Secret Service’s Sloped Roof Dilemma
During an interview with ABC News, Kimberly Cheatle, Secret Service Director, explained that the decision not to place agents on the building’s roof was due to safety concerns. “That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,” she stated. Instead, the agency chose to secure the building from the inside, a decision that has been widely criticized.
From his vantage point on the roof, Crooks had an unobstructed view of Trump, who was speaking at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, Crooks opened fire, wounding Trump and two others and killing a former firefighter.
Expert Reactions and Criticism
Cheatle’s explanation has drawn ire from security experts and former agents. James Gagliano, a retired FBI supervisory special agent, expressed confusion over the reasoning, stating, “You just have to work with the terrain you’re presented with.” Former Secret Service agent and right-wing talk show host Dan Bongino was particularly indignant, highlighting the contradiction in prioritizing roof safety over preventing potential gunfire. “The Secret Service director said, ‘Don’t worry, we didn’t put someone on the roof because it could’ve created a dangerous situation.’ Like what? Someone getting shot in the head?” he said on his podcast.
Former Army Special Forces officer and congressional candidate Joe Kent also criticized the response, noting that identifying the roof as a threat should have led to securing all access points. “You can’t get on the roof, but you identified the building/roof as a threat, so what’s the excuse for not securing the perimeter and all access points to the building/roof?” he wrote on social media.
Political Fallout and Calls for Resignation of Secret Service’s Director
Cheatle has faced increasing pressure to step down as details of the agency’s failures emerge. Despite admitting that “the buck stops with me” and labeling the response as “unacceptable,” Cheatle has refused to resign. “It was obviously a situation that as a Secret Service agent, no one ever wants to occur in their career,” she told ABC News.
The incident has prompted legislative action, with Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) introducing the Secret Service Accountability Act to hold Cheatle accountable for the security lapse. Boebert stated, “Saturday’s assassination attempt on President Trump’s life was either intentional or the result of gross incompetence by the United States Secret Service.”
Internal Politics and Leadership Criticism
Cheatle’s appointment to the Secret Service director role has also come under scrutiny. Sources indicate her close relationship with First Lady Jill Biden played a significant role in her appointment. Some critics argue that her focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has detracted from the agency’s core mission of providing robust security. Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker criticized the competence of Trump’s security detail, noting that agents appeared ill-equipped during the attack.
In response to the assassination attempt, President Biden has ordered a review of the security breach, and the FBI has launched an investigation. Cheatle is expected to testify before the House Oversight Committee, which has initiated its own inquiry into the security lapses.
Can We Expect Future Changes to The Secret Service Once Trump Is In Office ?
Despite the backlash, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has expressed “100 percent” confidence in the Secret Service, supporting Cheatle’s continued leadership. However, public and political pressure continues to mount as the full scope of the security failures and the circumstances surrounding the attack become clearer.
The Secret Service’s handling of this incident has raised significant concerns about its ability to protect high-profile political figures, with many calling for substantial changes to prevent future security breaches. The controversy underscores the delicate balance between operational safety and the imperative to safeguard those under the agency’s protection.
