In the aftermath of the July 13th assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, the US Secret Service has been subjected to bipartisan criticism over its handling of security at the event where Trump was shot at. Kristian P. Alexander writes on the areas of concern that have been highlighted following the shooting and how the lessons of past security breaches show that the government must avoid finger pointing and listen to experts.
The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump at a July 13th campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, has raised serious questions about the role and effectiveness of the United States Secret Service in preventing such attacks.
Trump, who was confirmed as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention two days after the incident, was grazed in the ear by a bullet fired by 20-year-old Thomas Mathew Crooks, who was later shot dead by Secret Service agents. Despite the quick response, the incident has raised questions about how such a breach could have occurred.
What went wrong? Security flaws emerge in the aftermath
As part of the organization’s mission “to ensure the safety and security of our protectees, key locations, and events of national significance,” the US Secret Service was in charge of securing Trump’s rally. Typical security for a major presidential candidate involves a combination of Secret Service agents and local law enforcement, and the Secret Service stated that personnel and equipment had been increased for Trump’s rally because of the intensity of the presidential campaign. The Pennsylvania rally had members of the Secret Service’s Hercules counter sniper team and Hawkeye counterassault team, as well as additional sniper teams from local law enforcement in place.
Despite all this force, the assailant was able to climb atop a roof of a nearby building with a high-powered rifle and fire multiple shots, including one that killed a rally attendee, 50-year-old firefighter Corey Comperatore. In the aftermath of the tragedy, several areas of concern have been highlighted.
- Communication One of the primary issues revealed by the incident is the breakdown in coordination between the Secret Service and local law enforcement. Hours before the rally, multiple witnesses, including local police, noticed Crooks acting suspiciously near metal detectors. Yet this information was not effectively communicated to other security personnel, and Crooks was able to access his vantage point without detection.
- Surveillance The incident also exposed weaknesses in perimeter security. The outer perimeter serves as the first line of defense against long-range threats, and the failure to eliminate potential lines of sight for the shooter was a significant oversight. Advance security should have flagged the rooftop as a potential threat and closely monitored the area.
- Evacuation Even after shots rang out, Trump’s head and body remained exposed for several seconds during the evacuation. Standard protective measures dictate that the protectee should be covered and evacuated swiftly, minimizing exposure to potential threats. The visible confusion between Trump and his security detail during the evacuation highlights the need for rigorous training and adherence to protocols.
The US Secret Service and local law enforcement typically coordinate security for public speaking events, highlighting the potential for poor coordination and the necessity for increased funding and personnel. Increased funding and resource allocation are essential to strengthen the Security Services agency’s capacity and ensure comprehensive security measures for all high-profile individuals, particularly during election years. The US Secret Service has long struggled with limited funding and overextension, especially during periods of heightened demand when multiple candidates and events require protection.
Investigations, resignations and lessons from the past
The incident, which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has officially called an assassination attempt, has led to both Republicans and Democrats to call for an immediate investigation into the role played by the Secret Service and local law enforcement. One day after the attempt, Florida representative Carlos Giménez, a member of the House of Representatives’ Homeland Security committee, announced the launch of an investigation into what he later termed “inexcusable security breaches.”
The US House of Representatives Oversight Committee initiated a thorough investigation into the incident. During the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee hearings, debates arose regarding potential political pressures that may have affected security decisions leading up to the rally. Republican and Democratic members of the Committee held starkly different views on the potential motives and responsibilities behind the security lapses. Republicans tended to focus on external threats and the unprecedented nature of the attempt, emphasizing the need for enhanced security measures. Democrats, on the other hand, questioned internal processes and potential negligence within the Secret Service, arguing that a thorough overhaul of the agency’s protocols was necessary.At the hearings, US Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle faced particularly intense bipartisan criticism for the agency’s failures, with Committee members questioning her leadership and decision-making processes. Under intense pressure, Cheatle admitted to several oversight failures and acknowledged the need for systemic changes within the agency and ultimately handed in her resignation on July 23, 2024.
“Secret Service Agent Guards the White Ho” (Public Domain) by Matt Popovich
The Oversight Committee’s investigation has paved the way for several additional inquiries and investigations. These investigations are expected to commence in the coming months, with preliminary findings likely to be released by the end of 2024. However, given the complexity of the issues involved, comprehensive reforms and final reports may take several years to complete.
These investigations are critical for understanding failures and for developing strategies to mitigate similar risks in the future. Expert testimonies and detailed analyses often reveal systemic flaws that need to be addressed. Congressional and investigative bodies in the US have a long history of examining security breaches, producing detailed reports, and making recommendations to prevent future incidents. Despite their efforts, these findings often fall by the wayside once the immediate crisis subsides, as was the case with the 9/11 Commission Report and the investigations following the 2012 Benghazi attack.
The 9/11 Commission Report, published in 2004, highlighted numerous lapses, including failures in intelligence sharing between agencies such as the FBI and CIA even before the attacks. Several indicators and intelligence reports, for example, suggested an imminent threat from terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda. These warnings were either downplayed or not acted upon effectively. Despite the report’s 41 recommendations, many were slow to be implemented, if at all. This delay in action is often attributed to bureaucratic inertia and competing political priorities that overshadow the urgency of the recommendations.
The 2012 attacks on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, sparked extensive investigations and political controversy. Several congressional committees, including the House Select Committee on Benghazi, conducted inquiries into the incident. While the investigations provided insights into the security lapses, they were marred by partisan politics. Both Democrats and Republicans used selective portions of the reports to bolster their political narratives.
Government must avoid finger pointing, listen to experts
The political blame game that accompanies these investigations further complicates the implementation of recommendations. In the case of the Trump rally, some in the right-wing media have blamed diversity initiatives and female Secret Service agents for the security lapse. Other right-wing pundits and even some elected officials suggested that the attack was an inside job, possibly orchestrated by those within the government or the Democratic Party. Prominent figures such as Elon Musk and Congressman Mike Collins fuelled these claims by insinuating deliberate negligence by the Secret Service and direct orders from President Biden. On the other end of the political spectrum, Dmitri Mehlhorn, a top adviser to Democratic billionaire Reid Hoffman, speculated that the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump could have been a false-flag operation, designed to portray Trump as a resilient figure and boost his electoral prospects. This theory was bolstered by Trump’s dramatic post-attack photos, which some viewed as evidence of a staged event.
During such investigations, political actors often prioritize scoring points over finding solutions. This adversarial approach can undermine the credibility of the investigations and divert attention from the substantive issues at hand. As a result, the focus shifts from improving security protocols to assigning blame, which only serves to perpetuate the cycle of neglect and repetition.
- Please read our comments policy before commenting.
- Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
- Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-e9j
