Opinion | How to protect America from assassins — and conspiracy theories (2024)

The July 13 assassination attempt on former president Donald Trump is now following a similar pattern as prominent figures give airtime and credence to any number of wild theories. The response from law enforcement has been far too quiet. There might be no way to persuade the most conspiratorial-minded Americans to abandon their interpretations. But there is a strong public interest in conducting the investigation into this attack in a prompt and transparent way.

An independent and thorough investigation by the FBI and Pennsylvania State Police is underway. This must be exhaustive and thorough.

A thorough review of the Secret Service detail protecting Mr. Trump should also be immediately conducted. What, if anything, differed from protocol? What needs to changed to protect the candidates of every party? There are many sensitivities around capabilities and procedures — which should be respected. The Secret Service must also understand that the American public have legitimate questions about what went wrong.

Frequent briefings should update the public with new information, answers to previous questions and details on what has been learned by investigators. There should be a regular cadence to these updates. The government should use these briefings to share information and debunk conspiracies. This is critical to informing the public and ensuring history is accurate. Frequent updates will enable law enforcement to deliver facts first.

If the public does not receive reliable information, conspiracies will fill the vacuum, causing potentially insurmountable damage to the office of the presidency, law enforcement and our nation.

The American public will rightfully demand that the process be exhaustive, thorough and transparent. The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security must rebuff their natural tendencies to be secretive and to avoid difficult questions. Attorney General Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas should embrace disclosure and instruct FBI and Secret Service leadership to update the public at every reasonable opportunity.

Clarity, accuracy and transparency are in the nation’s best interest.

J. Peter Donald, New York

The writer is a former assistant police commissioner for the New York Police Department and a former spokesman for the FBI.

It’s not the money

I am a great admirer of the Secret Service. It plays a pivotal role in protecting our democracy. I have been privileged to be friends with a number of Secret Service agents over the years, among them Valor Award recipient Dennis V.N. McCarthy, who tackled John Hinckley Jr. when he attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

But the attempt on Donald Trump’s life doesn’t seem to have been caused by lack of money. And more money isn’t the cure for it.

The problem appears to have been threefold: poor decision-making, having to delegate some of the former president’s security to local authorities and human nature.

The decision to put the warehouse outside the main security perimeter was the key mistake, in my opinion. Its location — directly across from the platform where Mr. Trump was speaking — made it the ideal perch for a sniper. Anyone could have seen that. A 20-year-old with an AR-15-style rifle certainly did. Why the Secret Service and the local police didn’t is still a mystery to me.

Yes, if the Secret Service had more staff working that day, the detail could have put one of its own on top of that roof. Point taken. But so could the local police. Instead, they chose to hole up inside the warehouse complex, where they could see the crowd but not the roof.

No matter how much money Congress gives the Secret Service, they still have to rely on the cooperation and the competence of local authorities. They don’t have the time or ability to teach local police how to do their jobs. They can suggest, they can ask, they can even beg. But they can’t order them to do anything, especially not to have good judgment.

Finally, human nature. Few people have the ability to react with decisiveness in a stressful and quickly changing situation. No one wants to be the person who steps up and stops the show just as it’s about to begin. Especially when the star of that show is a strong-willed individual like Mr. Trump. It’s easier to pass information up the chain and wait for someone else to make a decision.

Local police warned of a suspicious man and sent a photo of him to the Secret Service. What happened next? Apparently nothing, for 26 minutes, according to The Post. Someone in the chain of command should have gotten on the radio immediately and said, “Hold everything. We have a potential sniper on the roof.” Money won’t cure that kind of hesitation.

Instead of more guys, more guns and more gear, what this situation needed was more people with sound judgment who recognized the threat and acted on it — people like Jerry Parr, who helped get Mr. Reagan to safety in 1981, and Mr. McCarthy. That requires better training, not more money.

Mark McDonald, Centreville

An undue burden

The Secret Service and local and state police are unfairly asked to provide, on relatively short notice, large numbers of security personnel to police massive, hyped-up presidential campaign rallies.

Many of these rallies are held outside in huge and oddly configured venues that tax and challenge security services. If federal, local and state police forces do not have enough personnel to handle such an event, the party holding the event should provide and pay for private police or security forces. Otherwise, imposing the planning and cost burden on the Secret Service is just a way for a campaign to freeload off taxpayers.

The Secret Service protocol should be only to protect any presidential candidate from harm within its limited sphere of operation and to advise other forces on security for the event, but not be required to produce extra (nonexistent) security personnel on a campaign manager’s whim or demand.

John Prokop, Alexandria

It’s the guns

The Post’s July 21 editorial, “Is the Secret Service doing too much?,” asks good questions. But there are more key questions: Is Congress doing enough to address the key factor in the attempted assassination of Donald Trump? Are U.S. citizens taking any responsibility, engaging in widespread protests? The editorialists say “the would-be assassin should never have been able to fire an AR-15-style rifle.”

How many more people need to be killed by such weapons before there are enough votes to ban or, at the minimum, impose strict licensing restrictions on them? Such regulation does not impede the right to own guns. There may be more deaths per year from car accidents, but one needs a license to drive a safe car and it can be revoked, when a driver or vehicle is dangerous. No one is safe from the surprise carnage caused by assault rifles.

The only beneficiaries of this failure to regulate such weapons are the manufacturers who sell these instruments of horror and the politicians who accept support from them and the National Rifle Association. Opponents of the elimination of weapons of war at home enable murder and our domestic enemies.

Judith Lynne Hanna, Bethesda

A woman’s touch

In her July 19 Metro column, “The far-reaching history of women protecting presidents,” Petula Dvorak quoted Mary Clare Amselem as saying, “Let’s be a serious country. Having female secret service agents is completely insane.” This is a completely misinformed comment that does nothing more than display Ms. Amselem’s ignorance.

Regarding marksmanship alone as a category of the Secret Service skill set, in 2013, I hosted the U.S. Marine Corps Shooting Team at Landon School, an independent school for boys in Bethesda. As a student, I participated in the shooting program at Landon, and as an alumnus, I wanted to show my support.

In casual conversation with the officer-in-charge that day, he with me shared with me that the top-ranked shooter in the Corps at that time was a female Marine. He expressed neither surprise nor novelty. It was a plain fact.

Rocky Semmes, Alexandria

The next threat

I hate to burst the bubble of anyone who is focused on the threat of lone gunmen, but unless an assassin wants to die by cop (or Secret Service agent), the next attack on a major political person will be by remote-controlled drone. Drones carrying small explosives are used every day in Ukraine to destroy tanks, other military equipment and even individual soldiers. There are videos online showing drones swiftly moving in and dropping grenades down an open tank hatch. These drones are quick, difficult to defend against and cost less than an AR-15-style rifle. The assassin can fly the drone from miles away with pinpoint accuracy. My advice is to hold future political rallies indoors and check everyone and everything at the door.

Jack Edelstein, Great Falls