He took over a Capitol Police force reeling from Jan. 6. Now Chief Manger is retiring

WASHINGTON — When J. Thomas Manger took charge of the Capitol Police in the aftermath of Jan. 6, 2021, he said that day “should not define us.”

As Manger prepares to retire at the end of the month, he’s taking stock of what’s changed since the mob attack on the Capitol, which revealed long-standing leadership problems and tanked morale.

“I know things are better than they were when I started, but there’s still room for additional improvement,” Manger said in a recent interview at headquarters.

As the force requests nearly $1 billion in the coming fiscal year, Manger said more funding is key to meeting its staffing goals. But some lawmakers have raised eyebrows over the ever-climbing budget, and the chief spent his final months answering for a string of security lapses, in which weapons went undetected at screening checkpoints.

Still, even if it sounds “corny,” Manger said he feels inspired every morning as he steers his car down North Capitol Street on his way to work, the Dome of the Capitol in view.

Under his watch, the department closed out more than 100 inspector general recommendations that were made after the Capitol riot. And he touts efforts to hire more uniformed officers and expand threat investigation capabilities.

“If I was 10 years younger, I’d stay 10 more years. I really like this job, I like the department,” said Manger, 70, whose plans for retirement include both the beach and “staying busy” with some consulting work.

One of President Donald Trump’s first acts in office this year was issuing sweeping pardons and commutations to his supporters who ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, including those who assaulted police. Asked what that did to morale on the force, Manger said, “How do you think that impacts morale?”

“You don’t even have an agreement from the public or from our political leaders on what occurred that day,” Manger said. “Now, I will tell you that my cops … they know exactly what happened. They don’t need anybody to tell them, ‘Oh, it was this. It was that.’ They were there. They were in it, and for the record, I was not. I watched it on TV, and my reaction to what I saw was the primary reason that I took this job.”

This interview has been edited and condensed.

Q: Is there anything you’d hoped to accomplish but couldn’t?

A: It was well documented that the Capitol Police was woefully understaffed, and it wasn’t just the uniformed officers you see out at posts and working the demonstrations. It’s the folks you don’t see very often, investigating threats against members of Congress or doing the protection work.

We’re better off than we were four years ago, but we’re not where we need to be, and we still got folks that are working unbelievable amounts of overtime, that are working double shifts, that are getting days off canceled because we don’t have the adequate numbers in some of those positions.

Q: How is leading the Capitol Police different from leading a local police force like you did in Montgomery and Fairfax counties?

A: There is no other police department in this country that does what we do. We are the police for the legislative branch of government, and it’s a unique job, and it’s an interesting job. This is a protection agency as much as it is a police department, and both of those things, by the way, are critically important.

I will often hear some folks say, “We should focus more on protection and less on police work.” If you did that, you’d be doing your job with one arm tied behind your back. It has to be both, because both of those things are what keeps this campus safe and keeps the members of Congress safe, and you can’t do one without the other.

Q: How difficult is that balance?

A: A lot of folks don’t realize this, but we do have a nationwide jurisdiction to keep members of Congress safe. So yes, we certainly are spread thin, but that’s why we have focused over the last four years on mutual aid and formalizing more memorandums of agreement with police departments around the country, so that when some congressman from Idaho is out at a town hall meeting and somebody comes to try and disrupt, we can get that issue addressed immediately. And when we have a big event here at the Capitol, we can bring in a couple thousand cops from not only around the region, but all up and down the East Coast.

Q: You mentioned agreements with other police forces, but you also have field offices now in a couple locations. Do you need more of those?

A: Both of those things have value, because they accomplish different things. I know the field offices have had sort of mixed reactions from stakeholders and from members of Congress. People don’t quite understand what we’re trying to accomplish there.

Probably the best example is when then-Speaker Pelosi’s home was broken into by an individual and we had a field office in California, so we had agents there on the ground within an hour or so of that happening. I know we’re a long way from it, but ideally if we could have a field office in every state, what an advantage that would be in working threat cases, keeping folks safe when they’re in their home districts.

Our field offices are typically two or three people, and (they can work) in a local FBI field office, or some other federal facility. So it’s not like this is an expensive thing, and I think the bang for the buck is really great. But again, I know this will be an uphill battle for the next chief, and probably the next chief after that, because not everyone on Capitol Hill is convinced this is a good thing.

Q: You release annual numbers on threats you investigate against members of Congress, their families and staff. Last year those went up again, to 9,474.

A: I hope one day they level off and get back to what would be a number that’s not so outrageous and so alarming, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. This is a country that’s very divided politically, and over my time as a police officer, the vitriol between people who disagree has gotten less civil. I am optimistic that we can get back there, but we’re going to have to have our leaders, our political leaders in this country, model that good behavior. And right now they’re not doing it.

Q: That number includes both “concerning statements and direct threats.” Why do you choose to report it that way and not break out the substantiated threats?

A: It’s important that we get all of those cases, because you never know when they’re going to cross the line. You get a letter, and you open it up, and it’s a photo of your child walking your dog. Someone’s taken a picture, and it just says, “Cute dog.” Well, what if it says, “Sure would be a shame if something happened to your dog”? If any of us got something like that, we would be alarmed, and so we don’t just ignore it, (even if it) didn’t cross the line to be a criminal threat. There are times when our folks are able to determine who’s sending these concerning messages, and it turns out they’re struggling with mental health issues, and we get them referred to get help, or get in touch with their family.

Q: The president pardoned Jan. 6 defendants, and now the Justice Department is preparing to settle with Ashli Babbitt’s family. Has that hurt morale?

A: Every one of these cops, like cops across the country, are willing to put their life on the line. They accept the risk, because they think that we’re doing what the public is asking us to do, and that our sacrifice will be honored if we make it.

With these pardons, all of a sudden the message is, “What you did really didn’t matter. We care more about the people that broke the law, that assaulted you and destroyed property at the United States Capitol, we’re on their side.” So how do you think that impacts morale?

Q: What’s the biggest challenge for the force going forward?

A: To stay focused on the mission and to be protected from the political influence that sort of permeates this place. As best I could, I tried to protect the department from any political influence, and I think we were fairly successful in doing that. But it can be a daily challenge, and I’m not just talking about the members. Frankly, the members are less of a problem than some of the staff. But there are lots of folks that have a different idea about what we should do, and how we should treat people, and “Oh, we treat these people different than those people.” That’s not the way policing works.

We serve everybody, whether it’s a congressional leader or a homeless person that happens to stumble onto this campus. My cops do a great job at fulfilling that responsibility, and I just hope that people allow them to do their job, and do it without any undue influence.

_____