The Trump Assassination Attempt: A Call for Greater Transparency to Restore Public Trust in National Security

The assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, sent shockwaves throughout the nation. As someone who spent 33 years in the trenches of law enforcement, primarily with the LAPD, I watched the event unfold with overwhelming disbelief – not as a mere spectator but with the critical eye of a seasoned professional who has stood alongside the Secret Service as a barrier between a civilized society and those intent on destroying it.

To the untrained eye, the events of that day may seem like a complex tangle of missteps and coincidences. To an even more untrained eye, they may look like a conspiracy unfolding. However, I caution against jumping to rash conclusions because they are not that simplistic. They involve a convoluted set of details that require deep, insider knowledge to fully grasp.

The Real Cause: A Systemic Breakdown?

Two months later, the dialogue surrounding the assassination attempt remains surprisingly shallow, mainly focusing on identifying failures and assigning blame. This level of analysis fails to provide the American public with the answers they desperately need to make sense of the events.

Even during the September 10th debate between Vice President Harris and former President Trump, the incident was barely mentioned, leaving many unanswered questions. My goal is to offer clarity—to help move beyond the moment's lingering confusion and address the unease felt by those who struggle to reconcile what happened with the explanations provided so far.

First, I don’t subscribe to the idea that the so-called 'diminished capabilities' of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) hires were to blame. This assertion seems more like a tactic to influence voters than a genuine attempt to address the real issues. DEI hires are meant to bring diverse perspectives and experiences to the table, not to undermine effectiveness. The failure here lies not in who was hired but in the fact that the agents, regardless of their backgrounds, knew the security measures required but still failed to implement them.

Anyone with experience in dignitary protection knows that the Secret Service's failures on that day were not the result of an elaborate internal conspiracy. But admittingly, the scope, severity, and conspicuous nature of the security breaches is astonishing, and could not happen absent gross incompetence or a conscious willfulness.?

A Pattern of Security Failures

The Secret Service is a victim of its own devices; its operational standards were allowed to deteriorate over time. This decline led to an error of arrogance and overconfidence that allowed for Thomas Crooks, a 20-year-old without military or specialized training, to maneuver into a position that permitted him to fire multiple rounds at the former President, highlighting a series of missed opportunities by those charged with protecting him. According to the New York Times, local law enforcement first noted his presence nearly 100 minutes before the incident. Yet, Crooks remained one step ahead, beginning with using a drone to scope the rally site – something the Secret Service neglected to do.

The Secret Service had been lucky. This was not an aberration, but rather confirmation of the extent the agency had accepted compromised security practices as its norm. Prior security details were certainly plagued with deficiencies; this was merely the first time the door recklessly left ajar was pushed open by an opportunist, exposing the vulnerability of our leaders by the negligence of those sworn to protect them.??

A Hollow and Deceptive Public Response

I’m unflinching in my view that what has been disclosed to the American people is a shocking, hollow, and purposefully deceptive view of what actually is known about the assassination attempt. The Secret Service has acknowledged the shortcomings in its public response, but what is absent is a discussion about the underlying cause.

The sequence of events was not merely a failure of execution; it was a failure in planning, a systemic breakdown in the protocol, much like the police response during the Uvalde school shooting, where an absence of decisive leadership led to chaos. The criticism stemmed from the failure of law enforcement to perform as trained – not much unlike the Secret Service at the Trump rally. Notably, two law enforcement officials associated with the police response in Uvalde have been criminally charged.

The Secret Service, tasked with safeguarding our nation's leaders, appeared aimlessly adrift, much like a rudderless boat during a storm at sea. This wasn't just about being present at the scene but about implementing security measures as trained. Had these measures been properly implemented, any one of them could have thwarted Crooks from gaining access to the roof.

How did Crooks manage to slip through unnoticed??

How was he able to secure such a lethal vantage point??

These aren't just rhetorical questions; they are crucial inquiries that urgently require clear and immediate answers.

This is not the time for the Secret Service to frame its public response around a commitment to learn from this incident's mistakes or to make the necessary improvements to prevent future occurrences. The failures in Butler aren't just indicative of a few bad decisions; they hint at something more insidious—a culture of complacency that seems to have taken root throughout the Secret Service. It almost screams of willful negligence, compelling us to ask some very tough questions.

I've seen firsthand what happens when protocols are inadequately executed. During my time at the LAPD, I oversaw the investigation of numerous officer-involved shooting incidents that revealed deficient tactics and significant communication issues. Officers faced legitimate, harsh criticism for failing to adhere to training standards and the accountability needed to achieve better outcomes.

In my experience, law enforcement executives often hesitate to disclose information publicly for two main reasons:

1. To shield the organization from potential criticism.
2. To conceal incidents that pertain to matters of national security.

The former is a PR strategy that involves delaying information to allow the news cycle to divert the public’s attention in hopes of diminishing justified criticism. The choice is whether to burst the balloon, knowing the noise will capture everyone’s attention, or to release the air over time without anyone noticing.

They’re protecting the organization. They know the criticism is justified, but they’re trying to mitigate the damage. In just two weeks, we had the RNC, President Biden exited the Presidential race, Vice President Harris became the Democratic Party presidential nominee, the tensions in the Middle East intensified; and Vice President Harris selected Minnesota Governor Walz as her running mate. As planned, the assassination attempt is no longer at the forefront of America’s consciousness.??

The second motivation revolves around withholding information to allow citizens to continue their daily lives, unaware of potential threats malicious actors pose. The general public remains uninformed unless there is a credible, imminent threat—such as the one that led to the cancellation of three Taylor Swift concerts in Vienna, Austria. After 9/11, I was privy to classified terrorist threat information that was not disclosed to the public. Had people known the full extent of these threats, they likely would have changed their routines, avoiding malls, movie theaters, sports events, and concerts altogether.

It’s no surprise that conspiracy theories fill the void in the wake of the Secret Service’s failures in disclosing information. In the early days after the shooting, the media coverage fueled speculation, questioning the actions and intentions of those involved. While seeking explanations is natural, it's crucial to ground these discussions in fact.

I’ve spent decades dissecting the truth from fiction. This being said, I urge the public to verify their sources. Let’s not get lost in the labyrinth of conjecture when the facts themselves provide more than enough cause for concern.

The Consequences of Systemic Complacency at the Secret Service

This incident should serve as a wake-up call for those obligated to protect our nation’s leaders and all of us. It's time for proactive, not reactive, measures. The solution is straightforward: It requires soul-searching, critical thinking, standards, and, most importantly, honesty with the American people. It will cost, it will take time, and it will have to come with a commitment from our federal leaders and, yes, the President and Congress.

Much is at stake. Currently, the Secret Service is on the brink of being overwhelmed by public scrutiny. To restore any semblance of trust, the agency requires a comprehensive overhaul. It seems we have reached a point where legislative intervention is necessary to drive the required changes.

In law enforcement, where lives are at risk, culture must align with actual practices, not just with the codified protocols that often go unheeded. There should be no disconnect between the stated mission, the practices in place, and the degree to which protocols are executed.

To ensure the effectiveness and accountability of the Secret Service, Congress must pass legislation that mandates regular quality control audits. The role of the Secret Service is too critical to be reactive; it cannot wait until a preventable tragedy occurs to assess and correct deficiencies. A long-overdue law should require the review of randomly selected security plans, with findings compiled into a formal report. This report should be accompanied by a plan to address any identified weaknesses. If this recent incident was indeed due to a gradual erosion of protocols, then proactive identification and rectification are essential to prevent future incidents of similar magnitude.

In my experience, law enforcement has often been resistant to embracing the need for reforms. A federally mandated consent decree was imposed on the LAPD to force reforms addressing systemic issues that had been neglected for years. Yet, for decades, little progress was made. This pattern is emblematic of broader challenges within law enforcement, where leadership often lacks the necessary insight and self-awareness to implement the critical changes needed.

The proposed quality control audits should be carried out by an independent, unbiased entity with the power to enforce necessary changes based on its findings. This approach not only enhances the identification of areas for improvement but also guarantees that corrective actions will be implemented. Such external oversight fosters a culture where identifying deficiencies is not just accepted but encouraged, making these critical discussions a regular part of the organization’s daily operations. This culture shift is essential for ensuring continuous improvement and maintaining the highest standards of security and accountability.

The Secret Service’s failure to effectively manage public information disclosure is a significant issue. It's widely recognized that law enforcement agencies often operate in areas where they may not excel. A key challenge for law enforcement leaders is that they typically lack media training and often do not have a natural inclination toward effective public communication.

Restoring Trust and Transparency in National Security

Rather than allowing the heads of our nation’s agencies to flounder in the aftermath of a critical incident, struggling to manage significant media and public scrutiny, the president should consider creating a new federal agency dedicated to overseeing, managing, and providing the public with accurate information during these sensitive times. This would allow communication experts to carefully consider the context and potential consequences of each public statement, ensuring that the balance between transparency and security is maintained. Meanwhile, agency leaders could focus on their essential roles—overseeing operations and implementing necessary changes—without the added burden of handling the media.? ? ? ? ?

We’ve all witnessed the signs of a toxic police culture, although perhaps not aware of it, where police methods are not consistent with societal expectations, and the optics of actions taken work at cross-purposes with societal expectations, breeding mistrust. Decision-makers must be forthright in their assessments and inquisitive in identifying deficiencies and weaknesses. Those who choose denial or blame when criticized tend to remain in a state of failure. Sometimes, there are no convenient answers or straightforward explanations.

As a society, we cannot afford to accept complacency or negligence in protecting our nation’s leaders. The very essence of our democracy and the American way of life depends on our ability to safeguard citizens from harm at political rallies and other public spaces. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to ensure that our security measures are robust, effective, and uncompromised. The American public deserves more than just apologies; they deserve concrete answers and decisive actions. Past and present leaders' safety is more than a procedural obligation—it’s a reflection of our national integrity.

Catch the Full Interview: Uncover the Truth Behind the Trump Assassination Attempt

Tune into my recent radio interview with The Morning Wake Up Call for deeper insights into the Trump assassination attempt. In this discussion, I share my firsthand experience and provide a detailed analysis of what went wrong and how we can prevent similar incidents in the future.

Listen to the full interview: The Trump Assassination Attempt - Radio Interview.