What can the security sector learn from America’s Secret Service’s failure to protect Donald Trump?

The recent 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and the Senate report detailing Secret Service failures, offers significant lessons for private security companies. The report outlines ‘numerous mistakes’ and ‘specific failures’, including the lack of a clear chain of command, poor coordination between agencies, inadequate equipment and ineffective risk mitigation methods. It is undoubtedly wiser to learn from the mistakes of others than your own, so what can we, as private security companies learn from the events on 13th July?

1.?A Clear Chain of Command

The report revealed a lack of clearly defined roles, with no specific individuals responsible for critical decisions during the event. Homeland Security Committee Chairman Sen. Gary Peters told CNN that his panel heard ‘a lot of finger-pointing’ when they questioned Secret Service agents about who was in charge at the rally. As military and policing units know well, having a well-structured?chain of command is essential. Every team member must know their role in the operation and understand who commands each aspect of security, from protection teams to surveillance operatives. ?A clear chain of command enables quick decision-making, preventing confusion during high-pressure, changing situations.

2.? Communication and Coordination

Another major failure was the limited communication between federal and local agencies, which prevented timely sharing of critical information. The panel also noted that the law enforcement personnel on the ground were using a ‘chaotic mixture’ of radio, mobile phone messages, and e-mail to communicate. A known, structured communication plan was clearly absent. For security companies,?establishing robust communication channels?is critical, particularly in large-scale operations, when working at reach or collaborating with other organisations and local authorities. The report states that Secret Service agents were alerted to a suspicious person with a rangefinder 27 minutes before the shooting, but some officials, including commanders, did not receive this vital information. ?Integrated systems that allow real-time data exchange, secure radio networks, and cross-agency briefings should always be considered.

We now have more methods of collecting and sharing information than ever before. The challenge is now interpreting huge amounts of data and ensuring the right people have access to it. A common discussion point is who has access to drone feeds. Widespread access can reduce reaction times, enabling decision making at all command levels but this in turn, makes coordination difficult and can lead to a loss of control. Different stakeholders may have competing priorities or interpretate the footage in different ways. A clear chain of command combined with defined roles, as outlined in point 1, will ensure the right people are empowered to react and make timely decisions.

3.?Use of Technology

The Trump rally incident highlighted technical failures such as malfunctioning radios and ineffective counter-drone equipment. For security companies, investing in?reliable and advanced technologies?is critical. ?Cutting edge communication tools, counter-drone systems, surveillance sensors, and GPS tracking devices should be employed and tested frequently to reduce risk of equipment failure. Two hours before the assassination attempt, the assassin was able to operate a drone over the rally site for approximately 11 minutes. This drone went undetected because the Secret Service’s counter drone system had a technical issue.

Modern technology is a force multiplier but only if it works and operators can employ it to its full capability. More and more security companies claim to be technology driven but this needs to be more than developing a custom messaging app with a tracking capability. Technology, including AI-powered surveillance and drones, should be used in every stage of operations from planning to delivery.

4.?Threat Identification and Risk Management

The Secret Service failed to thoroughly assess the risks and act on early signs of a suspicious individual before the attack. The report notes that ‘the failure to secure a complex of buildings, portions of which were within approximately 130 yards of the protectee and containing numerous positions carrying high-angle line of sight risk, represents a critical security failure’. In any security operation,?risk mitigation starts with assessments and early threat identification. Security personnel should be trained to understand risk and detect threats whether through behavioural analysis or surveillance. Security operations are increasingly?intelligence-driven?to enhance decision-making, understand risks, and ensure rapid, effective responses to evolving threats. Intelligence-led security operations must integrate data from a range of sources including human intelligence (HUMINT), digital surveillance, cyber monitoring, and open-source intelligence (OSINT) to analyse potential risks and enable informed decisions.??

Conclusion

The failures outlined in the Senate’s security report stress the importance of?strong leadership, communication, technological preparedness, and proactive risk management. By learning from these lessons, security companies will enhance their operational procedures, better protect their clients, and effectively mitigate risks in any environment. Security companies must prepare staff well, develop contingency plans and rehearse comprehensive crisis response procedures to ensure that our teams can adapt quickly to unforeseen developments and deliver business continuity to our clients.

?