Secret Service response at Trump rally a paradox of priority

23 July 2024, 12:58

The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump has seen widespread of criticism of the United States Secret Service and their clear failure to conduct their primary role of protection.

Ten days have passed since the incident and USSS Director Kimberly Cheatle was grilled yesterday by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability as to how such an incident occurred.

Having eagerly watched the grilling, Cheatle excused many questions by stating that an FBI investigation was being conducted, and until all of the facts were known, she would not be able to answer accurately.

This stance was adopted by much commentary on various social media platforms, particularly by those who were former USSS and police (and similarly, other countries like for like protection departments/ units) where to criticise their own ‘side’ would be in breach of an unwritten moralistic code.

However, this was not an incident by virtue of a single mistake, and evidence of such was questionable, but an incident that arose from multiple blunders, underpinned by an approach to protection where the priority was evidently more aligned with Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion than selecting who was right for the job—the House Committee also raised this very issue, to which Cheatle denied.

When the incident unfolded on live TV around the world, the focus in the washup was all to do with the ‘How’ and in any subsequent investigation, rightly so.

Yet, as a protective security specialist spanning some 30 years, my immediate criticism was not so much of how but was one of absolute disbelief at the manner in which the protection was afforded to Trump during the incident itself.

Threat assessments, operating procedures, and, ultimately, budgets all affect and determine the strength of the team and the assets/ equipment deployed. Armoured vehicles, types of weapons/ operational equipment, and manpower strength should all be decided to mitigate the risks to threat effectively. Yet, time and time again, it can be seen that this has been incorrectly determined.

From military regiments to commercial ‘PSD’ units operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, many fatalities have been experienced due to poor equipment issued or even the complete deficiency of that equipment.

Fatalities could also be a contributing factor due to insufficient team strength and composition of that team. The Close Protection Team or ‘CPT’ needs to react to an attack with maximum aggression and maximum firepower (where applicable/ possible) to gain the upper hand for extraction out of the area, and it is therefore imperative that they are issued and supplied with the correct tools to do the job and that these tools they are supplied with are fit for purpose and in direct relation to the threat(s) they must counter.

What was shocking to witness was that the three main facets of reaction to attack, Fast, Aggressive, and Action, were actually displayed as the complete opposite: Slow, Weak and Static. The failures were plenty:

Failure to Secure the area

Failure to Identify an effective perimeter

Failure to Instil a communication immediacy structure with supporting agencies

Failure to Conduct proper oversight

Failure to Effectively respond to reports of suspicious activity

Failure to Provide immediate and effectual protection to the Principal

In other words, it was a cacophony of anything that can go wrong, did go wrong.

Yet, it was not an issue of equipment or vehicles that were necessarily insufficient or unfit for the role but one of the strength and quality of the manpower deployed—ultimately, the main vital component in any protection operation.

Where unrelated protection priorities exist to support a DEI narrative are concerned, it becomes a clear evidential matter that these will intrinsically affect the operational performance of a team where every person on that team needs to be fit for purpose.

This is no place to support alleged statistical social inequality but a place to ensure that personnel selection is vital to the core function of that team role and that training serves as part of that selection process.

Where Director Cheatle refuses to resign over the attempted assassination, she needs to be asked, “Would you have resigned if former President Trump was killed?” If so, then she should immediately resign now because other than the life and death of the Principal, there is no difference.

And that is the paradox of priority.

--

Richard Aitch is a Protective Security Specialist and the Author of ‘Close Protection – A Closer Observation of the Protection Equation.’

LBC Views provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk