An independent panel has issued a scathing critique of the U States Secret Service, highlighting its inadequate communication and security measures during a rally for former President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania on July 13. During this rally, a gunman opened fire, injuring Trump, which prompted a thorough investigation into the agency's performance. The resulting 52-page report exposes numerous systemic issues within the Secret Service, revealing a troubling failure to recognize the unique risks associated with Trump's public appearances. Additionally, the panel has called for significant reform within the agency, citing urgent needs for improved leadership and operational protocols.
The investigation was triggered by the attempted assassination of Trump during the rally, where the chaos resulted in the tragic death of one rallygoer and injuries to two others. The shooter, identified as Thomas Michael Crooks, climbed onto the roof of a nearby building and began firing while Trump addressed the crowd. Trump himself was shot in the ear during the incident, necessitating an immediate evacuation from the stage by Secret Service agents. This alarming event, along with another shooting incident that occurred in Florida while Trump was golfing—where the gunman never got a line of sight on the president—has severely shaken public confidence in the protective capabilities of the Secret Service.
The panel conducting the review consisted of four former law enforcement officials with extensive backgrounds in national and state government. Their report highlights not only the immediate failures surrounding the July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, but also deeper, more entrenched issues within the Secret Service's culture and operational practices. Their findings were bolstered by investigations conducted by members of Congress, the Secret Service's internal investigators, and the oversight body of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secret Service's parent agency.
One of the critical issues identified in the report was the lack of adequate planning and communication between the Secret Service and local law enforcement agencies. The panel noted the alarming failure to secure buildings near the rally site that had a direct line of sight to where Trump was speaking. According to the report, “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.” This failure not only endangered Trump but also the thousands of attendees at the rally.
The report further criticized the planning process between the Secret Service and local law enforcement, noting a significant disconnect in communication. The panel emphasized that the Secret Service did not sufficiently inquire about the security measures being implemented to protect the surrounding buildings. The prevailing attitude of relying on a general understanding that “the locals have that area covered” was labeled as wholly inadequate. This mentality, according to the panel, directly contributed to the security lapses observed during the rally.
Additionally, the report highlighted the problematic existence of two separate command posts during the event—one staffed by local law enforcement and another by the Secret Service. This structural divide severely hindered the flow of communication among various agencies. In a further blow to operational efficiency, agents had to switch radio channels because traffic from agents protecting First Lady Jill Biden at a separate event was interfering with the channels being used by agents at the Butler rally.
The panel described the communications methods utilized by law enforcement personnel on the ground as chaotic, characterized by a “chaotic mixture” of radio, cell phone, text, and email throughout the day. This disarray exemplified the lack of a clear chain of command or authority on the day of the rally, which ultimately hampered effective responses to the unfolding crisis.
Beyond immediate operational concerns, the report also delved into cultural issues within the Secret Service. It portrayed an agency struggling to think critically and proactively about its mission, particularly regarding the security of Donald Trump. The panel observed that personnel operated under the misguided assumption that they needed to “do more with less,” which resulted in inadequate security measures being implemented ahead of the rally. The authors insisted that the heightened security protocols introduced after the Butler shooting should have been standard practice prior to the event.
To emphasize their point, the panel remarked, "To be clear, the Panel did not identify any nefarious or malicious intent behind this phenomenon, but rather an overreliance on assigning personnel based on categories (former, candidate, nominee) instead of an individualized assessment of risk.” This approach to risk assessment has led to critical oversights, jeopardizing the safety of high-profile individuals.
The report also identified lapses in accountability and ownership among senior-level staff involved in the rally. One striking example cited by the panel involved a senior agent tasked with coordinating communications who failed to conduct a walkthrough of the rally site ahead of time. This agent did not adequately brief local law enforcement counterparts about how communications would be managed during the event, demonstrating a lack of proactive leadership and situational awareness.
Additionally, the report highlighted the relative inexperience of specific agents who played key roles in securing the July 13 rally. One site agent, responsible for coordinating with the Pittsburgh field office on security planning, graduated from the Secret Service academy in 2020 and had only been assigned to Trump’s detail since 2023. The panel noted that this agent had limited experience with site advance work or security planning before the event, further underscoring the vulnerabilities in the agency’s operational readiness.
Another agent, who was responsible for operating a drone detection system, had only used the technology at two prior events, raising concerns about the adequacy of training and preparation among personnel tasked with safeguarding high-profile events.
In light of their findings, the panel made several far-reaching recommendations aimed at reforming the Secret Service's practices. They called for the establishment of a unified command post for all large events, ensuring that Secret Service and other law enforcement representatives are all physically present in the same location. Additionally, they recommended implementing overhead surveillance for outdoor events and developing comprehensive security plans that address line-of-sight concerns extending out to 1,000 yards, clarifying who holds authority at the event.
The panel also stressed the need for more robust training programs focusing on how to effectively extract protectees from dangerous scenarios, emphasizing that these skills are essential for safeguarding individuals in high-risk situations.
Moreover, the panel insisted that the agency requires new, outside leadership that prioritizes its core protective mission. They expressed skepticism regarding the Secret Service's continued involvement in unrelated investigations, such as financial crimes. The report concluded with a strong assertion that it is “simply unacceptable for the Service to have anything less than a paramount focus on its protective mission, particularly while that protective mission function is presently suboptimal."
The authors of the report included notable figures such as Mark Filip, who served as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush; Janet Napolitano, who was homeland security secretary under President Barack Obama; and Frances Fragos Townsend, who held the position of assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism under Bush. Their collective expertise lends significant weight to the report's conclusions, which serve as a critical wake-up call for the Secret Service. The panel's findings highlight the urgent need for sweeping reforms to ensure the safety of those under the agency's protection and restore public confidence in its capabilities. The ramifications of this report will likely resonate throughout the agency as it grapples with the challenges of safeguarding high-profile individuals in an increasingly perilous landscape.
