Secret Service Evading Responsibility for Trump Assassination Attempt

Five common diversions and why they're dumb

The Secret Service's failure to preempt the Trump assassination attempt is the biggest national security failure since January 6. Investigations and hearings are coming but the agency and its advocates are already dodging culpability, pointing fingers at anyone but themself.

As surely as night follows day, the blame game follows every major national security screwup, from January 6 to 9/11. These agencies may not be very good at protecting the former head of state but they’re second to none at protecting their institution.

On Sunday, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle sent a memo to agents commending their actions. “The Secret Service moved quickly in this situation and neutralized the threat,” the memo said. 

A public statement issued by Cheatle on Tuesday said that Secret Service agents were able to “ensure the safety of former president Donald Trump,” not even mentioning that something went wrong. In an interview on Monday, Cheatle said that the incident was “unacceptable” and that “the buck stops with me,” but also said that she will not be resigning.

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, daring you to fire her | Getty

Much like President Biden’s disastrous debate performance, following the shooting, Washington quickly got to work trying to disabuse millions of Americans from believing what they had just seen. Though the administration says it doesn’t yet know what exactly happened, it does seem to know one thing: that the Secret Service did nothing wrong. That it behaved courageously, selflessly, heroically; the adulations seem almost rote, a catechism we’re supposed to recite whenever we’re talking about the august national security state. In many cases politicians don’t even seem aware of what they’re saying, like Trump himself, a self-styled opponent of the “Deep State,” who publicly thanked the Secret Service after the attack.

The Secret Service’s excuses are every bit as lame as Biden’s post-debate, when the White House claimed he had prepped both too much and not enough, that he was jetlagged, that he had a cold, and so on. The public saw through these dog-ate-my-homework tier prevarications but the same is not the case with the Secret Service’s excuses. For the national security state commands a deference that in some ways even the president does not, and it remains to be seen if anyone will call bullshit on the host of Secret Service excuses ricocheting around in the discourse.

Here are five of the most widely believed examples.

---

1. The locals are to blame

Within a day of the shooting, story after story cited unnamed Secret Service officials saying that it was the responsibility of local law enforcement to clear the roof and that it was their failure. The Secret Service spokesman himself has attested to the claim in more general terms, suggesting that the agency wants this narrative out there.

Per the Washington Post:

“Responding to questions from The Post, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi confirmed Sunday that the agency relied on local police at the Trump rally to fill out significant parts of its typical array of specialized protective units — including its heavily armed counterassault team that provided cover as Trump’s detail evacuated him and the countersniper teams that ultimately spotted and killed the shooter.”

While it’s true that the Secret Service routinely coordinates with state and local law enforcement, it is ultimately the Secret Service that’s in charge. That’s exactly the point that the Pennsylvania authorities have made, and on the record.

“Secret Service always has the lead on securing something like this,” Lt. Col. George Bivens of the Pennsylvania State Police told reporters during a press conference. “We work with them to provide whatever is requested by the Secret Service, but they’re the lead in that security.”

If local law enforcement was unable to clear the roof, the Secret Service should’ve known about it; that they didn’t suggests that they weren’t checking their own work. Blaming the locals is like a commander blaming his troops.

2. Trump didn’t get the support his campaign requested

Florida Rep. Mike Waltz posted on X that he had been informed by “very reliable sources” that there had been repeated requests for stronger Secret Service protection for Trump, but that these had been denied by Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Though the Secret Service denied the claim, it has racked up half a million views and become part of the assassination lore.

There’s no evidence that it’s true, and it would have been quite an oversight for Trump to have thanked the agency without mentioning this. But the utter lack of evidence won’t stop it from spreading because Mayorkas is an archenemy of many Republicans who detest his handling of immigration. And that’s what these claims amount to: a partisan football intended to hurt Biden or even his Secret Service appointee but which causes no problem for the Secret Service as an institution. 

3. DEI is to blame

Another response that takes attention off the Secret Service is the charge that DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) is to blame for the failure. Mandated hiring of supposedly under-qualified women and minorities - instead of people better suited to protective work by virtue of their Y chromosomes and melanin levels - is to blame, the belief goes. Silly as this may sound, the claim has been advanced by members of Congress.

“You got a DEI—basically a DEI initiative person who heads up our Secret Service,” Rep. Tim Burchett said in an interview on Sunday. “This is what happens when you don’t put the best players in.”

Burchett as well as Elon Musk have mocked Director Cheatle, the second-ever female director of the Secret Service, for having worked at PepsiCo. But she was a rank-and-file Secret Service agent for decades before that, and it’s very common for senior national security officials to work for major corporations like PepsiCo. (I don’t think the revolving door is a good thing, but it’s a very well traveled door.)

4. Rules of engagement were controlled from the top

Another emerging claim is that the Secret Service’s rules of engagement, or the conditions under which they’re allowed to fire on a target, are too restrictive, or imposed by some superior. These rules forced the Secret Service sniper to hold his fire until the shooter started squeezing off rounds, the belief goes. 

The claim has gotten traction with high-level politicians. On Sunday, Sen. Pete Ricketts sent a letter to Cheatle demanding to know if any Secret Service agents had requested permission to engage the shooter.

Once again we have an evidence-free assertion that even if it were true leaves the Secret Service unscathed. It instead directs the ire at a superior, a bureaucrat, or maybe even the rules of engagement specifically, but the agency as a whole is somehow not relevant.

5. The Secret Service doesn't have enough $$$

Jason Chaffetz, formerly chair of the House Oversight Committee that conducted a review of past Secret Service lapses, told The Washington Post that the agency has too few resources to do the job. 

A lack of resources caused the agency to fail at its most basic job of protecting the former president? To not verify that a roof was cleared? To create a proper perimeter? To not coordinate properly with the locals? Really? 

Much as I’d like to laugh, I suspect Chaffetz will be the last one laughing when the Secret Service inevitably gets its budget hike.

Our benign protector the national security state’s endless quest for resources reminds me of what George Carlin once said about God: “He loves you, and he needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all knowing and all wise; somehow just can’t handle money!”

— Edited by William M. Arkin