But were there other chemical agents that your
forces used?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, our rules of engagement specifically prohib-
ited the use of CS gas on June 1. We utilized pepper balls. We
utilized smoke canisters, which do not have an irritant in them,
and we also used Stinger balls.
Mr. GARCÍA. Thank you very much.
I think my time has run out, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. I recognize Ms. Velázquez for her time.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
99

Mr. Monahan, did you have any communications from President
Trump, Vice President Pence, Attorney General Barr, or Secretary
Esper encouraging you not to testify on June 29?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, ma’am.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Have you ever had conversations with a subordi-
nate encouraging them not to cooperate with this Committee’s
investigation?
Mr. MONAHAN. No.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Monahan, the USPP has a history of engag-
ing in abuse of powers during peaceful protests. A 2015 court
ordered settlement required the USPP to provide three audible
warnings at least 2 minutes apart to disburse crowds and identify
avenues for protesters to scatter.
Did you comply with that, to identify audibly and avenues for
protesters to scatter?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am. As we discussed earlier, there were
three warnings given, and in terms of an avenue to leave the area,
the way the crowd was moved, they could either go north on 16th
Street to I, India, Street or continue west on H Street to either
Connecticut Avenue or 17th Street.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. That does not match the testimony of previous
witnesses nor the testimony that will be provided by Major Adam
DeMarco regarding audible warnings.
And we just saw the video that was played, and to say otherwise
is just really outrageous. I was watching it. I couldn’t hear
anything. The people that were there even said, ‘‘What were they
saying? What do they mean?’’
Mr. Monahan, you also watched the video of the female reporter,
Ms. Brace. My question to you is—does any action by her, and she
was standing there, warrant being attacked and shot at with
rubber bullets?
Mr. MONAHAN. So, ma’am, I take seriously any allegation of
misuse of force by any of our members, and we have policies and
procedures that direct how those things are handled.
In this instance, there is a current internal affairs investigation
that is underway. That is, as I said, it is currently under investiga-
tion. If at the end of that investigation there is a finding——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. OK. I am asking you, sir, reclaiming my time,
I am asking you. The video that was played, you watched it. I
watched it. Were there any actions committed by Ms. Brace that
required the type of action and attack by the police?
Mr. MONAHAN. Again, as I stated earlier, I will not comment on
an ongoing investigation. I will just commit to that we will hold our
officers accountable for any actions that are deemed a violation of
force policy, and that investigation is still underway.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Monahan, are you aware that COVID-19
affects the respiratory system?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. So, why would you use any type of chemical
agent in the midst of a pandemic?
Mr. MONAHAN. And, again, as I stated earlier, our rules of
engagement on June 1 were that we would not use any force unless
we were met with violent resistance from the protesters.
100

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. My question to you is—why, knowing that this
country is dealing with a pandemic, and one of the areas known
to be impacted by COVID-19 is the respiratory system—knowing
that, why did you use such chemical agents against peaceful
protesters?
Mr. MONAHAN. And, again, the use of force that we utilized was
in response to the violent behavior exhibited by a number of bad
actors that were in the midst of others that were there to peace-
fully assemble.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Well, as I mentioned to you before, sir,
witnesses who came before this Committee, and Major Adam
DeMarco, they are all testifying that those were peaceful pro-
testers. That was covered widely by the media, widely. The Nation
was watching while they saw how the police attacked peaceful
protesters.
Immediately following the incident, the Arlington County Board
Chair said that she was appalled that their corporation agreement
with the Trump administration has been abused to endanger their
and others’ safety for the photo op, and media reports indicate that
the USPP directly misled the Arlington County Police about the
nature of the operation.
How would you respond to the comments made by the Board
Chair and the allegations that the USPP misled the Arlington
County Police about the nature of the operation?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am. The United States Park Police enjoys
a very long and storied history with the Arlington County Police
Department in terms of mutual aid over the last numerous years.
In terms of their assistance and their vital assistance to our
operation on June 1, that was a request that was made through
mutual aid. In terms of——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Sir, why do you think that the Chair of the
Board is saying that you misled them? Is she implying that you
lied to them?
VOICE. Mr. Chairman, has the time expired?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. You may answer the last question.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Chief Monahan, for being here today.
I come from a more rural part of the world, northeastern
Pennsylvania, where we haven’t had these types of violent inter-
actions. In fact, all of our George Floyd demonstrations and pro-
tests have been peaceful, have been joined in with by the local
police forces.
So, this is something new for me to jump into the world of these
things, but I want to see if we can agree on some things. I suspect
we will.
You mentioned before that you said that you believe every
incident should have a complete record, right?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And the idea is not only to do the job, but to
improve the way you do the job, to make sure regrettable incidents
are not repeated, right?
101

Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. That is a fair statement, yes.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And to do that what we are looking for is ac-
countability. I think you used the word yourself, Chief. We want
accountability on the part of our police forces, including the Park
Police, right?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, I would agree.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And to do that, it is fitting and proper for us
to engage in these exercises where we flesh out the facts of
incidences. Is that fair?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. OK. So, anybody who says that to flesh out the
facts of a violent confrontation between police and protesters is
some sort of political charade, some kind of a show, that is not nec-
essarily true. What we are looking for is fleshing out the facts to
find accountability, and that is a good thing, is it not, Chief?
Mr. MONAHAN. In terms of fleshing out for accountability, yes, I
would agree.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Absolutely. Well, all right. What I want to do
is I want to go over some of your testimony from this morning.
Again, I thank you for being here and going through this.
One of the things I wanted to clear up was Congressman
Lowenthal asked you a question about whether it was a coinci-
dence between the timing of the clearing of Lafayette Square and
the photo op that the White House engaged in, and you said it was
not a coincidence, and I don’t think that is what you meant, and
I want to give you a chance to clear that up.
Mr. MONAHAN. Our decision and the timing of implementing our
plan to clear the north side of Lafayette Park and H Street was ir-
respective of any decision from the White House or the President
to visit the park, to visit the church. It was completely irrespective
of that.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. That is what I thought your position was. It
was a complete coincidence, according to your testimony.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. OK. I also wanted to talk about the timing a
little bit. What time was the curfew for, 7 p.m.?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. It was a 7 p.m. curfew.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. OK. And what did the curfew call for, Chief?
Mr. MONAHAN. No members of the public could be out after 7
p.m.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. OK. And how was that communicated to the
public?
Mr. MONAHAN. I believe it was an order from the Mayor’s Office
in DC.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And was that communicated clearly and
cogently so that people and the public understood what that curfew
was calling for?
Mr. MONAHAN. I was aware of the curfew in my role as the
Acting Chief of the U.S. Park Police. I can’t speak to what every
member of the public understood or were aware of.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, did the Park Police help to reinforce that
7 p.m. curfew that people had to disburse by 7 p.m.?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, we did not play a role in enforcing the 7 p.m.
curfew.
102

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. OK. You mentioned another injury on June 1,
and obviously that was regrettable, a facial laceration when an offi-
cer was punched in the face. You said that was in the clearing of
H Street. Is that right?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Now, H Street, of course, forms the northern
boundary of Lafayette Park. Am I correct in that?
Mr. MONAHAN. It does, yes.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. OK. So, when did that happen? What time of
day on June 1, if you recall?
Mr. MONAHAN. I do not know the exact time, but it was between
6:30 p.m. and 6:50 p.m., which was the time for the clearing of H
Street.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. OK. So, would it be fair to say that that injury
occurred after the so-called surge to disburse the crowd in
Lafayette Park?
Mr. MONAHAN. It was during the, as you describe it, the surge
to clear H Street.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. OK. So, that injury did not happen before the
surge. It happened during the surge.
Mr. MONAHAN. It did. Throughout the operational period, our
officers were subjected to a number of projectiles. They did not sus-
tain any injuries. The only injury we sustained on June 1 was that
instance.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Chief, for answering my questions.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Ms. DeGette is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Monahan, you said in your written testimony that the police
have dealt with and your agency had dealt with hundreds of First
Amendment demonstrations at special events. Is that correct?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am. Every year we facilitate
hundreds——
Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, sir. I only have 5 minutes.
You also testified that there were violent protests between May
29 and June 1. Is that correct?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am.
Ms. DEGETTE. You just told Mr. Cartwright that on June 1 the
one injury to the officer occurred during the clearing of H Street.
Is that correct?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am.
Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous
consent to enter into the record the U.S. Park Police’s Use of Force
Policy, General Order 3615, updated November 1, 2019.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.
I discussed this policy at the previous hearing, and Mr.
Monahan, are you familiar with this policy?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am, I am.
Ms. DEGETTE. And the policy governs the conditions under which
the Park Police’s use of force is appropriate. I am going to ask
about some of those parts of the policy.
103

One section of the policy says, ‘‘An officer is expected to employ
only the minimum level of reasonable force necessary to control a
situation.’’
We have heard testimony and seen video evidence of the use of
chemical irritants and of officers chasing protesters to beat them
with batons.
Mr. Monahan, do you believe that represented only the minimum
level of reasonable force necessary to control the situation of
Lafayette Square on June 1?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, in terms of the rules of engagement on
June 1, again, I will reiterate that——
Ms. DEGETTE. You believe you complied with the rules that those
tactics were the minimum level of reasonable force given to control
that situation. Is that right?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. We stressed that we would only utilize force
if we were met with violent resistance.
Ms. DEGETTE. OK, thank you. Another section says, ‘‘Once a
level of force is no longer required, it must be decreased or
discontinued.’’
Did you conclude at any point on the evening of June 1, after the
push into the protesters began, that the level of force being used
was no longer required to clear the square?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, I think if you watch it——
Ms. DEGETTE. What time was that? What time was that that you
decided that the level of force was no longer required?
Mr. MONAHAN. I am not sure I understand your question, ma’am.
Ms. DEGETTE. OK. At some point after the push began, did you
conclude that the level of force that was being used was no longer
required to clear the square? That is what your rules require.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, I guess it requires a little bit of explanation.
It is a very fluid situation when we are clearing H Street. So,
throughout that operation, there was an instance where an officer
was wrestled to the ground by an angry protester and a violent
protester. He attempted to hold——
Ms. DEGETTE. Excuse me, sir. You are not answering my ques-
tion. Did you at any time during the clearing of the Square deter-
mine that a de-escalation was appropriate? Yes or no?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, and I’m trying to give you a good example
of how that——
Ms. DEGETTE. You are not. You are just—OK. I am going to
move on. You are not going to answer my question.
Finally, the policy says ‘‘the goal of de-escalation tactics is to
gain the voluntary compliance of a subject when appropriate and
consistent with personal safety to reduce or eliminate the use of
force.’’
Now, I want to ask you. Do you believe the Park Police’s sudden
surge into the entire protest crowd on June 1 was a genuine effort
to get the protesters to voluntarily comply and, most importantly,
to reduce or eliminate the necessity to use force?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, I do.
Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Now, I want to ask you one more question
since you have shown familiarity with these policies. Is there a sec-
tion in the policies that allows the police to use force based on
events of previous days’ demonstrations?
104

And I ask you this question because you have testified through-
out this hearing today that in the previous days before June 1,
there were a number of officers injured, and that there was a lot
of violence used.
But on June 1, you are using that as your rationale for using vio-
lence from the beginning on June 1, based on what happened in
days before. Can you point me to a section of the policy that allows
pre-emptive use of force based on previous demonstrations?
Mr. MONAHAN. Ma’am, my testimony to you today is that the use
of force that we utilized on June 1 was in direct correlation to the
level of violence that we were subjected to on June 1.
Any reference to anything that occurred on May 29, 30, or 31
was for context.
Ms. DEGETTE. OK. So, you are saying that what we were seeing
the Park Police do on June 1, the surge into the crowd, you are
saying it is your position that that was directly related to the force
that was being used by the protesters on that day immediately
before the surge. Is that your testimony?
VOICE. Mr. Chairman, there is a pattern going on here.
The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to. Thank you.
Ms. DEGETTE. I am sorry?
The CHAIRMAN. Time is up.
Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
I recognize Mr. Brown for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Chief Monahan, thank you for testifying today.
Let me just start by saying I do appreciate the responsibility that
you and your officers have to maintain public safety, and I do un-
derstand the level of force and engagement that you need to take
when you are dealing with unlawfulness, whether it is arson,
looting, or other violence.
But I think many on this Committee are also concerned about
how we engage peaceful protesters, and there seems to be a blur-
ring of the lines between peaceful protesters and unlawfulness that
perhaps you and your officers did not recognize.
Let me ask you this question. The Washington Post reported that
6:10 p.m. on June 1, Attorney General Barr could be seen in CNN’s
live shot of the area at Lafayette Park, and at one point, Barr was
speaking to a man who looked like a Park Police official. The offi-
cial could be seen dropping his head in what looked like
exaggerated resignation. One of the men with Barr even patted
him on the back, as though consoling him.
And I am going to ask the Committee to show that video, and
as they do, as they pull up the video, I want you to focus on the
man, Chief Monahan, who approaches Attorney General Barr and
appears to be a law enforcement official.
Can we show that video please?
[Video shown.]
Mr. BROWN. Chief Monahan, can you identify that law
enforcement official in the video?
Mr. MONAHAN. Captain Russell Fennelly.
Mr. BROWN. And was that captain the Incident Commander?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, he was not.
105

Mr. BROWN. No? Have you spoken with the captain who spoke
with Attorney General Barr since June 1?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, I have.
Mr. BROWN. And was that part of a sort of after-action review
or to sort of learn about events on that day?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. Can you say the captain’s name again, please?
Mr. MONAHAN. His first name is Russell. His last name is
Fennelly.
Mr. BROWN. Fennelly. Did Captain Fennelly receive any
instructions from Attorney General Barr?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, he did not. If you look at the video, he
proactively walks over to the group. You can see him with his
hands——
Mr. BROWN. What was the nature of the conversation that he
had with Attorney General Barr? What did our Attorney General
Barr ask him to do or what information did Attorney General Barr
give him?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir, that is what I am trying to explain to
you. You can see him gesture to the left, to his left and to his right.
His point in addressing the group was that they were very close to
the north end of Lafayette Park. They were very close to an area
where we saw and had our officers subjected to projectiles being
thrown at them earlier in the day on June 1.
And based on Captain Fennelly’s assessment, they were way too
close to the line and in a position of danger. He went over
there——
Mr. BROWN. Do you have any idea why Captain Fennelly
dropped his head and in response a member of Attorney General
Barr’s detail patted him on the back?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, I do. His purpose in addressing them was to
ask them to move away from the area so they were in a safer loca-
tion, and at the end of that exchange with the Attorney General’s
protective detail, they moved south in the park away from the
demonstration area.
Mr. BROWN. And what information did Attorney General Barr
convey to the captain?
Mr. MONAHAN. I think it was the opposite, sir, to be honest with
you. It was Captain Fennelly conveying to the Attorney General.
Mr. BROWN. Chief Monahan, your officer responded to something
that Attorney General Barr said. What did Attorney General Barr
say to your officer on the ground?
Mr. MONAHAN. Again, sir, it was our captain addressing the
Attorney General and the group and his detail and requesting that
they move away from the area toward a position of safety as
opposed to being up there on the line. It was not——
Mr. BROWN. And what was Barr’s response? What was Attorney
General Barr’s response?
Mr. MONAHAN. I think you can see the response on the video.
They all moved south through the park. They heeded his warning.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields.
We will turn to Mrs. Dingell. You are recognized.
106

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Bishop, for convening this hearing to answer some of the
unanswered questions from last month’s hearing on the June 1
Lafayette Square protest.
As my fellow Committee members have stated, this sort of
action, unarmed protesters being forcibly attacked by armed police
without provocation, both violates our fundamental principles and
calls for us to closely examine how the events in question could
have occurred.
And I am very grateful we have an Administration witness here
so that we can try to get some answers to some of these questions.
Mr. Monahan, I think you would agree that managing large
crowds like protests is a law enforcement challenge that requires
specific knowledge and skills. If officers on duty are not properly
trained, what are the potential consequences for protesters or the
officers themselves?
Mr. MONAHAN. So, ma’am, the United States Park Police officers
are properly trained, and our focus that day was centered around
the protection of life, the protection of those that were there to
peacefully assemble, to maintain law and order, and to ensure the
safety of our officers. That is our focus for that demonstration on
June 1 and any demonstration that we facilitate.
Mrs. DINGELL. And am I correct though? And you just said that
all of your officers were trained. If you do not have trained officers,
is it not the case that situations can quickly escalate and become
violent?
Mr. MONAHAN. Based on the scenario that you just mentioned,
ma’am, yes, I would agree.
Mrs. DINGELL. So, in cases where there are singular instances of
violence, would the training advise attacking the entire crowd or
would it advise them to isolate and remove the individuals perpe-
trating that violence. And I’ll give you an example. I have done 20
peaceful marches, walks, protests at home. And in a number of
them, people have shown up with bricks and other things, yet there
has not been one episode of violence; because is it not true that you
should try to isolate and remove those that are trying to perpetrate
the problem?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes. And our——
Mrs. DINGELL. I’m not asking you trick questions.
Mr. MONAHAN. Again, our rules of engagement that day were
focused on—we would not use force unless we were met with vio-
lent resistance from the crowd. And those bad actors in the crowd
subjected violent behavior against law enforcement throughout the
operational period on June 1.
Mrs. DINGELL. Let me ask you about the other law enforcement
units that were there on Lafayette Square that day. Do you know
if there were any officers from any other agency present that were
not trained in civil disturbance?
Mr. MONAHAN. The agencies that we partnered with that day
that were involved in the clearing operation on H Street were all
trained in civil disturbance.
Mrs. DINGELL. So, every officer to your knowledge that was
present was trained that day.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am. To my knowledge, yes.
107

Mrs. DINGELL. So, you commanded the police force at the tip of
the spear that day. The Arlington County Police Department and
the D.C. National Guard were there specifically to help the Park
Police, so your presence was central. And you do know that every-
body there was trained to deal with high-pressure, high-visibility,
high-consequence historic events?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am. The United States Park Police,
Secret Service Uniformed Division who were operating under a uni-
fied command, and the partner agencies that assisted with that op-
eration are all trained in civil disturbance. And our duty at an
event like that where we have sustained violence being directed at
law enforcement is to protect the safety of the officers and for those
that are there to peacefully demonstrate.
Mrs. DINGELL. Let me ask you a question. How do you know that
everybody there—I think it is very important, having been places
where people have tried to cause trouble—how do you know it is
true? How do you know that everybody you are working with has
been trained in dealing with these kinds of situations?
Mr. MONAHAN. The agencies, again, that were part of the clear-
ing operation on H Street, the partner agencies that we dealt with,
participate in the same training that we do.
Mrs. DINGELL. And do you make sure of that ahead of time?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, ma’am. These are regional partners that we
collaborate with on a yearly basis for hundreds of demonstrations.
Larger demonstrations, such as the one that we saw on June 1,
larger demonstrations such as the inauguration, things like that.
Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Monahan.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back.
Let me recognize Mr. Graves for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, would you mind going to a Majority
Member and then coming back, please?
The CHAIRMAN. Let me recognize Mr. Soto. Five minutes, sir.
Mr. SOTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting Chief Monahan, I am sure you understand we are not
here because you all erected a fence. But no one here is disputing
the need for an appropriate response to the protests when they got
violent on May 29. And to the extent that your officers were
injured, we are all very sorry about that.
You are here because it appears that the President of the United
States cleared peaceful protestors to have a photo op: to create a
false appearance that he had protests under control and to intimi-
date Americans from exercising their First Amendments rights.
And as a result, there were numerous protestors who were there
peacefully and were grievously injured as a result of the clearing.
Do you think it is appropriate to forcefully clear protestors to
pave the way for a photo op for President Trump?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir, and that was not our objective on June 1,
that was not what we accomplished on June 1. Our focus on
June 1 was centered around the safety of the demonstrators to
maintain law and order and to ensure the safety of our officers and
we accomplished that goal.
Mr. SOTO. What are the usual reasons you are ordered to remove
Americans from Lafayette Square in other instances in your
career?
108

Mr. MONAHAN. In this particular instance——
Mr. SOTO. I am asking about in the past.
Mr. MONAHAN. From a historical basis, there are oftentimes
throughout the course of a year, there are demonstrations on the
south side of the White House sidewalk; and at times, based on
what the group is and what they are there for, there are routes
that are made, it is more of an organized affair if you will. But it
is markedly different from what we saw on June 1.
What we saw on June 1 was a need to clear that area to create
a safe space for the fencing company to install the fence. The whole
concept of installing the fence was based on an effort to de-escalate
the violence that was rising from May 29 through June 1, and
throughout the operational period on June 1. That was our goal;
those were the objectives on June 1.
Mr. SOTO. Acting Chief Monahan, if you are given an illegal
order by a superior, you have a duty to refuse that order. Is that
correct?
Mr. MONAHAN. Can you repeat the question? You said if I was
given an illegal order?
Mr. SOTO. Yes. If you have been given an illegal order by a
superior, you have a duty to refuse that order. Is that correct?
Mr. MONAHAN. That is accurate, yes.
Mr. SOTO. So, if you were given an order to clear Lafayette
Square for campaign purposes for the President of the United
States, would that be an illegal order?
Mr. MONAHAN. That is not my testimony today, sir. Our oper-
ation and our objective on June 1 was to clear that area to estab-
lish the anti-scale fencing in an effort to de-escalate the violence
that was on the rise since May 29 with the condition to provide for
the safety of the protestors, to maintain law and order, and to
provide for the safety of our officers.
Mr. SOTO. I understand what your interpretation was, Acting
Chief Monahan. I am asking more in theory since many of us have
disagreements on what happened that day. Would it be illegal for
you all to clear Lafayette Square for campaign purposes for a
President of the United States?
Mr. MONAHAN. Sir, respectfully, I am not here to engage in theo-
retical conversations about what transpired on June 1. I am here
to give you an accurate accounting of what happened. And on
June 1, as I described, our focus was to clear Lafayette Park, in-
stall that anti-scale fencing for the safety of those that were there
to peacefully assemble, to maintain law and order, and to provide
for the safety of our officers.
Mr. SOTO. Thank you, Chief. I agree we need to maintain law
and order, which is why it is important to refuse illegal orders,
particularly when they are wholly of a political nature.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Here we go. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Graves
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start out by saying, No. 1, I believe that there are
racial injustices and inequities that we absolutely need to address
as the U.S. Congress, and I do believe in some cases those are
systemic.
109

I also want to commend on the next panel, Major DeMarco, for
him stepping up and expressing concern about what he viewed as
something that was inappropriate.
And last in this regard, I want to say that some of the reports
of folks being detained and questioned without any charges, not by
you, but by some of the protestors out West and law enforcement
out West, I do support the investigation of those, and I want to be
clear that I do not believe that protests provide an opportunity to
infringe on people’s Constitutional rights.
That being said, Chief, I believe I heard you earlier—I have been
hearing bits and pieces of this hearing—I believe I heard you ear-
lier say that Park Police have participated in hundreds of dem-
onstrations across the Washington area and other areas. Is that
correct?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. And on an annual basis——
Mr. GRAVES. OK. So, probably fair to say that you and your
officers are more practiced in dealing with protestors than most
police forces around the United States?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir, I would like to think so. Yes.
Mr. GRAVES. And probably get more training in that regard as
well.
Mr. MONAHAN. I can only speak to the level of training that we
get, but yes.
Mr. GRAVES. OK. So, the next question is, of the hundreds of pro-
tests that you and your officers have participated in, how many of
those have included the violence that your officers saw in the pre-
ceding days to what we are discussing today? Meaning the injury
of officers, the fires, the damage to public property, and things
along those lines.
Mr. MONAHAN. They happen from time to time. In my
experience, they are the exception, not the rule.
Mr. GRAVES. So, is it fair to say—and do not let me put words
in your mouth—that this was really an extraordinary protest in re-
gard to the damage, in regard to the intensity, in regard to the
injury to your officers. I believe I read somewhere where 50 officers
were injured?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, that is accurate.
Mr. GRAVES. OK. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that we first of all
need to be very clear that there is nothing normal about this. This
was an absolutely extraordinary effort and you had folks that were
extraordinarily experienced and trained to deal with this.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it was last week, or the week before, we
had the Great Outdoors Act, or whatever, under the jurisdiction of
this Committee, though the Bill did not actually come through the
Committee, where we appropriated mandatory spending billions of
dollars to maintain fences, signs, toilets, and other things at our
national parks and other Federal lands that comprise 28 percent
of the United States of America. We did this as mandatory spend-
ing billions of dollars. It goes on in perpetuity, no end; 200 years
from now, we are still spending it under the law that was passed.
This is the second hearing that we are having on an incident
that happened at Lafayette Park, one square block across the
street from the White House.
110

Mr. Chairman, there is a global pandemic right now. We have
record unemployment, we have a record recession right now, we
are seeing the virus take off everywhere, and we are wasting time
on this.
And I will say it again, I absolutely believe that we need to pro-
tect the Constitutional rights of our citizens, but this is ridiculous,
and the way the Chief is being treated is absolutely ridiculous.
Think about it for just a minute. Your line of questioning is that
the President was trying to advance a campaign initiative, yet
what you are doing is you are trying to advance a campaign initia-
tive using official resources right here. The hypocrisy is absolutely
disgusting watching what is happening here.
Chief, everybody is showing clips that promote their narrative.
There were fires, there were dozens of your officers that were being
injured as a result of this protest. I think it is absolutely disgusting
that folks are trying to spin this narrative.
Now I understand the next panel, Major DeMarco, is going to be
talking about his perspective—as I understand, there was a meet-
ing on Saturday that determined the need for a fence. Was the
Major involved in those meetings that talked about the justification
for erecting the fence in the meeting with the Park Police?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir, he was not.
Mr. GRAVES. OK. So, again, I commend him for sharing what he
viewed as being inappropriate, but I also think it is important to
note that perhaps he was not aware of all of the information that
was out there.
Chief, I have a lot of other questions, but there are 20 seconds
left. Very quickly, are there any other things that you would like
to share with the Committee or the public? I know you were cut
off repeatedly in your questions, so I will give you the last few
seconds here.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, again, I would just go back to my original
point that our objective on June 1 was to provide for public safety.
Our objective on June 1 was to maintain law and order, to ensure
that any lawful demonstration could continue uninterrupted, and
to provide for the safety of our officers, and I think we accom-
plished that goal.
Mr. GRAVES. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask just for the record if
the Chief could please provide the Committee with information in-
dicating whether those protestors that were closer to the LRAD
system that were announcing the distribution of protesters, if they
seemed to leave more so or disproportionally to those that were fur-
ther away, meaning your folks who were actually responding to the
announcements or not.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. And yes, there is a severe
and cruel pandemic going on and your lecture notwithstanding,
that lecture would be very appropriate with your President so he
can understand there is a cruel and vast pandemic going on in this
country.
With that, let me recognize Mr. Sablan.
Mr. SABLAN. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, for holding this
hearing to actually learn why Federal law enforcement may have
111

violated the First Amendment rights of the peaceful demonstrators
at Lafayette Park, and for some even thinking that this was done
so the President would get a chance to go and stand in front of the
church and hold a Bible, and actually never went in to kneel and
say a prayer.
But I yield my time at this time to Mr. Gallego.
Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Representative Sablan.
I have a couple of questions. Who were the other police officers
and departments that were there besides the National Park
Service?
Mr. MONAHAN. The agencies that assisted us in the clearing of
H Street were Park Police, U.S. Secret Service, the Arlington
County Police Department, and that is it. We had Federal
Protective Service inside the park.
Mr. GALLEGO. I want to run something, a couple timelines
through you, so I can get them straight. At 6:10 p.m., that meeting
happened with whatever captain that was, and Barr. At what time
does the Incident Commander give the order to start pushing on
the protesters?
Mr. MONAHAN. The first warning that was given to the
protesters?
Mr. GALLEGO. Yes.
Mr. MONAHAN. That the area was being closed so we can install
the fence was given at 6:23 p.m.
Mr. GALLEGO. 6:23 p.m. And then they started moving on the
protesters at what time?
Mr. MONAHAN. Our operation began right around 6:30 p.m.
Mr. GALLEGO. Yes, I have 6:35 p.m., but I will give you the 5
minutes.
At 6:43 p.m., as you guys are pushing, I want to read you exactly
what the President is saying at 6:43 p.m.—‘‘I am also taking swift
and decisive action to protect our great capital, Washington, DC.
What happened in the city last night was a total disgrace. As we
speak’’—he said as we speak—‘‘I am dispatching thousands and
thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law
enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism,
assaults, and wanton destruction of property.’’
In his remarks, the President is bragging about—bragging
about—ordering law enforcement to take on protesters in DC. Yet,
you are arguing that the police, the Park Police solely made its de-
cision about when to push based on the best scenario and situation
for putting up the fencing. Is that correct?
Mr. MONAHAN. No, sir, I am not arguing with you. I am telling
you factually what happened. And that was our——
Mr. GALLEGO. Your story isn’t factual.
So, at 6:43 p.m. this is happening. And then also, coincidentally,
there is no radio recording of that day. So, there is this timeline
that kind of all makes sense if you put it together. I mean, if I was
prosecuting somebody, I probably would have them dead to rights
right now: 6:10 p.m., first meeting; 6:23 p.m., first warning order;
6:35 p.m., push on the protesters; 6:43 p.m., the President gives his
rah-rah speech. No radio comms, we can’t find anything. And then
you claim that you were meeting violent resistance. But yet there
112

is no violent resistance. You claim, and I think you are accurate
about this, that the only violent resistance that was met that day
was after the initial push. There was no officer that was injured
prior to your order. Is that correct?
Mr. MONAHAN. Sir, I would not equate violent resistance with in-
jured force members. We were subjected to projectiles throughout
the day on June 1. We were met with violent resistance on the
clearing operation of the north end of Lafayette Park——
Mr. GALLEGO. Of course, you are going to meet with violent
resistance. You threw pepper balls and you were batoning people.
Mr. MONAHAN. And, again, our rules of engagement, sir, were to
only use force if we were met with violent resistance.
Mr. GALLEGO. So, you claim there was violent resistance prior to
the clearing that started at 6:35?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, and I believe I gave you numerous examples.
There were individuals that jumped over the police line several
times that day. There were projectiles being thrown at officers
throughout the day.
Mr. GALLEGO. So, this is all one big coincidence that at that
point, this is when the violent resistance had finally swelled, that
you had to do it at the exact point which happens to be probably
7 minutes before the President starts his speech? It just happened,
you could not wait until 7 p.m. to do it, when there are probably
people actually starting to retreat because of the curfew. At that
exact same moment, which we have no radio comms whatsoever,
coincidentally, that one day, that all happens in that span of 30
minutes, and it all happened exactly how you are reporting it?
Mr. MONAHAN. And we have a written record of radio comms
that day. But our decision to clear H Street at the time that we
did was based on an on-the-ground assessment of the violence that
was subjected at law enforcement that day. That is a fact, yes.
Mr. GALLEGO. Well, your assessment was totally off.
Last question. Did the U.S. Park Police coordinate with anybody
in the White House or the Secret Service?
Mr. MONAHAN. As I stated earlier, we were operating under
unified command with the United States Secret Service.
Mr. GALLEGO. And that day, did you have communication with
the White House or Secret Service at that time?
Mr. MONAHAN. Communication with the Secret Service, I would
not say it was with the White House. I think they are two separate
things.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK, thank you, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, question of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gosar.
Dr. GOSAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, was it the order of the Mayor of
DC to have no public at 7 o’clock? Is that the order that I keep
hearing about?
The CHAIRMAN. That was part of the testimony, that that was
the order——
Dr. GOSAR. So, it would make sense that you would start clearing
earlier, so that they could achieve that goal of the Mayor.
The CHAIRMAN. Convenient, but no cigar.
Dr. GOSAR. I think very much cigar.
113

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask Mr. Cunningham, I will recognize
Mr. Cunningham for his 5 minutes. Sir, you are recognized.
[No response.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clay, if he is still online?
[No response.]
The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, unanimous consent that
Mr. Beyer be allowed to join the Committee and ask questions.
Hearing none, Mr. Beyer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And thank you
for waving me on. And I certainly want to object to Mr. Graves’
notion that we are sponsoring a narrative.
This is right across the river from my district, my goodness.
I hope this is coming in. It has been fine all day. Mr. Chairman,
I hope this computer is working well but it does not seem to be.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beyer?
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, apparently the video traffic in
Alexandria has crushed this, so if I can go on with an audio, if that
would be permissible?
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no objections? Mr. Beyer.
Mr. BEYER. OK, thank you.
So, Acting Chief Monahan, I had and continue to have three key
behavioral worries over the incident that day. First and foremost,
for my constituents, this is right across the river from my district,
as you know. And many of my constituents were in the crowd and
in physical danger, including my daughter and her fiancé. I talked
to many, many people who were there who described a completely
different picture than what you did, and I remain very worried
about how police engagement has endangered many lawful and
peaceful protesters.
The second big worry is what happened to the Arlington County
Police, who are also my constituents and our local police force, who
were weaponized under your authority that day. They were the
front lines to push the protesters; that was wholly inappropriate
and not the understanding that the county had for any sort of
peaceful protest engagement that routinely happens in the Nation’s
capital. That’s why the chairman of the board pulled them back as
soon as she heard about that. Their actions under the Park Police
cost them local trust that they are actively working to rebuild, and
I know it was a cause of embarrassment and regret for them.
And third, and most importantly, the behavior of the Park Police
officers, many of whom again I know are my constituents, but with
the behavior that day, they lost our community’s trust. And why
is this important? Because in the National Capital Region, Park
Police are an important law enforcement entity and we depend on
them to do the right thing, and here they failed us.
This was not the first problematic incident, nor should I say that
Bijan Ghaisar’s death in November 2017, either. But Lafayette
compounded my concerns. You talked about you couldn’t talk about
the interaction with the press because there was an ongoing inves-
tigation. We are in the same position with Bijan Ghaisar. I wrote
you back in November 2019 to get an update on the Bijan Ghaisar
investigation. I got a letter back this month, 8 months later, saying
that you could not comment because there was an ongoing inves-
tigation over a murder that happened almost 3 years ago.
114

In the months after Bijan’s murder, I met with then-Chief
McClain, who committed to me that the Park Police would adopt
body cameras and I thought that was smart and an excellent com-
mitment to future accountability and transparency. In fact, the
only reason we know about Bijan Ghaisar was because the Fairfax
County Police had their dash cameras on.
And now it is 2020, we have this weird deal where the comms
did not work for the Park Police that day, no record. And Lafayette
was another flagrant red flag for Park Police behavior. And, again,
because there were no body cameras, much of what we know hap-
pened was because of other law enforcement communications.
I have been following up with your department for years now
and asking for body cameras to be adopted since they were com-
mitted to me. But the Park Police has not, nor have I been pro-
vided with any rationale for a lack of adoption. And, ironically,
largely every other law enforcement in the Department of the
Interior has adopted body cameras. There is language in the House
Interior Appropriations Bill that we just passed last week that gets
you the money and addresses any policy concerns you may have,
thanks to Betty McCollum’s leadership. So, there is literally no ex-
cuse for the Park Police not to adopt body cameras. In fact, you
would be in a much better position today with your testimony if
you had them.
So, Chief, can you commit to me, to the Natural Resources
Committee today, that you will adopt body cameras?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, thank you for the question, sir. It is true, the
United States Park Police does not currently have a body-worn
camera program. We are supportive of such a program. We
acknowledge its alignment with contemporary trends in law en-
forcement, as well as the expectations from the public. However, at
this time, we are not in a position to successfully implement, man-
age, and sustain a body-worn camera program.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask, the money and the
policy is in the Appropriations Bill, so I hope that will not be your
ongoing answer.
With that, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. First of all, Mr. Monahan, thank you for
appearing today. And we do have more questions to follow.
I think in all the discussion, we have heard many things. And
why the June 1 incident in Lafayette is so important, because of
everything else that is going around, the issue not only of questions
of police reform, abuse, the calls by this Administration and the
President specifically of sending more and more Federal presence
into communities, whether they want them or not. I think the pre-
cursor to much of this discussion began June 1, with the
President’s presence there and the premature clearing of the park.
And just out of my own curiosity, when did you, Chief, know that
the President was coming to St. John’s and how did you learn
about it?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir. We were notified earlier in the day that
the President was going to visit Lafayette Park to conduct a—to
view the damage that was done to the park over the course of the
preceding days. But we were not given a time on when he was
visiting.
115

The CHAIRMAN. And on the scene on that day, who had the tac-
tical command on the scene? In particular, who ordered the officers
to move forward on the first surge at 6:30 p.m.? Who said, now, go,
or gave the command of the clearing? Did the order go through you
to move forward at that time?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, sir, the order was given by the Incident
Commander from the United States Park Police. And on June 1,
the Incident Commander was Major Mark Adamchik.
The CHAIRMAN. And go over for me the chain of command. I’m
following up on Mr. Gallego’s and some other people’s questions,
the chain of command you were going through, all the way from
the President down, in terms of your role in commanding the U.S.
Park Police as you do, literally leading the charge, and the two
other agencies, Arlington County that was supporting the police,
and D.C. National Guard. What is the chain of command in that
process?
Mr. MONAHAN. The chain of command for an incident such as the
one on June 1, we are operating under an ICS model, our incident
command system model. The Incident Commander for the United
States Park Police, again, was Major Mark Adamchik. We were op-
erating under unified command, so he had a counterpart on the
Secret Service side.
The CHAIRMAN. And who was above the Incident Commander
from the Park Police?
Mr. MONAHAN. He has full command and control of that oper-
ation and he has the authority to make any and all decisions for
that operation.
The CHAIRMAN. And the order was given verbally, in person, over
the—well, not over the radio. Or using some other means?
Mr. MONAHAN. Which order are you referring to, sir?
The CHAIRMAN. The order to remove the crowd at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, in terms of the warnings that were given to
the public, they were given via the use of a long-range acoustic de-
vice that we described earlier. He gave the first of three warnings
beginning at 6:23 p.m. Prior to giving those warnings, he gave a
briefing to all of the commanders that were going to be involved
in the clearing of H Street, so that they understood what the
operation was and what the rules of engagement were.
The CHAIRMAN. And who authorized the Park Police to use weap-
ons, munitions and devices that were used, in particular the chem-
ical irritants? Did any of the lawyers that were supposed to review
the actions say that it was OK? Who would that be to authorize
that?
Mr. MONAHAN. Yes, so the authorization on the rules of engage-
ment lies with the Incident Commander. I concurred with the
change in our rules of engagement for June 1, which expressly pro-
hibited the use of CS gas.
The CHAIRMAN. Much has been said for the people under your
command, the officers that were hurt. We are glad that they have
made a recovery and they are doing well. But I think one of the
issues here today, too, is like I said, it is a precursor to much of
the discussion that is going on about law and order and how politi-
cized it has become.
116

Part of the question we have is whether our government even
understands the difference between an unruly, violent mob and
people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. And
even worse, Chief, is the fact that we are seeing the Administration
continue to expand this authoritarian approach to law enforcement
with the issues in Portland and in other major cities. And, like I
said, June 1 stands out as a date and we will continue to pursue.
With that, I do not have any other questions. Chief, we
appreciate your time and your cooperation.
Mr. MONAHAN. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Dr. HICE. Mr. Chairman? Can I ask unanimous consent?
The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely.
Dr. HICE. OK. Unanimous consent to add to the record a fact
sheet from DOI regarding June 1, the events?
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
Dr. HICE. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. So ordered.
There are no other questions. Thank you, Chief Monahan. And
we will invite our next witness forward.
Now we will begin our second panel if Major DeMarco will join
us. Thank you.
Adam DeMarco is the Strategy and Operations Consultant for a
consulting firm here in DC. He is also a major in the District of
Columbia Army National Guard, where he has served since
completing his active duty with the U.S. Army in 2014. He is testi-
fying pursuant to the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.
I want to take a brief moment to recognize his father, Mr. Frank
DeMarco.
Thank you for joining us, sir.
He has traveled a long way to be here in the room with his son.
And as a reminder, under Committee Rules, Mr. DeMarco, your
oral statement is 5 minutes. Your entire statement is part of the
record.
Again, thank you very much, and you are recognized for 5
minutes.

STATEMENT OF ADAM D. DEMARCO, MAJOR, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA NATIONAL GUARD
Major DEMARCO. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I come before the Committee to help ensure that there is a fair, fac-
tual record of what happened at Lafayette Square, based on what
I saw and experienced firsthand. I especially want this Committee,
the residents of Washington, DC, and the American people to know
that the D.C. National Guard performed with the utmost profes-
sionalism and integrity, faithful to our Constitution under the most
challenging circumstances.
On June 1, I served as a liaison between the District of Columbia
National Guard and the Park Police at Lafayette Square.
The role of the National Guard was to support the Park Police
operation to clear demonstrators from the vicinity of Lafayette
Square. The immediate objective of this clearing operation, as the
Park Police informed me, was to install a larger security barricade
on H Street, along the northern edge of Lafayette Square.
117

The D.C. National Guard was not to be actively engaged in the
clearing operation. Rather, we would follow behind Park Police
units and help to secure an expanded security perimeter, once
established by the Park Police.
National Guardsmen were outfitted with standard riot gear, such
as face masks, shields, shin guards, and batons for defensive
purposes. But no National Guardsmen were armed with lethal or
non-lethal munitions that evening.
From what I observed, the demonstrators were behaving peace-
fully, exercising their First Amendment rights. At around 6:20
p.m., the Park Police issued the first of three warning announce-
ments to the demonstrators, directing them to disperse. I did not
expect the announcements so early, as the DC curfew was not to
go into effect until 7 p.m. that evening, 40 minutes later. The
warnings were conveyed using a megaphone near the statue of
President Andrew Jackson, approximately 50 yards from the dem-
onstrators. From where I was standing, approximately 20 yards
from the demonstrators, the announcements were barely audible,
and I saw no indication that the demonstrators were cognizant of
the warnings to disperse.
At approximately 6:30 p.m. the Park Police began the clearing
operation led by the civil disturbance units and horse-mounted
officers. No National Guard personnel participated in the push or
engaged in any other use of force against the demonstrators.
As the clearing operation began, I heard explosions and saw
smoke used to disperse the protesters. The Park Police liaison offi-
cer told me that the explosions were stage smoke, and that no tear
gas is being deployed against the demonstrators. But I could feel
irritation in my eyes and nose. And based off my previous exposure
to tear gas in training, I recognized that irritation as effects con-
sistent with CS or tear gas. And later that evening, I found spent
tear gas canisters on the street nearby.
As Park Police pushed the demonstrators further down H Street,
I saw demonstrators scattering and fleeing as Park Police charged
toward them. I observed people fall to the ground, and some Park
Police used their shields offensively as weapons. As I walked be-
hind Park Police pushing westward on H Street, I also observed
unidentified law enforcement personnel behind our National
Guardsmen using paintball-like weapons to discharge what I later
learned to be pepper balls into the crowd as demonstrators contin-
ued to flee.
After H Street had been cleared, I took up a position on 16th
Street near St. John’s Church. At around 7:05 p.m., I saw the
President walking onto H Street from Lafayette Square, near St.
John’s Church. The President’s arrival was a complete surprise, as
we had not been briefed that he would enter our sector.
As for the new security barrier, whose installation was the stated
purpose for the clearing operation, the materials to erect it did not
arrive on scene on H Street until around 9 p.m. that evening, and
it was not completed until later on.
Members of the Committee, the events I witnessed at Lafayette
Square on the evening of June 1 were deeply disturbing to me and
fellow National Guardsmen. Based on my training and experience,
at no time did I feel threatened by the protesters or assess them
118

to be violent. And based on established U.S. military protocols con-
cerning proportionality of force in dealing with civil disturbances
both within the United States and overseas, it was my observation
that the use of force against demonstrators in the clearing oper-
ation was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force.
From my observation, those demonstrators, our fellow American
citizens, were engaged in the peaceful expression of their First
Amendment rights. Yet, they were subjected to an unprovoked es-
calation and excessive use of force. As the late Representative John
Lewis said, ‘‘When you see something that is not right, not just, not
fair, you have a moral obligation to say something, to do some-
thing.’’ The oath I swore as a military officer to support and defend
the United States Constitution is a bedrock guiding principle for
me. It is the foundation of the trust safely placed in the armed
forces by the American people. And it compels me to say some-
thing, to do something about what I witnessed on June 1 at
Lafayette Square.
I thank you for your time and this opportunity and look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Major DeMarco follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADAM DEMARCO, MAJOR, DC NATIONAL GUARD
INTRODUCTION

Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the events at Lafayette Square
in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2020.
I come before the Committee to help ensure that there is a fair factual record of
what happened at Lafayette Square, based on what I saw and experienced first-
hand. I especially want this Committee, the residents of Washington, DC, and the
American people to know that the Soldiers and Airmen of the DC National Guard
performed with the utmost professionalism and integrity, faithful to our
Constitution, under the most challenging of circumstances.
I regard my testimony today as fulfilling my oath to support and defend the
Constitution, and as an extension of my public service—service that began as a
cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point and has continued for
over a decade as a commissioned officer both in the Army and the National Guard.
During my 5 years on active duty, I had the privilege of serving in the 1st Cavalry
and 1st Armored Divisions, and the honor of leading America’s sons and daughters
in three overseas deployments, including a combat deployment to Iraq. In 2014,
after completing my active duty obligation, I elected to continue to serve in uniform
by joining the District of Columbia National Guard. Through my military service,
I have continued a family tradition of public service dating back to my grandfathers,
Charles Woodrow Wilson Lohrig and William Holmes.
My paternal grandfather, Grandpa ‘‘Woody,’’ enlisted in the Navy in the 1930s
and was assigned to the USS Houston, said to be President Franklin Roosevelt’s
favorite ship. On February 28, 1942, the Houston encountered an overwhelming
Japanese force in what is known as the Battle of the Sunda Strait. Surviving the
initial battle only to be captured by the Japanese, Grandpa Woody and his ship-
mates endured a brutal 42 months of forced labor, torture, and starvation in
captivity until liberated by Allied forces in 1945.
My maternal grandfather enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after the
end of World War II. He later fought in the Korean War and received the Purple
Heart for wounds sustained in combat. He never talked about his time in Korea,
but he was a proud Marine until his dying day and always christened his boats with
the name, ‘‘Semper Fi.’’
In the 1980s, my father also engaged in public service—first as a law enforcement
officer in Pinellas County, Florida, and subsequently as a Special Agent at the
Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation. His example im-
parted to me essential core values that I strive to live up to each and every day.
119
EVENTS AT LAFAYETTE SQUARE ON JUNE 1

In March 2020, I was activated by the DC National Guard to assist in the District
of Columbia’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. In that capacity, I was selected
to serve as a liaison between the DC National Guard and the DC Government’s
Department of Health and local hospitals to facilitate immediate needs requests,
surge capacity planning, and emergency events associated with the pandemic.
On the evening of May 29, 2020, I received notification that the entire DC
National Guard was to be activated to help respond to ongoing civil disturbances
within the District of Columbia, specifically in the vicinity of Lafayette Square.
Over the next 2 days, the DC National Guard deployed forces to Lafayette Square
in support of the U.S. Park Police. During that time, I received reports that six DC
National Guard personnel had sustained injuries as a result of violent unrest out-
side of the White House. I also learned that Federal law enforcement officers from
the Park Police and the U.S. Secret Service had sustained injuries.
On June 1, 2020, I was tasked to serve as a liaison between the DC National
Guard’s ‘‘Task Force Civil Disturbance’’ and the Park Police at Lafayette Square.
As events unfolded that evening, I was one of the senior DC National Guard officers
within the area of operations.
The Task Force consisted of approximately 250 personnel from the DC National
Guard, and its mission was to provide support for the Park Police in the vicinity
of the White House and national monuments. DC National Guard personnel were
outfitted with standard riot gear, such as face masks, shields, shin guards, and
batons for defensive purposes. But no National Guardsmen were armed with lethal
or non-lethal munitions that evening.
Staging from the DC Armory, we arrived at the White House complex around 5:35
p.m. and formed up in front of the Department of the Treasury to minimize our foot-
print and avoid antagonizing demonstrators positioned along the fence line on H
Street on the northern edge of Lafayette Square. Upon arrival, I received a briefing
from my liaison with the Park Police and learned that the DC National Guard’s task
would be to support a Park Police operation to clear demonstrators from the vicinity
of Lafayette Square. The Park Police plan was to clear H Street between Vermont
Avenue to the east and Connecticut Avenue to the west, and move north on
Vermont Avenue, 16th Street, and Connecticut Avenue to extend the security perim-
eter from H Street to I Street. The immediate objective of this clearing operation,
I was told, was to install a larger security barricade on H Street along the northern
edge of Lafayette Square.
From a briefing I received from the Park Police, I learned that the Park Police,
along with the Secret Service, would conduct an operation to clear demonstrators
on H Street between Vermont Avenue and Connecticut Avenue. The DC National
Guard was not to be actively engaged in the clearing operation. Rather, our job was
to move behind the Park Police as H Street was cleared and the new northern secu-
rity perimeter was established on I Street, then reinforce and relieve the Park
Police on the new perimeter and hold a static line there. I understood that a curfew
imposed by the DC Mayor was not going into effect until 7 p.m., so I was not expect-
ing any clearing operation to commence before then.
I did not know what orders or rules of engagement had been issued to the Park
Police concerning the use of force against the demonstrators. I asked my Park Police
liaison if tear gas would be used because I had observed tear gas canisters affixed
to Park Police officers’ vests, and I knew that tear gas had been used against dem-
onstrators the previous evening. The Park Police liaison told me that tear gas would
not be employed.
A few minutes before 6 p.m., I was standing near the statue of Andrew Jackson
in the middle of Lafayette Square as DC National Guard personnel formed up
behind Park Police units positioned in a line behind the perimeter fence on the H
Street side of the square, facing demonstrators on the other side of the fence. From
what I could observe, the demonstrators were behaving peacefully, exercising their
First Amendment rights.
At approximately 6:05 p.m., after I had repositioned myself close to the line, I
observed Attorney General William Barr and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Mark Milley, walking across Lafayette Square from the direction of the
White House toward the security perimeter on H Street. Attorney General Barr
walked right up to the line of Park Police and DC National Guard, in front of the
demonstrators, then walked down the line of Park Police officers and National
Guardsmen. The Attorney General then headed toward the statue of President
Jackson where he appeared to confer with Park Police officers.
General Milley walked toward the area where I was standing. As the senior
National Guard officer on the scene at the time, I gave General Milley a quick
120
briefing on our mission and the current situation. General Milley asked for an esti-
mate of the number of demonstrators, and I estimated 2,000. General Milley told
me to ensure that National Guard personnel remained calm, adding that we were
there to respect the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights.
At around 6:20 p.m., after the Attorney General and General Milley departed
Lafayette Square, the Park Police issued the first of three warning announcements
to the demonstrators, directing them to disperse. I did not expect the announce-
ments so early, as the curfew was not due to go into effect until 7 p.m., 40 minutes
later.
The warnings were conveyed using a megaphone near the statue of President
Jackson, approximately 50 yards from the demonstrators. From where I was stand-
ing, approximately 20 yards from the demonstrators, the announcements were
barely audible and I saw no indication that the demonstrators were cognizant of the
warnings to disperse.
At approximately 6:30 p.m., the Park Police began the clearing operation, led by
Civil Disturbance Units and horse-mounted officers. The Secret Service, and other
law enforcement agencies I was unable to identify, also participated in the push. No
National Guard personnel participated in the push or engaged in any other use of
force against the demonstrators.
By then I had moved to the northeast corner of Lafayette Square near the statue
of General Kosciuszko. As the clearing operation began, I heard explosions and saw
smoke being used to disperse the protestors. The Park Police liaison officer told me
that the explosions were ‘‘stage smoke,’’ and that no tear gas was being deployed
against the demonstrators. But I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose, and
based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later
in my Army training, I recognized that irritation as effects consistent with CS or
‘‘tear gas.’’ And later that evening, I found spent tear gas canisters on the street
nearby.
During the initial push, I had relocated to a position near the northeast corner
of Lafayette Square, next to the Comfort Station that had been burned the previous
evening, in order to closely observe the clearing operation. As the horses began to
move from east to west along H Street, they stopped in the vicinity of St. John’s
Church and the Park Police’s Civil Disturbance Unit then took the lead and pushed
the demonstrators further down H Street. From my vantage point, I saw demonstra-
tors scattering and fleeing as the Civil Disturbance Unit charged toward them. I
observed people fall to the ground as some Civil Disturbance Unit members used
their shields offensively as weapons. As I walked behind the Civil Disturbance Units
pushing westward on H Street, I also observed unidentified law enforcement per-
sonnel behind our National Guardsmen using ‘‘paintball-like’’ weapons to discharge
what I later learned to be ‘‘pepper balls’’ into the crowd, as demonstrators continued
to retreat.
About 10 minutes after the clearing operation began, the Park Police ordered the
DC National Guard to move up behind the Park Police clearing elements pushing
north on Vermont Avenue, 16th Street, and Connecticut Avenue to reinforce and
relieve the Park Police on the newly established northern perimeter.
I took up a position on 16th Street between St. John’s Church and the AFL-CIO
building. By then, H Street had been cleared of demonstrators. Soon thereafter,
several black sport utility vehicles pulled up at the intersection of 16th Street and
H Street, and uniformed Secret Service officers began to establish an inner security
cordon between the SUVs and our perimeter on I Street. At around 7:05 p.m., I saw
the President walking onto H Street from Lafayette Square, near St. John’s Church,
accompanied by his security detail. The President’s arrival was a complete surprise,
as we had not been briefed that he would enter our sector.
As for the new security barrier, whose installation was the stated purpose of the
clearing operation, the materials to erect it did not arrive on the scene until around
9 p.m., and it was not completed until later that night.
CONCLUSION

Members of the Committee, the events I witnessed at Lafayette Square on the
evening of June 1 were deeply disturbing to me, and to fellow National Guardsmen.
Having served in a combat zone, and understanding how to assess threat environ-
ments, at no time did I feel threatened by the protestors or assess them to be
violent. In addition, considering the principles of proportionality of force and the
fundamental strategy of graduated responses specific to civil disturbance operations,
it was my observation that the use of force against demonstrators in the clearing
operation was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force. From my observation,
those demonstrators—our fellow American citizens—were engaged in the peaceful
121
expression of their First Amendment rights. Yet they were subjected to an
unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force.
As the late Representative John Lewis said, ‘‘When you see something that is not
right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something, to do
something.’’
The oath I swore as a military officer, to support and defend the Constitution of
the United States, is a bedrock guiding principle and, for me, constitutes an indi-
vidual moral commitment and ethical instruction. It is the foundation of the trust
safely placed in the Armed Forces by the American people. And it compels me to
say something—and do something—about what I witnessed on June 1 at Lafayette
Square.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIR GRIJALVA TO ADAM DEMARCO,
MAJOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL GUARD

WIGGIN AND DANA
August 28, 2020
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva, Chair,
Committee on Natural Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Responses to Questions for the Record
Dear Chairman Grijalva:
On behalf of my client, Adam D. DeMarco, I am forwarding the enclosed written
responses to Questions for the Record that he received concerning the July 28, 2020
hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources (‘‘Committee’’) titled
‘‘Unanswered Questions About the U.S. Park Police’s June 1 Attack on Peaceful
Protestors at Lafayette Square.’’
The responses that Mr. DeMarco is submitting concern events he participated in
while activated as a reservist in the District of Columbia National Guard.
Accordingly, as in the case of his July 28 testimony before the Committee, Mr.
DeMarco is providing this information to the Committee pursuant to the Military
Whistleblowers Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034.
Sincerely,
DAVID H. LAUFMAN

Question 1. You testified that the device law enforcement used on June 1, 2020,
at Lafayette Square to provide the mandatory warnings to protestors to disburse was
not a Long Distance Acoustic Device (LRAD), but a standard hand-held megaphone.
Please provide any knowledge you may have about whether there was an LRAD on
site that day, whether any LRAD was used at all, whether anyone attempted to use
an LRAD, and whether there was any intended use of an LRAD. Please identify any-
one else who would have knowledge of whether an LRAD was used, procured for use,
or attempted to be procured for use at Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020.
Answer. At approximately 11:35 a.m. on June 1, while I was still at Ft. Belvoir,
I was copied on an email from the Provost Marshal of Joint Force Headquarters
National Capital Region (JFHQ-NCR), the lead military police officer in the Depart-
ment of Defense for the National Capital Region, asking if the DC National Guard
possessed ‘‘a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) or the Active Denial Systems
(ADS).’’ The email stated that ‘‘ADS can provide our troops a capability they cur-
rently do not have, the ability to reach out and engage potential adversaries at dis-
tances well beyond small arms range, and in a safe, effective, and non-lethal
manner. The ADS can immediately compel an individual to cease threatening be-
havior or depart through application of a directed energy beam that provides a sen-
sation of intense heat on the surface of the skin. The effect is overwhelming, causing
an immediate repel response by the targeted individual.’’
At approximately 12:04 p.m., I responded that the DC National Guard was not
in possession of either an LRAD or an ADS.
122
That evening, after the DC National Guard had deployed to Lafayette Square, I
asked my U.S. Park Police (USPP) liaison, Sgt. Glick, if the USPP had an LRAD
on-site. He responded that the USPP did not have an LRAD on-site, and that the
USPP typically uses the DC Metropolitan Police Department’s LRAD when such a
device is needed.
Sgt. Glick then asked if the DC National Guard possessed an LRAD in its equip-
ment inventory. I replied that I would inquire about the possibility of obtaining an
LRAD.
According to a Situation Update Brief by JFHQ-DC on June 1 at 6 p.m., at that
time there was a pending request for an LRAD by the DC National Guard to JFHQ-
NCR. To my knowledge, however, there was no LRAD on-site at or near Lafayette
Square on June 1.
On June 2, I began working with JFHQ-NCR to learn if they could procure an
LRAD. I made an informal request to the Provost Marshal at JFHQ-NCR about the
feasibility of procuring an LRAD. The Provost Marshal subsequently received a
response from Marine Corps Base Quantico, advising that Marine Corps Base
Quantico had several LRADs on-site. I subsequently advised logistics officials in the
DC National Guard, but they informed me that they were no longer seeking to
procure an LRAD from the JFHQ-NCR.
Question 2. Please provide any information regarding the audibility of the manda-
tory warnings that you may not have had a chance to present at the hearing or
would like to clarify, or respond to.
Answer. The warnings to disperse issued by the USPP at Lafayette Square on
June 1, 2020, did not come from an LRAD. Rather, I observed that the device used
to give the warnings was a red-and-white megaphone laying on a bench near the
statue of President Andrew Jackson in the middle of Lafayette Square. An
individual I later learned was the USPP Incident Commander gave the warnings
using a handheld microphone attached to the megaphone.
As I stated in my previous testimony, at the time of the warnings the individual
giving the warnings (i.e., the USPP Incident Commander) was approximately 50
yards from the demonstrators. I was positioned approximately 30 yards from the
Incident Commander, and approximately 20 yards from the front line of the dem-
onstrators. From my position, the USPP warnings to disperse were barely audible
and I was only able to discern several words.
Question 3. Please describe any knowledge you may have, or statements you may
have heard from others, regarding whether any law enforcement used rubber bullets
on protesters. Please include any observations or knowledge you may have about
which law enforcement agency used rubber bullets.
Answer. I do not possess any first-hand knowledge that rubber bullets were used
against protesters on June 1. But I observed Stingball grenades affixed to the
ballistic vests of law enforcement officers deployed to Lafayette Square. (I was
unable to determine the law enforcement agency with which these officers were
associated.)
Several days later, a DC National Guardsman who was at Lafayette Square on
June 1 told me that he saw protesters being shot with these non-lethal munitions.
This DC National Guardsman told me how disturbed he was at seeing an innocent
civilian being shot with rubber bullets and falling to the ground in front of him—
seemingly indiscriminately.
Question 4. You mentioned the pre-positioning of M4 carbines by National
Guardsmen by transferring them from Fort Belvoir to the DC Armory. When did this
transfer occur and how did you become aware of it? Do you have any knowledge of
whether any ammunition was also pre-positioned? If so, how did you become aware
of it?
Answer. According to contemporaneous information I was receiving from another
DC National Guardsman in my unit, this transfer of weapons occurred on June 1,
2020, at approximately 1:30 p.m. The order to transfer the weapons to the DC
Armory had come from the Commander of the 260th Regiment, a unit of the DC
National Guard.
On June 4, 2020, I received notice from the logistics component of the DC
National Guard that ammunition (not further described) was arriving at the DC
Armory from supporting states, including Missouri and Tennessee.
On or about June 5, 2020, I learned from officers in the Joint Operations Center
at the DC Armory that 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition had been transferred
to the DC Armory.
123
On or about June 12, 2020, I learned from the chief operations officer (J-3) for
the DC National Guard that approximately 7,000 rounds of ammunition had been
transferred to the DC Armory.
Question 5. Acting Chief Monahan testified that the U.S. Park Police used Stinger
Balls. Please describe what a Stinger Ball is and how it works. Are there any Army
rules or regulations that would be violated if Stinger Balls were used on a peaceful
crowd?
Answer. According to the Department of Defense’s Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW)
Reference Book, non-lethal weapons are defined as ‘‘weapons, devices and munitions
that are explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate targeted
personnel or materiel immediately, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to
personnel, and undesired damage to property in the targeted area or environment.’’
A ‘‘Stingball grenade’’ is among the types of munitions classified as a non-lethal
weapon. It is ‘‘a hand-thrown or shotgun launched rubber grenade that releases
rubber pellets and delivers blunt trauma effects against single and multiple targets
to deny access, move, and/or suppress individuals. Stingball grenade uses include
crowd control, detainee operations, and cordon and search operations.’’
It is my understanding that the U.S. Army’s use of non-lethal weapons and riot
control agents is governed by the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, and
by Executive Order No. 11850, issued on April 8, 1975 (40 Fed. Reg. 16187). I defer
to legal experts on how these rules would apply, in a given scenario, to the U.S.
Army’s use of Stingball grenades ‘‘on a peaceful crowd.’’ As I testified, however, DC
National Guardsmen deployed to Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, were not
equipped with lethal or non-lethal munitions.

The CHAIRMAN. We will begin in the same way as the last time.
Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Major DeMarco, you were not part of the Park Police force,
so you may not be as familiar with the night—the 2015 legal settle-
ment that I discussed with the Acting Chief, but you did hear, I
think, the elements of that settlement, the specific requirements of
how, when confronting protesters, the Park Service Police are re-
quired to stage in a very specific way with officers in the back of
the crowd who would visually and verbally confirm that warnings
were loud enough to be heard and understood, that those warnings
needed to include a very clear reference to specific legal violations
and a warning that arrests would ensue.
So, you were on the ground. You have testified that you were just
a few yards from the front line here. Tell me, if you can, if you be-
lieve that Chief Monahan’s version of this, that every one of those
elements was complied with to the letter, was that your experience,
as a firsthand witness?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, on the ground I am not aware of a long-
range acoustic device being in position or utilized for the proclama-
tion to disperse.
Mr. HUFFMAN. You talked about a megaphone, a standard
megaphone. Maybe that is what they mean when they say long-
range acoustic device. But the only thing you heard was a standard
megaphone, correct?
Major DEMARCO. That is correct, a megaphone placed on a
bench, utilized through a handheld microphone.
Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. And do you believe that it was audible
enough to be understood by the protesters throughout the crowd?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir. I could barely understand the
message that was being delivered.
124

Mr. HUFFMAN. Did you see anything to suggest that there were
officers in the back of the crowd that were somehow confirming
that it was loud enough to be understood?
Major DEMARCO. I did not observe that, sir.
Mr. HUFFMAN. What about the behavior of the protesters? Did
anything in their reaction or behavior suggest to you that they had
either understood or not understood what had been said in the
megaphone?
Major DEMARCO. I saw no change in their disposition or posture.
Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. And in the warning, did you hear any
reference to a specific law that was being violated?
Major DEMARCO. I could just make out every other word in the
statement that was being delivered.
Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. I want to ask about the fencing that has
been offered as a justification for why this all had to happen. And
the Acting Chief said that the fencing, contrary to your testimony,
had arrived several hours earlier. But I think he had said it was
staged a couple of blocks away.
Is there any reason why, if it was important to install that
fencing as soon as it was on site, that it wouldn’t have happened
a couple of hours earlier, if that fencing had already arrived by
that point?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I can’t get into hypotheticals as to why or
why it was not installed at that time. Based off of the Army train-
ing publications and the various doctrine that we use in installing
and maintaining defensive static positions, certainly, I would have
looked at other time frames to install that fence.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Yes, but you found it odd that you had a 7 p.m.
curfew coming up, just 25 minutes later, and the fencing could
have been installed at that point in a manner that avoided a con-
frontation, potentially. Am I understanding your suggestion
correctly?
Major DEMARCO. At the time, I didn’t make that correlation. I
was just there, focused on getting the mission and getting our sol-
diers safely off the LMTVs that they arrived on, and into position
to support the Park Service——
Mr. HUFFMAN. So, about the mission, were you told that this was
about fencing?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUFFMAN. OK, let me just ask, if I could, about the timing
of the clearing of the crowd. There is some live tweeting from CNN,
a CNN reporter, that suggests from that moment that the advance
began—I believe it was 6:35 p.m.—within 10 minutes this crowd of
several thousand people, by all accounts, was gone. That suggests
to me that there was great urgency, that there was a very rapid
clearing of the crowd. What was your observation?
Major DEMARCO. Based off of Army training publication 3–39.33,
entitled ‘‘Civil Disturbance,’’ that escalation to rapidly move and
disperse people is not in accordance with what I understood as to
be the suggested and guided practice to clear the sector.
Mr. HUFFMAN. So, the urgency, the speed of that clearing, was
unusual in your experience. Is that correct?
Major DEMARCO. I was taken by surprise, correct.
125

Mr. HUFFMAN. Do you infer from that, that that was part of the
objective by the Park Police, that clearing with speed was their
intention?
Major DEMARCO. Yes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hice, sir, you are recognized.
Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. DeMarco, for being here. In the previous panel,
Chief Monahan testified that the decision to install the fencing was
actually made 2 days before June 1. It was on Saturday, May 30.
And that, of course, was in the aftermath of the most violent pro-
tests that took place over the weekend. The Park Service and the
U.S. Secret Service rightfully wanted to take steps to prevent that
from happening. Were you a part of those discussions 2 days prior?
Major DEMARCO. No, sir.
Dr. HICE. On June 1, what kind of role did you have? Were you
in a senior position of command and control, or were you there
primarily as a supportive role?
Major DEMARCO. I was not a commander, nor was I the officer
in charge. I was simply the liaison between the Park Police and the
D.C. National Guard. I would receive the missions and taskings,
and then alert the senior OIC, Officer in Charge, on the ground of
what the Park Police was requesting.
Dr. HICE. So, a supportive role.
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Dr. HICE. In that regard. OK, thank you.
You state that the fencing did not arrive until 9 p.m. on June 1.
Is that correct?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Dr. HICE. The folks on the ground with the Park Police and the
Secret Service share a different timeline. Here is the timeline that
they have. The fencing company site manager arrived at 3:30 p.m.
on June 1. The company staff arrived shortly thereafter. The fenc-
ing material was delivered at 5 p.m. The order was given at 6:23
p.m. The square was cleared by 6:50 p.m., and trucks with material
reportedly moved in the Square immediately, and construction
began at 7:30 p.m.
So, I mean, there was not a match-up in your timeline and what
actually took place. How do you reconcile this?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir. From my position, which was on H
Street and 16th Street, the first sighting I had of the 18-wheeler
carrying the non-scalable fence was at 9 p.m. that evening, on or
around. And the completion of that fence did not occur until about
10:30 p.m. later that evening.
Dr. HICE. So, I guess from what you are saying, there is at least
the possibility that, from the location where you were, you were not
able to see all the activity and realize what was taking place
elsewhere.
Major DEMARCO. That is correct, sir. However, the fence was
only being installed along H Street from Connecticut to Vermont.
Dr. HICE. OK, but the timeline, it actually started at 7:30 p.m.,
so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your location—you
didn’t perhaps see all that was taking place.
Major DEMARCO. It is possible, sir.
126

Dr. HICE. You stated just a few moments ago about the three
warnings. Your testimony here, I ran back and was looking at it.
You said that, at 6:20 p.m., the Park Police issued—and these are
your words—the Park Police issued the first of three warning
announcements to the demonstrators, directing them to disperse.
And you just said you didn’t hear that. But your testimony says
they gave three warnings.
Major DEMARCO. They did, but I did not hear the full proclama-
tion that was being given. But around that time, at 6:20 p.m., the
warnings began.
Dr. HICE. OK. So, if you didn’t hear them, how were you aware
that they took place?
Major DEMARCO. Because I was approximately 30 yards away,
and I saw the Park Police officer with the megaphone laying on a
bench, holding——
Dr. HICE. You were 30 yards away from where? I am trying to
picture this.
Major DEMARCO. From, essentially, the President Jackson
statue.
Dr. HICE. OK, so you heard the announcement.
Major DEMARCO. But I couldn’t make out exactly what they were
saying, sir.
Dr. HICE. OK, but enough to where you knew it was the first of
three warnings to disperse.
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir.
Dr. HICE. That is your testimony. That is your written testimony.
Major DEMARCO. Correct. If I was standing up at the line, I
would have no idea what they were actually saying. I was in a
position of privilege, where I could hear, and I expected something
to be coming from them.
Dr. HICE. OK. Again, your written testimony says at 6:20 p.m.—
it is very precise—that they gave the first of three warnings.
Anyway, we will go on from there. Let me just ask in closing, Mr.
DeMarco—I thank you for your service and a great deal of service
that you have done, and even politically—have you ever run for
Congress?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Dr. HICE. And when did you do that?
Major DEMARCO. In 2018.
Dr. HICE. And what party were you?
Major DEMARCO. A Democrat.
Dr. HICE. OK. I think it is very interesting how a lot of these
dots connect, as we continue defaming the police department and
attacking them for their stated purpose of protecting public safety,
and the rule of law, and the safety of our law enforcement.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back for now.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields.
Ms. Haaland, you are recognized.
Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Major DeMarco. Major DeMarco, it seems that some
law enforcement officers at Lafayette were not pleased about what
they were asked to do on that day. Arlington County pulled their
police officers from their role in assisting the U.S. Park Police
because they were shocked about how their officers were used to
127

attack peaceful protesters. It seemingly just wasn’t what they had
signed up for.
We have heard about how members of the National Guard who
were at Lafayette Square have struggled with the things they were
asked to do on June 1, because it runs directly counter to the very
reasons they decided to serve their country, and to their oath to
support and defend the Constitution.
In your testimony today, you courageously expressed similar sen-
timents, that what you saw our government do was wrong, and
that it was difficult to reconcile being put in that situation with
your commitment to your country and your fellow Americans.
Could you tell us a bit more about how this affected you personally,
as an officer in the National Guard?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, ma’am. And thank you for that question.
In the days following June 1, I struggled to process exactly what
had happened and taken place, to the point where I was sleeping
very little, and I started trying to figure out what the next steps
were. I had confided in several other officers in the District of
Columbia National Guard, as well as other friends and advisers
that I have served with, both on active duty and in support of
active duty operations.
A couple of days later I decided that I needed to memorialize my
record, or my memory, and I wrote my own sworn statement on my
own volition. And I read it in front of another officer, and he signed
off on it, because I knew something was wrong, but I didn’t know
what.
And then it was shortly thereafter that I started reaching out to
seeing what could be done, because I truly felt compelled that I had
to say something.
I started talking to other soldiers, soldiers that are in my unit,
soldiers that I have a supervisory authority over, and they were ex-
pressing many of the same consternations and concerns. So, I knew
that it wasn’t just me who had witnessed this, and felt that there
was something both morally and legally wrong.
And in trying to process that, I realized that I am in a position,
as a major in the United States Army National Guard, where I can
do something. And that is why I decided to come forward.
Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Major. And I am sorry you were put
in that position.
Are you aware of any other concerns from other people, your col-
leagues in the D.C. National Guard, that were there that day? And
have they shared with you how this incident has affected them?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, ma’am. One of the soldiers in my unit,
without giving out any personally identifiable information, is not a
native-born American citizen from a developed country. And in
talking to him, and helping him try to understand what he saw
and his role in that, which he acted honorably, he said that the
events of June 1 were those that he expected to see in his home
country, not here in the United States.
And that was a very troubling statement that I heard from him,
but I told him that we were doing the right thing. And it is another
reason on a long litany of reasons why I am here today to testify.
128

Ms. HAALAND. And along these same lines, what does being put
in this kind of situation do for the morale and the mental health
of the people you serve with?
Major DEMARCO. The District of Columbia National Guard has
been outstanding in ensuring that our soldiers and airmen have
received the support from both chaplain and emotional support
counselors to ensure that they understand and they have the
resources available if they need any further counseling.
Ms. HAALAND. And Major DeMarco, as an officer, would you ever
put your fellow guardsmen or women in a position where they were
attacking citizens who were largely peacefully protesting?
Major DEMARCO. Absolutely not, ma’am.
Ms. HAALAND. And you mentioned in your statement that Mark
Milley reminded you that the D.C. Guard was there to respect the
rights of protesters. Were you and your Guard members confused
why you had been told you were there to protect the rights of
Americans, and then realized that you were asked to back up
officers as they attacked these same protesters you were supposed
to respect?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, ma’am. When we arrived in support
of the United States Park Police, we arrived to help them, but also
to maintain our—or to serve under our oath to support and defend
the Constitution. Just because we were in a supporting role, did
not change the way that we operate, or the laws that we abide by.
Ms. HAALAND. Thank you for answering my questions.
I yield, Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gohmert. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you.
Major DeMarco, since you brought up the First Amendment at
least three times, maybe more, in your statement—you said, ‘‘We
were there to respect the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights.’’
Was that the order that was given to you guys in the National
Guard, ‘‘Get out there, and your job is to respect the demonstrators’
First Amendment rights’’?
Who gave that order?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir. That was a statement from the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley.
Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, yes. That is the same Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs that went out and criticized the President of the United
States.
This is a different military than the one I served in, because
when I was in the Army at Fort Benning, commanders constantly
reminded us that everybody knows that President Carter is doing
terrible damage to the military. But if anyone criticizes their
Commander in Chief anywhere but very privately, they will either
get an Article 15 or they will be court martialed.
So, this is a new military, I am finding, where the Chair of the
Joint Chiefs feels it is perfectly OK to demean his Commander in
Chief, and then you felt the need to come out and testify differently
from what we have heard from people within the Administration
and others that were out there. I am trying to get used to this new
military, where you don’t really feel an obligation to answer to the
civilian-elected Commander in Chief. This is really intriguing.
129

Now, the rules of evidence and relevance here are much more
relaxed than they are in a jury trial, but even in a jury trial you
would be compelled to ask, did the Democratic Party give you any
financial assistance when you ran against John Sarbanes for
Congress?
Major DEMARCO. No, sir, I was all self-financed.
Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Do you have any idea how many publications
have mentioned your name since you came out against the reports
by people within the Administration at Lafayette Park? Any idea?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir. I put my phone on Do Not
Disturb last night.
Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, OK. Well, apparently, it is a whole lot more
than you ever got when you got that 8.5 percent or so running for
Congress. So, it looks like this is going to serve you well with the
Democratic Party.
But I am still quite concerned about our military. Your job was
to observe the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators. Were
you out there when St. John’s was set on fire, there were two fires
set in the church?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I was there that evening. By the time the
church fire was reported, I was over by the Lincoln Memorial.
Mr. GOHMERT. Do you happen to know, of your own personal
knowledge, who the peaceful, loving demonstrator was, or dem-
onstrators, that set the church on fire?
Major DEMARCO. I have no knowledge of who was
demonstrating, sir.
Mr. GOHMERT. There apparently were some injuries out there.
Are you familiar with how many law enforcement officers have
been hurt by peaceful, law abiding, loving demonstrators?
Major DEMARCO. I am aware of the injuries that occurred
between the periods of May 29 to May 31, which is abhorrent. I am
also aware of the injuries of six National Guard personnel that
were injured during that time frame.
Mr. GOHMERT. Were they injured by Park Police?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir. They were injured—one was
concussed, I believe, from a projectile, and then others——
Mr. GOHMERT. But that was from one of the people that was just
observing his First Amendment rights.
Do you know what Supreme Court cases included in the First
Amendment rights the right to concuss law enforcement?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I have no legal background, so I can’t
answer that.
Mr. GOHMERT. OK, all right. I am just curious.
Well, I really have no other questions for this witness. I yield
back.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you.
Major DeMarco, let me just get the question. Major, first, thank
you for testifying. And I am concerned about what I had read
about, or learned a little bit about—do you know anything about
army helicopters hovering low over Washington, DC, relating to the
event on June 1?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
130

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Can you discuss these, and how you know these
claims—what is said to be true? Can you discuss what you know?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir. After the clearing of H Street, I was
informed by the United States Park Police that there will be low-
flying military helicopters in our area of operations.
Shortly thereafter, I observed the first UH-60 Blackhawk
helicopter flying north of my position, which was at that point 16th
and I Street. I observed the helicopter had no distinctive markings
on it. However, the doors were open. When I made that observa-
tion, I then assumed that it was a public affairs helicopter going
around, taking photos of our response, in support of the United
States Park Police.
Later that evening, as the wall, or fence, was being built along
H Street, I then heard radio transmissions over the radio, the D.C.
National Guard internal communications network, that there was
a low-flying helicopter in the vicinity of 15th Street and F Street,
which is near Chinatown. The transmissions that I was receiving
were that there was a low-flying helicopter, and it was making the
pepper spray of the D.C. Metro Police Department ineffective. I
kept hearing this over the radio. I didn’t know what was going on
in that area of operations, as it was out of our sector.
I then called over to the D.C. Armory Joint Operations Center
and spoke to an officer there, and asked him if he had any informa-
tion as to what was happening. I told him the report that I had
heard. He then communicated with someone within the operations
center. And I hung up the phone, and that was the last that I
heard of it.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Were there any that had medical markings on
them?
And you mentioned earlier that you believe that the Park Police
knew it in advance, or at least that some of these helicopter oper-
ations were to occur. Can you explain that?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir. To your first question, later reporting
indicates that one of the helicopters flying in the vicinity of 15th
Street and F Street had a medical Red Cross designation on it.
To your second point, the first that I learned about Army
aviation assets being used in this mission was from the United
States Park Police.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. When helicopters fly this low, is that an
intimidation maneuver?
The Metropolitan Police Department, I believe, complained that
the rotor wash made it hard for them to use pepper spray or
pepper balls.
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I am not a pilot, and my aviation experi-
ence is very limited, so I can’t speak to the tactics, techniques, and
procedures of our aviation assets and pilots.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Does using helicopters in this way strike you as
a sensible or safe way to do it, these operations?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I am not in a position to talk about the
safety or unsafe actions of pilots.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. But you are aware that the Park Police knew
in advance, at least, that some of these helicopters were going to
be there.
131

Major DEMARCO. Based off of the timeline and the notification,
yes, sir.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. Again, can you just explain how were these
helicopters to be used? Or did you know that they were used?
Major DEMARCO. I was not aware of their task and purpose
within the area of operations.
Dr. LOWENTHAL. OK, thank you. And I am going to yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. I recognize the gentleman
from Arizona. Mr. Gosar, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. Yes, Major DeMarco, you reached the conclusion that
protesters were subject to an unprovoked escalation on June 1.
However, this is a historically different characterization of events
in comparison to what we just heard from the Chief.
You testified that the D.C. National Guard was outfitted with
standard riot gear. I assume you were, too. Did you not?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir. We actually had a shortage of
riot gear. So, when I was on the scene, I had a protective mask,
I had a ballistic vest, but I did not have a baton, a riot shield, shin
guards, or a face visor.
Dr. GOSAR. In your testimony, you claim to be the senior
National Guard officer on the scene. Did you make the decision to
fully outfit the D.C. National Guard in riot gear that day?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir. That came from the District of
Columbia National Guard commander and commanding general.
Dr. GOSAR. So, somebody more senior than you must have antici-
pated some level of violence. And you told us six of your fellows
were injured. Did you express any disagreement with your senior
officer about the anticipation of violence prior to your deployment
to the area?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir. The uniform and kit that they
were outfitted with is a part of the standard operating procedures
for a response to civil disturbance.
Dr. GOSAR. OK. So, you are a military officer. We had a Member
from the other side of the aisle earlier ask the chief law enforce-
ment officer for our Park Police about the following of illegal
orders. If you thought the protesters were so peaceful—and again,
you were the senior National Guard officer on the scene—why did
you have your soldiers participate in this mission?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, we were there in a static defensive line. We
did not engage in the act of clearing of H Street.
Dr. GOSAR. By the way, whose order was it for curfew at 7
o’clock?
Major DEMARCO. That was the District of Columbia mayor,
Mayor Muriel Bowser, who instituted that curfew, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. Can you tell us just a little bit more about the six
members that were injured? You said one was hit by a projectile,
a concussion.
Major DEMARCO. That was the report I received. Yes, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. And would you consider that peaceful——
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. Now, while you described the protesters as peaceful,
Chief Monahan testified that many protesters were violent. Please
answer the following questions, as we have very little time, yes or
no.
132

Chief Monahan’s written testimony describes bricks and rocks
being thrown at law officers. Would you consider that peaceful or
violent?
Major DEMARCO. Violent, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. Chief Monahan continued, stating caustic liquids and
water bottles were also projectiles aimed at law enforcement
officers. Would you consider these actions peaceful or violent?
Major DEMARCO. Violent.
Dr. GOSAR. Chief Monahan also shared that they lit flares, and
fireworks were even thrown at law enforcement officers. Would you
consider that peaceful or violent?
Major DEMARCO. Violent, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. Finally, 2x4 sections of wood were thrown at law
enforcement officers. Does this seem peaceful or violent to you?
Major DEMARCO. Violent, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. So, let me ask you another question. The conversa-
tion was talking about helicopters. And you said that you were
privy to exactly what was happening. Could it have been used to
take photographs?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. Wouldn’t that be a smart, intelligent application, to
find out how things are moving from the skies? Because you are
kind of blinded on the ground, are you not?
Major DEMARCO. Use of aviation asset for aerial observations
would give you a different lens to look at the mission, as it
unfolded——
Dr. GOSAR. Yes, and it would make it more effective, would it
not?
Major DEMARCO. It would add a different lens to view the
mission, sir.
Dr. GOSAR. But it would make it more effective.
Major DEMARCO. There is nothing more effective than the on-
the-ground truth from the Incident Commander or commanders,
sir.
Dr. GOSAR. Oh, no, no, no. You want to make sure that you are
seeing all the things happening as they are working. And you can’t
see that from your perspective on the ground. You don’t have a 365
viewpoint. You don’t know what is being anticipated, what front is
moving, what front is retreating. You don’t know any of that. That
is why air power or air traffic is very good.
I mean, we use it in everyday life in cities for traffic control, do
we not?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I would respectfully disagree from my time
overseas in combat zones. There is nothing more important than
the sensors on the ground, which are our young men and women
in uniform.
Dr. GOSAR. Well, I totally disagree with you. Because, I mean, if
we use it for city traffic, why wouldn’t we look at pedestrian traffic,
as well?
And the comments to Mr. Gohmert about the church—you
weren’t there, so you didn’t know what was going on with the
church. So, from my standpoint, coordinated effect, nothing erro-
neous about that application.
133

And once again, I find it disenfranchising to say this is a peace-
ful demonstration. Peaceful demonstrations have an obligation,
when they see violence, to turn them in. Otherwise, you are as
guilty by association.
I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields. I would like to place into
the record information relative to Major DeMarco having to do with
West Point, family issues, anticipating questions about his own
character and background, and not only questions, but attacks in
those regards. If there is no objection, so ordered.
And one of the pictures has him taking a picture with him and
George Bush when he was a senior at West Point, George W. Bush,
a known subversive to some people. But nevertheless, I thought
that was important.
Let me recognize Mr. Gallego. Five minutes, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Major DeMarco, how long were you at Lafayette Square? When
did you get there?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir. I arrived at approximately 5:30 p.m.
that evening.
Mr. GALLEGO. Which evening, May 29?
Major DEMARCO. June 1.
Mr. GALLEGO. June 1?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK. What time, again?
Major DEMARCO. About 5:30 p.m. that evening.
Mr. GALLEGO. Had you been on site before this?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK. And would you describe the civilians, the
protesters—how would you describe them on June 1, when you
arrived?
Major DEMARCO. On June 1, it was drastically different than the
night before. On June 1, I would describe them as peacefully
assembled.
Mr. GALLEGO. And we can agree that May 29 there were violent
protesters.
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I was only there on May 31.
Mr. GALLEGO. Oh, OK. What did you observe on May 31?
Major DEMARCO. On May 31, I observed a riot.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK.
Major DEMARCO. Based off of Army training publication 3–39.33,
it was classified as a riot.
Mr. GALLEGO. I would say it was a riot, also. But June 1, from
your estimation, that was not the case. There was peaceful
protesting happening.
Major DEMARCO. Based off of that same Army training
publication, correct.
Mr. GALLEGO. Great. You have extensive training in riot control
and de-escalation training?
Major DEMARCO. No formalized training, except for what I am
able to ascertain from our Army training publications and field
manuals. I have never attended the military police course, or any
other additional courses.
134

Mr. GALLEGO. Someone within your unit had, though, I am
assuming.
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK, give me 1 second here.
So, at 5:30 p.m. you arrive on the scene. Did you get an assess-
ment report from somebody? Obviously, you were taking over duty
for that time period.
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir. We were actually just arriving.
The D.C. National Guard was just arriving.
Mr. GALLEGO. Just arriving, OK.
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. Who did you meet with there to give you an
assessment of what was happening on the ground?
Major DEMARCO. When I first got there, I linked up with my
Park Police liaison, who I had met the previous night.
Mr. GALLEGO. Yes.
Major DEMARCO. And then was introduced to another Park
Police officer, who then gave me the task and purpose.
Mr. GALLEGO. The Park Police officers, how did they describe the
day to you?
In their connecting with you, did they describe how the day was,
what was the scenario, what was the climate?
Major DEMARCO. In the situation brief that I received, it was
much different than the day before.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK, so what was that, specifically?
Major DEMARCO. I can’t remember, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK. Can you describe it? Did they at any point
seem to indicate that the crowd was calmer and more peaceful?
Major DEMARCO. That was the general atmosphere, yes, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. At what point were you told that you were going
to stand in line and form, essentially, a wall, while the Park Police
pushed on the protesters?
Major DEMARCO. That was about 5:40, 5:45 p.m.
Mr. GALLEGO. So, probably like 10 minutes after you arrived?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. And the reasoning for that was?
Major DEMARCO. The stated objective was to, essentially, clear
the area to facilitate this wall or fence to come into the AO.
Mr. GALLEGO. But there was never anything that indicated that
this had to happen at X amount of time, or that there was a sense
of urgency that they would have to rush these protesters for that.
Major DEMARCO. So, there was, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK.
Major DEMARCO. When I asked——
Mr. GALLEGO. Describe that.
Major DEMARCO. When I received the mission briefing, I
specifically asked for a timeline of events.
Mr. GALLEGO. Yes.
Major DEMARCO. And I said, ‘‘When is this going to commence?’’
What I heard back was, ‘‘As soon as possible,’’ and then I also
heard that they were expecting us to be there much earlier in the
evening.
Mr. GALLEGO. OK, got it. So, when the protesters actually
started getting pushed back, your standing orders were to what?
135

Major DEMARCO. The D.C. National Guard’s standing orders
were to maintain a static perimeter along H Street. And then, once
the sector was cleared, they would then reinforce and relieve the
Park Police on the border.
Mr. GALLEGO. So, essentially, what you are saying, for my civil-
ian colleagues, that you were basically owning territory as you
moved.
Major DEMARCO. Yes.
Mr. GALLEGO. So, as the protest pushed out, you guys were put
in lines, a phalanx, not a fence, but a wall, essentially, and occu-
pying territory so that way no protesters can sneak through.
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. GALLEGO. Have you or has anyone in your unit—when you
saw how they were clearing the protesters, from your experience,
did you find it odd that that was the manner in which they cleared
protesters?
Because, from my experience, and the training I had, I never
would have imagined that the way to clear—especially peaceful
protesters—is by swinging your batons and throwing tear gas or
chemicals into a crowd. Because that only induces chaos, which
creates more resistance.
Did you feel that, or did anyone in your unit think that, this was
a very odd way to clear people?
Major DEMARCO. Based off of the application of Army training
publications, I saw that as an ineffective way to de-escalate the
situation.
Mr. GALLEGO. Right. Did you see any attempts of de-escalation
prior to them moving on the crowd and, not taking into consider-
ation, obviously, the radio comms situation, which we heard was
problematic?
Major DEMARCO. The only other attempt that would fit the
parameters of the Army training publications would be the procla-
mation that was given.
Mr. GALLEGO. Great. Thank you.
I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cox, sir, you are recognized.
Mr. COX. Thank you, Chairman.
Major DeMarco, in his answers to our questions, Acting Chief
Monahan characterized the crowd at Lafayette Square on June 1
prior to 6:35 p.m. as violent. In fact, he said in his written testi-
mony, ‘‘An on-the-ground assessment of the violence and danger
presented by the crowd led to the clearing of the park and the
installation of the fence.’’
I would like to play some video from Lafayette Square on the
evening of June 1 and ask you a few questions about it. Unlike the
videos my Republican colleagues played at the last meeting, this
video is actually from Lafayette Square on June 1, not from some
other cities or other days or other countries. Let’s play the video.
[Videos shown.]
Mr. COX. Thanks so much. Those videos show the protest crowd
before the Park Police and the other officers attacked.
Major DeMarco, did that video show a riot or other violent
activity?
Major DEMARCO. No, sir.
136

Mr. COX. I would certainly agree with that. Did anything you see
in either of those videos justify the way law enforcement cleared
the protesters from the area?
Major DEMARCO. Not from those videos. No, sir.
Mr. COX. I would agree with you on that, again.
And from what you saw, do these videos represent the overall
demeanor of the crowd attending the protests that day?
Major DEMARCO. I can’t generally characterize the crowd, but
from what I observed, that is correct.
Mr. COX. Thank you so much. The fact that Mr. Monahan can’t
even acknowledge that the protest day was peaceful tells us some-
thing very troubling about the Administration’s conduct that day.
And it should make us all wonder whether our government even
understands the difference between an unruly, violent mob, and
people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.
And even worse is the fact that we are seeing this Administra-
tion continue and expand this authoritarian approach with these
crackdowns in Portland and other major cities. To me, this is an
attack on our democracy. This is an attack on our Constitution.
Now, I remember when the other side used to call themselves
constitutionalists. We pledge fealty to the Constitution. We are a
constitutional conservative. Where has that gone?
In your testimony here today, I can imagine that this is putting
you in grave, great, maybe professional personal jeopardy. Would
that statement be true?
Major DEMARCO. Recent events certainly have me concerned, sir.
Mr. COX. And just getting back to the oath that we both swore
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, is that
not the bedrock guiding principle that defends our way of life?
Major DEMARCO. I would agree with you 100 percent, sir.
Mr. COX. And is that why you are here today?
Major DEMARCO. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. COX. Well, I think it is a great tribute to our late, great col-
league, Representative John Lewis, that when you see something
that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to
say something, to do something. With your presence here today you
are saying something and doing something. And on behalf of,
certainly, a grateful Congressman here, I want to thank you for
your service, and to your family express my sentiments. I think you
are a hero.
With that, I will yield the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Let me recognize Miss
González-Colón for her 5 minutes.
Miss GONZÁLEZ-COLÓN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
yield my time to Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. GOHMERT. And I appreciate my colleague so much,
personally and professionally. Thank you.
Major, there is a significant difference between Members of
Congress taking the oath office and those of us who have taken a
commissioned officer oath of office, because, obviously, we are in
the military. We have superior officers, whereas in Congress my
superiors are the 800,000 or so that I serve. And I can’t be court
martialed for disrespecting the people that I serve, not that I would
do that.
137

But I am curious. You mentioned in your written statement—you
said, ‘‘I was tasked to serve as a liaison between the DC National
Guard’s ‘‘Task Force Civil Disturbance’’ and the Park Police at
Lafayette Square.’’ Who else was a liaison? You say you were one
of them. You were a liaison. Who else was a liaison in that
capacity?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir. We had several officers that were liai-
sons to different agencies across the National Capital Region. I was
just the Park Police liaison for that specific operation.
Mr. GOHMERT. And who tasked you? Who ordered you to take
that position?
Major DEMARCO. That was the commander of the Task Force
Civil Disturbance.
Mr. GOHMERT. Who?
Major DEMARCO. It was the commander, sir. I would rather not
reference his name.
Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, so we can’t verify that you were tasked with
that position, we are just forced to take your word for it.
When you say commander, commander of what?
Major DEMARCO. The commander of the task force, sir.
Mr. GOHMERT. So, that is the D.C. National Guard’s Task Force
Civil Disobedience.
Major DEMARCO. Disturbance.
Mr. GOHMERT. Disturbance, OK.
In your testimony, you stated the materials to erect the security
barrier did not arrive—and I am quoting—‘‘did not arrive on the
scene until around 9 p.m.’’ Chief Monahan testified to a much dif-
ferent timeline, with materials arriving earlier in the afternoon.
Are you feeling strongly enough about them arriving at 9 p.m.
that you would believe Chief Monahan was lying?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I can only speak to my account. And as a
fact witness, the times that I have presented are accurate.
Mr. GOHMERT. So, it is not possible, according to you, that the
materials to build the security barrier did not arrive earlier that
afternoon?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I can’t talk about hypotheticals. I could
only give you——
Mr. GOHMERT. It is not a hypothetical. I am asking you specifi-
cally, is it possible, based on your knowledge and what you saw
and observed, that those materials could have arrived much
earlier?
Major DEMARCO. It is certainly a possibility. However, based off
of my statement and timeline of events as a fact witness, the mate-
rials did not arrive on H Street until 9 p.m. that evening.
Mr. GOHMERT. Well, you keep saying you are a fact witness, but
you are also apparently being put up as a legal expert, because you
have indicated a number of times these people were there to
observe their First Amendment rights. And I understand, with
your MBA, that apparently qualifies you to make constitutional
judgments like that.
But isn’t it possible that those materials did arrive earlier, and
were at another location at the staging area?
Major DEMARCO. It is certainly possible, sir.
Mr. GOHMERT. All right. I have nothing further. I yield back.
138

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Garcı́a, you recognized.
Mr. GARCÍA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Major DeMarco, thank you for being here today, and for pro-
viding your honest testimony. Your testimony has been extremely
enlightening, and I think that it makes it even more clear that
what this Administration did that day was not only inappropriate,
but also reckless, and most likely unconstitutional.
One of the things that you said in your testimony was the Chair-
man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, approached you
before the incident. After you briefed him, General Milley told you
to ensure that the National Guardsmen remained calm, and that
you all must respect the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights.
Before the law enforcement surge, did you see protest activity
that crossed the line from First Amendment-protected activity to
violence, rioting, and other behavior that we don’t generally
consider protected under the Constitution?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, based off of Army training publication 3–
39.33, specifically chapter 2–14, crowd management tactics, the
situation there would be construed as lawfully assembled.
Mr. GARCÍA. Thank you. Aside from the general’s comments to
you about the First Amendment, did the general give you any indi-
cation or show any concern that the protesters’ rights may be
violated?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir.
Mr. GARCÍA. OK. What was your reaction to seeing what the
Federal Government did to those protesters as they exercised their
First Amendment rights?
Major DEMARCO. I was certainly surprised at the timeline of
events, and certainly the escalation of events.
Mr. GARCÍA. Very well. Black and Brown communities are
already being ravaged by the deadly virus and an unprecedented
economic crisis. Now they are being terrorized by a threat of a mili-
tarized secret and Federal police force in Washington, DC—we
have discussed it at length today—in Portland, possibly in Chicago.
Trump’s violent suppression of demonstrators in Lafayette Square
was not only reckless, it is a direct threat to our democracy, and
it is staring at us in the eye.
The actions leading up to Trump’s photo op have drawn outrage
from around the world. The kind of actions we would normally con-
demn in other countries are now happening here at home.
Demonstrations like the ones we have witnessed in the wake of the
killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and many others should
never be met with deadly force by law enforcement.
I yield.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Levin, sir, you are recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Major DeMarco, you mentioned in your statement that you have
served in combat zones, and understand how to assess threat envi-
ronments. With regard to Lafayette Square, you said that at no
time did you feel threatened by the protesters, or assess them to
be violent. Is that correct?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
139

Mr. LEVIN. You also mentioned in your statement that it was
your observation that the use of force against protesters in the
clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation. Is that correct?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. LEVIN. And you also have had extensive training in dealing
with protests and protestors known technically as ‘‘civil disturb-
ances,’’ as have all the D.C. National Guard that were there on
June 1. Is that correct?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. LEVIN. Could you please explain the fundamental strategy of
graduated responses specific to civil disturbance, and why that is
important?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir. A graduated response process, as
annotated in Army Training Publication 3–39.33, entitled ‘‘Civil
Disturbances,’’ is a measured approach to a response—or in
response to a crowd gathering. By recognizing a use-of-force policy,
soldiers must be taught and to understand that they use the
minimum force necessary.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. Please continue.
Major DEMARCO. It continues, sir. Without the appearance of a
graduated response, the gathering crowd may consider actions as
excessive, causing a possible escalation of hostilities or violence.
Mr. LEVIN. So, what we are hearing is that the widespread viola-
tion of rights at Lafayette Square was acceptable, because there
was violence happening before June 1 and in other places. In your
training, should the events of prior days be used as a pretext to
immediately escalate force?
Major DEMARCO. Absolutely not, sir.
Mr. LEVIN. Now, let’s say hypothetically that there was truly
widespread violence. In fact, let’s say this was an actual war zone,
where violence was persistent and ubiquitous. But on one par-
ticular day the protests were peaceful.
Major DeMarco, you have done tours of duty in different places
across the globe, including Iraq. If the events on June 1 in
Lafayette Square were happening in Iraq when you were serving,
would you have been able to handle protests the way the Park
Police and their partners handled them on June 1?
Major DEMARCO. Negative, sir. Based off of the Chemical
Weapons Convention of 1993, ratified by the Senate in 1997, and
FM 6–7, that is incorrect. We would not be able to handle or use
riot control agents in dispersing the crowds.
Mr. LEVIN. And Major, could you describe in the broadest terms
what the Geneva Convention is, who it is meant for, and what
happens to someone that violates it?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I am not a legal expert. I can’t talk about
what happens in violation of the Geneva Convention. But I can say
that it specifically prohibits riot control agents from being used in
a war zone.
Mr. LEVIN. Major DeMarco, earlier this morning we heard from
Acting Chief Monahan, who said the officers used—and I quote—
‘‘tremendous restraint.’’ Based on your training and your experi-
ence, what do you think of that statement from Acting Chief
Monahan?
140

Major DEMARCO. Sir, my opinion, tremendous restraint does not
involve the use of defensive equipment as weapons.
Mr. LEVIN. So, it wouldn’t be tremendous restraint.
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. I will yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Soto, you are
recognized, sir.
[No response.]
The CHAIRMAN. Ms. DeGette, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
[No response.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beyer?
Mr. BEYER. Yes, sir. I am here and thrilled to be included.
The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Major DeMarco, the Administration has given the operation to
install fencing as one excuse why the protesters were violently
cleared from Lafayette Square on June 1, but we know that the
clearing commenced around 6:30 p.m. And you have also said in
your testimony that the crowd did not appear to hear the warnings,
and it was cleared well before the curfew at 7 p.m. You also said
in a written statement that the crowd was peaceful.
You testified that the fencing arrived around 9 p.m. How did you
know that?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I had made visual observations of the
fencing as it arrived on H Street.
Mr. BEYER. And you were pushed back on that by some of my
Republican friends earlier. You were at 16th and H Street, right?
And the fence was supposed to go up along H?
Major DEMARCO. That is correct, sir.
Mr. BEYER. And the fence was going to go from Connecticut
Avenue along H, all the way to Vermont along H?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. BEYER. And that is about two blocks. And isn’t 16th Street
right in the middle of those two blocks?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. BEYER. Wouldn’t it have been almost impossible not to see
big trucks pulling up with fences at either end of those blocks?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. BEYER. Well, I think your testimony on the 9 p.m. is very,
very credible.
Major, based on your training in civil disturbances, when is the
best time to set up a new perimeter or install a fence?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, to set up a new perimeter or a new defen-
sive or security posture would certainly be in the early morning
hours, before the general public would be awake.
Mr. BEYER. Why would it be unwise to set up a new perimeter,
a new fence, in the middle of the day, when the number of pro-
testers is at its peak?
Does it present any danger to law enforcement personnel, or to
the protesters?
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir. I can’t speak for law enforcement per-
sonnel. I can tell you, as a commander, or if I were the officer in
charge, I certainly would not look for the high time of foot traffic
to set those up.
141

Mr. BEYER. Were you ever told, Major, why the fence operation
was going to go forward during the peak time of the late afternoon
or evening, while the protest was at its peak, rather than at night,
or rather than the next morning?
Major DEMARCO. No, sir.
Mr. BEYER. So, I mean, it would certainly make sense that it
should have been set up some time later, when the crowd was
smaller, or after the curfew.
Major DEMARCO. Yes, sir.
Mr. BEYER. Major, you mentioned in your written testimony that
Attorney General Barr was on the scene, talking with the Park
Police shortly before the clearing happened. Is that correct?
Major DEMARCO. That is correct, sir.
Mr. BEYER. Do you think he had something to do with the order
to clear protesters, or do you believe that this was simply a
remarkable coincidence?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I can’t offer my opinion. I can just give you
the facts as I saw them.
Mr. BEYER. Thank you. I appreciate that.
So, we have heard a few things: installing fencing in the middle
of a protest is not a sound practice; the fencing didn’t even arrive
until hours after the protesters were cleared; the crowd was peace-
ful, not adequately warned, dispersed suddenly, shortly after
Attorney General Barr left Lafayette Square; and President Trump
just happened to have a photo op shortly after the clearing.
Major DeMarco, the crowd wasn’t violent, the fencing didn’t
arrive until much later. What is the most logical reason you can
think of for why the violent clearing of protesters happened, given
your knowledge and expertise?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, I can’t hypothesize or speculate onto the
events and why they transpired along the timeline that they did.
Mr. BEYER. OK, I appreciate your sticking to the facts. Major, my
No. 1 constituent complaint is helicopter noise, because I represent
the district that includes the Pentagon and much else.
I am trying to think, in the 70 years I have lived in and around
Washington, inaugurations, the Women’s March, lots and lots and
lots of marches and demonstrations, any other time unmarked,
low-flying helicopters were used.
Can you remember any other time, with the many different
demonstrations that we have had?
Major DEMARCO. No, sir.
Mr. BEYER. Nor can I, which I think was why it was so upsetting
for so many people to have these things that once again suggested
that we are in Afghanistan, rather than in downtown Washington,
DC.
Major, thank you very much for coming forward.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Major DeMarco, let me thank you, and I appre-
ciate the information, your testimony, and the fortitude to come
forward. Given the reputation and the actions of this Administra-
tion, retaliation and retribution is not beyond them. And we have
many cases to point in that direction. So, I appreciate it, and all
of us do.
142

Let me ask you some quick questions. And there was one—yes,
Major, does running for Congress disqualify you for being a
truthful person?
Major DEMARCO. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And I am glad you answered it that way. Other-
wise, many of us would be in a considerable amount of trouble
right now.
Attorney General Barr has said that the June 1 incident was a
result of ordinary planning to extend the perimeter line—we have
already talked about that—around Lafayette Square, having abso-
lutely nothing to do with giving the President his photo
opportunity at the church.
Based on what you witnessed, what you know about that day,
your testimony, is this satisfactory? Is that explanation
satisfactory?
Major DEMARCO. Sir, respectfully, I am not here to hypothesize.
I am just a fact-based witness. I can’t talk about the causation or
correlation of events——
The CHAIRMAN. One other thing I was going to ask you, Major,
is you testified that no National Guardsman had lethal or non-
lethal munitions that evening at Lafayette Square. Are you aware
of any munitions being readied for use by the National Guard?
Major DEMARCO. On the evening of June 1, the only munitions
that I am aware of is the transfer of weapons from Fort Belvoir up
to the D.C. Armory. And that was my unit.
The CHAIRMAN. OK, and what kind of——
Major DEMARCO. They were M4 carbines, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is an assault rifle?
Major DEMARCO. It is an assault rifle variation.
The CHAIRMAN. And do you know what the reposition was in
preparation for?
Major DEMARCO. I don’t know what it was in preparation for, I
just know that my soldiers executed that movement.
The CHAIRMAN. OK, thank you. The issue that we are
confronting across this country right now is the question of the pro-
tests across this country. And I think Lafayette was a precursor
and a pretext to a lot of the discussion that is going on.
And this hearing is not just simply about what happened in
Lafayette Square, but also the pretext and the precedent there.
You might not want to speculate or state the opinion on that, Mr.
DeMarco, but I firmly believe that what happened in Lafayette
Square was a consequence to creating a photo opportunity, and a
campaign theme for President Trump, and that Attorney General
Barr was making the calls all the way along the line. And we will
continue to seek information and pursue that.
But I also think that what is going on in the Nation right now,
that there are peaceful, lawful First Amendment demonstrations
going on. And the vast majority of people involved in them are peo-
ple that respect that, non-violent and peaceful, just like John Lewis
and that legacy.
The opportunists who attempt to hijack that, either for a political
agenda that does not fit into the Black Lives Matter movement or
to a social justice movement, they are political opportunists. And
143

the criminal opportunists, they see it as a chance to do other kinds
of harms to property. They are going to take advantage of it.
But to use a broad brush, as this Administration used Lafayette
Square, that everybody that was in that place and that Square
were criminals, anarchists, and bent on destruction of Federal
assets and attacking Federal police—in this instance, the Park
Service—I believe that is absolutely false. And those false gen-
eralizations that are coming by this Administration and this law
and order that they are on, are just that, generalizations and, in
some cases, outright lies.
And I think we should be very concerned about the creeping
authoritarianism that is going on that is making the question that
we are asking here today more and more relevant, and more and
more urgent.
With that, the meeting is adjourned. I yield back, and thank you
very much, Mr. DeMarco.
[Whereupon, at 1:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE
COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman
— 2015 U.S. Park Police Settlement Agreement dated May 10,
2015.
Submission for the Record by Rep. Levin
— The New York Times article titled, ‘‘Park Police Head Had
Been Accused of Illegal Searches and Unreliable Testimony,’’
dated June 18, 2020.
Submission for the Record by Rep. DeGette
— USPP Use of Force General Order (No. 3615).

Submission for the Record by Rep. Bishop
— Letter from Reporters of the Free Press dated June 29, 2020.

File and source

File: CHRG_CHRG-116hhrg40718_CHRG-116hhrg40718.pdf
Size: 3,556,923 bytes
SHA-256: 6df0cfa2ab4f624a5936ea8bb63da15c759fcbfa5528015f04ac5d58074f28f8
Our copy: CHRG_CHRG-116hhrg40718_CHRG-116hhrg40718.pdf
Original: www.govinfo.gov