The second apparent assassination attempt in two months on former President Donald Trump has spotlighted political violence and the U.S. Secret Service’s ability to prevent it.
Police arrested a 58-year-old man Sunday after Secret Service agents stationed a few holes up from where Trump was playing golf at his club in West Palm Beach, Florida, noticed the muzzle of a rifle sticking through shrubbery along the course. An agent opened fire, and the suspect fled in a SUV before law enforcement apprehended him in a neighboring county.
It came nearly two months after a 20-year-old gunman perched atop a nearby roof grazed Trump’s ear during a July 13 rally in Pennsylvania, killing one attendee injuring two others. Secret Service agents killed the man. An internal investigation found Trump’s security detail failed to direct local police to secure the roof of the building used by the gunman.
A unique Maine perspective comes from Derek LaVallee of Cape Elizabeth, a public relations professional who planned presidential trips as the White House’s director of scheduling and advance under former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.
He believes the tone of American politics has changed in a way that makes politicians less safe, and those charged with their safety need to plan accordingly. Responses have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
September trump assassination attempt
What challenges and considerations does the Secret Service now have after the two Trump-related incidents in two months?
LaVallee: The definition of threat assessment is threat equals capability plus intent. Capability is increasing because of three factors: the confluence of increased weapon technology, nonexistent or ineffective laws that oversee them and a Secret Service that is clearly overstretched.
No doubt the political discord in this country is motivating and sometimes blatantly encouraging bad actors. Further, the nature of political rallies has changed during the past few decades. Before, they weren’t heated partisan events with an “us versus them” participation call. People often attended to learn more and be part of a greater community and civic event.
When I tell people the tone of these events matter, they often dismiss it without giving the issue the reflection and attention it deserves. Done well, political rallies, particularly centered around a candidate versus cause, are emotionally-based experiences. The intent is to literally rally people in a singularly unified cause. Attendees leave the event feeling something and increasingly emotionally influenced.
Doubt it? Consider how differently you feel attending a violent movie versus a love story.
july trump assassination attempt
How have the type and tone of rallies affected security?
LaVallee: It’s not like there are more political rallies and events than 20 years ago. The tone of them has changed, perhaps irrecoverably.
Think about the evolution of retail politics: In the ‘50s and ‘60s, John F. Kennedy was standing on the hoods of cars among thousands of people from all walks of life and party affiliations. Those days ended, unfortunately, but rightly. Layers of security between the principal and the people have been added in countless ways — seen, like magnetometers, for example, and unseen in the form of hyperlocal intelligence gathering.
The joke for years has been someday that the president will be in a Popemobile. Again, that’s a nightmare scenario for political campaigns and candidates trying to personally connect with voters, but an ideal situation for those whose jobs are keeping the people in their charge alive.
What’s the tension between advance staff for a candidate or president who organize events and Secret Service personnel tasked with protecting the individual?
LaVallee: It’s a subject not often talked about: the divergent interests of the civilian White House and presidential advance teams, the stage-crafters with primarily the television and, secondarily, in-person audience in mind, and those of the Secret Service, whose sole mission is to keep the principal alive.
They are often mutually exclusive. The business community might call it “creative tension,” except, of course, the type of stakes we’re discussing don’t exist in the private sector.
If Trump had been critically injured last month versus the bullet grazing his head, you and I would be having a very different conversation today about presidential security and the public’s perception of it.
In reality, we should be acting and adjusting our approach to presidential security as if the bullet had found its intended target. It was just a matter of luck it did not.
