By: J. Lawrence Cunningham, Senior Fellow
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the wake of the ever-increasing Presidential campaign rhetoric from both the Democrats and the Republicans since the 2020 election, disturbing narratives have focused, fairly or unfairly, on the outcome and results of the 2024 Presidential election. The Republicans continue to be riled for numerous reasons—citing unfair MAGA characterizations, the vilification of anyone who attended the January 6, 2021 protests, the unfettered immigration of millions of unvetted multi-national migrants, inflation, lawlessness, escalating war(s) in the Middle East and numerous, disturbing examples of a two-tiered justice system targeting former President Trump and many of his former staff. The Democrats have been ignoring these claims or minimizing their effects stating these issues are being exaggerated for political purposes. Instead, the White House and their minions defaulted to women’s abortion rights, healthcare benefits, DEI ideology, defunding the police, supporting Palestinian sympathizers’ rights and “saving democracy.” The Democrats have continually defaulted to blaming Trump for “inciting” the violent protests at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and an exponential array of problems plaguing America. These divergent positions have sparked outrage since then on both sides. As a result, the lead up to the 2024 election was contentious and the Trump win has law enforcement circles concerned that post-election events have the potential to be contentious and disruptive.[1] [2]
This article, written before the election, is being updated as of January 6, 2025 in light of the convincing Trump Presidential win and his Cabinet and officials’ selections. Ranking Democrats, donors, governors and mayors in many blue states have begun to launch concerted offensives to thwart the Trump agenda as much as possible as outlined in The New York Times:
The panels range from sweeping subjects — “Making Meaning and Meeting the Moment: Resistance and Reorienting” and “It’s Time to Resist: The Fight Against Project 2025” — to more focused discussions about abortion rights, immigration, racial justice, taxes, countering disinformation and other issues, according to a draft agenda.[3]
Several of Trump’s cabinet nominees and other White House team picks have already been targeted with bomb threats and “swatting.”[4] These efforts to disrupt the transition to the Trump administration has the potential to inflame supporters from both sides.
Prior to the election politically charged bi-partisan rhetoric fostered a remarkable awakening in the populus of the country. Given this and the convincing Trump win, the stage was/is seemingly set for potential unrest prior to the Inauguration of President-elect Trump on January 20, 2025. There were and are numerous overlapping concerns that contribute to this. Key among them are the intelligence agencies’ warnings that foreign enemy states, i.e. Russia, China and Iran are planning to wreak post-election havoc. The Trump campaign and Harris campaign had reported hacks and disruptions into its servers. Iran openly revealed assassination plots targeting Trump. As of November 8, 2024, the FBI had confirmed Iran was planning a Trump assassination with two suspects arrested in the U.S. and one other identified in Iran.[5] Adding to this disturbing threat information, intelligence and public media reporting indicates current enemy states: China, Russia and North Korea are partnering with the professed unifying goal of undermining the U.S. election process. Further, intelligence agencies have shared concerns these enemy states pose collective threats to the U.S. and in “multiple parts in the world simultaneously.”[6] Alarmingly, FBI Director Wray has acknowledged a dangerous influx of more than 100 known terrorists and thousands of dangerous criminals across the southern and northern borders, but admits their whereabouts are unknown.
Notably numerous congressional hearings, Inspectors General reports and media reports confirm the Department of Justice (DOJ), the intelligence agencies—especially the FBI, have failed to fulfill their respective missions. This includes misrepresenting the COVID origins, implementing a two-tired justice system targeting Trump and associated conservatives, targeting Right to Life advocates, proposing classifying parents as “domestic terrorists”…all while turning a blind eye to the criminal schemes of President Biden and the Clintons.[7]
In the context of what has transpired before the election and now post-election 2024; three key elements are being addressed accordingly:
1. The benefits of robust integrated security preparation as a deterrent to post election protests prior to the Inauguration;
2. Improving the Secret Service; its performance and future as the nation’s elite protective federal agency;
3. Reforming the deep state leading up to prevent sabotaging the current and future presidents and implementing reforms identified by the several congressional committee investigative and Inspectors General reports.
Factors Contributing to Inauguration Day Protest Concerns and Future Post Election Events
In an effort to provide context to factors that may fuel potential protests and unrest following the election and during the Inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States and beyond, the following, verified background is being set forth. It is important to understand the factors contributing to the ongoing vitriol, particularly from the Democrats pre and post the 2024 election. This includes disparaging political comments made by many former and current Democrat Cabinet level officials, many of their respective staff members, military officials, state and local officials, numerous media outlets and corporate leaders. This unprecedented level of divisive rhetoric, demonization, vilification (based on fabricated claims), has deteriorated to personal assaults and has infected large swaths of the populus. With the abandonment, in some cases, of any serious effort to clarify and fact check claims promulgated from both sides, the partisan division grew to dangerous levels in the country. Even more alarming, these circumstances have signaled opportunities for enemy state regimes to exploit the United States to gain economic advantage and power, especially during the presidential transition. There are innumerable examples of this. Salient among them are the withdrawal of the U.S. presence from Afghanistan, funding Iran with billions of dollars and the disinformation infecting the country’s social media outlets to include information concerning China, Russia and Iran. The resulting divisive political rancor has intensified since 2016 and there is no indication of any let up. All of this points to potentially dangerous unrest in the months to come.
Following the 2016 Donald Trump presidential victory, his 2020 presidential bid and now his second election as the 47th President of the United States, empirical and documented evidence show former President Trump, members of his family, his newly named staff members and other surrogates have been subjected to innumerable political assaults and threats. Historically these included frivolous claims of Russian collusion, accusations of improper collaboration with Ukraine, targeted entrapment investigations against his staff, mainstream media outlets promulgating false and damaging narratives and recruiting 51 intelligence officials to engage in election interference. This includes the fabrication of prosecutions and convictions based on tenuous legal grounds violating due process by the Justice Department—all in an effort to delegitimize the Trump presidency and his 2024 presidential bid.[8] Few media outlets have reported these politically damaging efforts. Many can be traced directly to the leaders and staffs of the Democrat party. They blatantly misrepresented Trump’s 2024 Campaign promises and voiced plans to derail Trump’s transition with a variety of tactics. Enemy states are expected to exploit this misinformation in manipulative ways. Many media outlets have reported ranking democrat efforts to “Trump proof” his administration with last-minute executive orders.[9]
The New Yorker reported Russia and Iran were using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to promulgate “deep fakes” ahead of the election to spread “conspiratorial narratives” and amplifying “divisive U.S. issues to denigrate the election process.[10] Now we can expect this to reimplemented, post-election, to disrupt the transition.
Prior to the decisive Trump re-election ranking Democrats, namely Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability and several senior Democrats in Congress would not commit to certifying the results of the 2024 Presidential election if former President Donald Trump won.[11] [12] [13]
These articles highlight the importance of preparing de-escalation measures to avoid a repeat of the disruption and protests of the January 6, 2021 experience
As of this writing it appears there are plans in the works by leading Democrats to “Trump proof” earlier liberal initiatives and dilute the 2nd Trump administration’s agenda.[14] [15]
The Need for Effective, Integrated Security Planning for the Inauguration and Future Events
Capitalizing on the January 6, 2021 protests/riots, Russia and Iran were considering a repeat in the event of a Trump lost.[16] The National Intelligence Council (NIC) in a memorandum dated October 8, 2024, reports several disruptive scenarios were and are being planned by Russia and Iran with the goal to denigrate the U.S. political process and transfer of power.[17]
There is a documented history of intelligence failures highlighting this concern. If the tepid intelligence provided by the FBI and the DHS Office of Intelligence Analysis (I&A) to Capitol Police Chief Sund and the U.S. Park Police (USPP) prior to January 6, 2021 of planned riots is any indication of what to expect during the Inauguration and beyond, there are legitimate concerns. (The vote certification on January 6, 2025 was conducted without incident). The Capitol Police (USCP), DC Metropolitan Police (DCMP), the USPP, the U.S. Secret Service and the public deserve accurate and complete information from these agencies with respect to anticipated crowd size, crowd composition and planned protests for major events. Scalable security planning requires this. This was not the case prior to January 6, 2021. In fact the January 6, 2021 vote certification was not declared a National Special Security Event (NSSE) by DHS despite the fact the existing intelligence fit the DHS vulnerability rating criteria to declare it. This designation is required when a planned major event is a potential target of terrorism or other criminal activity.[18] Had the Secret Service Protective Intelligence Division (PID) been included in the full disclosure of the existing intelligence regarding anticipated crowd sizes, planned protests and violence for January 6, 2021 they would have made the case to declare the vote certification an NSSE.
Several post January 6, 2021 after-action reviews have documented a myriad of intelligence and planning failures by the FBI, DHS-I&A and the Secret Service leading up to and after the 2021 protests.[19] [20] Worse, indications of disruptive protests by several groups known to the FBI and
I&A with active investigations were not shared with the USCP and other planners. Evidence of alarming social media posts and protest meetings documented in investigations by many FBI field offices were diluted and and/or simply not shared. Reports, studies and testimony of these failures have been drowned out by those that chose to use January 6th as a political tool to dominate the political discussion with a version that appeared to be used to suit a partisan agenda. Two post January 6th reports dated June 27, 2023 and July 10, 2023 document the investigations by U.S. Senator Gary Peters, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee cite significant intelligence failures by the FBI and I&A leading up to the January 6, 2021 protest.[21]
Former USCP Chief Sund stated that January 6 was a ‘Cover-Up’ by intelligence officials in power at the time and “they were aware of the attack in advance and covered it up by failing to disseminate the information to those who needed it.”[22] In an interview with Tucker Carlson that never aired, Sund repeated this claim and subsequent congressional investigations corroborated this. In this interview and in his book: Courage Under Fire, Sund explains, with definitive chronological clarity, supported by documents, that he was denied access to the DC National Guard troops for 71 minutes after asking for them at 1 PM on January 6. Sund further stated it took more than three hours after that during an excruciating “approval process” for the District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG) troops to be mobilized. Major General William Walker, commander of the DCNG stated during a Joint hearing he was not given the authorization to deploy them. General Walker stated: “the delay was caused at least in part over concerns of the optics of sending uniformed troops to the scene.” General Walker further testified he received an “unusual” restrictive order to delay a quick troop deployment without the “explicit” approval of of then-Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy.[23] On January 11, 2021, Sund told the Washington Post he disagreed with Nancy Pelosi’s claim that “Additional security could have been provided but no one from the Capitol requested it.” Sund maintains his six separate requests were denied. He also warned federal officials “if they don’t’ get their act together, it will happen again.”[24]
Reports of several requests for intelligence information, prior to January 6, 2021, by Chief Sund are well documented and are confirmed in the following congressional investigative reports. Numerous committee reports outline failures of the FBI and I&A to share intelligence with law enforcement preparing for the January 6, 2021 vote certification. These have been sparsely reported/referenced in media reporting of the January 6th Hearings and Investigations; among them:
· Anna Skinner, Ex-Capitol Police Chief Sounds Alarm That Jan. 6 Was 'Cover-Up', NEWSWEEK, (August 6, 2023);
· Alana Wise, DOD Took Hours To Approve National Guard Request During Capitol Riot, Commander Says, NPR, (March 3, 2021);
· Todd Spangler, Peters' report details failures ahead of Jan. 6 attack, calls for changes, DETROIT FREE PRESS, (June 8, 2021);
· HSGAC Majority Staff Report, Chairman Gary Peters, Planned in Plain Sight: A Review of the Intelligence Failures in Advance of January 6th, 2021, (June 2023);
· Committee on House Administration, Chairman Brian Steil, DoD Inspector General Concealed January 6 Evidence,(November 21, 2024); [25]
· DOJ OIG, REP-250-011, “A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Handling of Its Confidential Human Sources and Intelligence Collection Efforts in the Lead Up to the January 6, 2021 Electoral Certification” (December 2024).
The key findings are as follows: [26] [27]
A detailed review of all the findings were documented in the Planned In Plain Sight – A Review of the Intelligence Failures in Advance of January 6, 2021.[28] Specifically, this review by the United States Senate Committee On Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs stated:
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) – obtained multiple tips from numerous sources in the days and weeks leading up to the attack that should have raised alarms. Rather, those agencies failed to fully and accurately assess the severity of the threat identified by that intelligence and formally disseminate guidance to their law enforcement partners with sufficient urgency and alarm to enable those partners to prepare for the violence that ultimately occurred on January 6th. At a fundamental level, the agencies failed to fulfill their mission and connect the public and nonpublic information they received. Internal emails and
documents obtained by the Committee demonstrate the breadth and gravity of the threats these agencies received related to January 6th. For example, FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) received tips and information from multiple sources, including:”
· In December 2020, FBI received a tip that the Proud Boys planned to be in DC and “[t]heir plan is to literally kill people. Please, please take this tip seriously and investigate further.”
· On Jan. 3, 2021, FBI also became aware of multiple posts calling for armed violence, such as a Parler user who stated, “[b]ring food and guns. If they don’t listen to our words, they can feel our lead. Come armed”; plans to “set up ‘armed encampment’ on the[National] Mall”; and a tip about “a TikTok video with someone holding a gun saying, ‘storm the Capitol on January 6th.’”
· On January 4th, DOJ leadership noted multiple concerning posts, including “[c]alls to occupy federal buildings,”discussions of “invading the capitol building,” and individuals “arm[ing] themselves and to engage in political violence at the event.”
In addition, on March 22, 2022, the DHS Office of Inspector General (DHSIG) also noted in its report the I&A had identified viable threats prior to January 6, 2021 but did not issue any intelligence products before the U.S. Capitol breach.
On December 29, 2020, the I&A’s Counterterrorism Mission Center (CTMC) sent a Request for Information (RFI) to the Open-Source Collection Operation for threat information concerning the January 6 events to include:
· Online calls by event organizers to bring weapons to lawful protesters to counter protests;
· An increase in lawful protesters / counter protesters in DC, carrying, brandishing or using lethal weapons, such as firearms or edged weapons;
· Specific, directed threats of violence towards…prominent ideological adversaries or figures associated with an ideological movement; and
· Violent extremists posing a threat to individuals to include law enforcement and government officials holding opposing views prior to scheduled events.
Further, collectors of the sources messaged each other with related concerns but did not issue intelligence reports. In sum, no warnings were issued claiming these threats and other direct threats “did not fit the guidelines.” They were not widely disseminated, until after January 6, 2021.[29]
These and other specific threats were not shared with the USCP despite Chief Sund’s intelligence requests and two (2) intelligence assessment meetings with the FBI and the I&A prior to the January 6, 2021 vote certification and subsequent riots.
These facts were further corroborated by Joseph V. Cuffari, Inspector General in his report dated March 4, 2022: I&A Identified Threats prior to January 6, 2021, but Did Not Issue Any Intelligence Products before the U.S. Capitol Breach. The direct responsibility and culpability of the intelligence agencies, namely the FBI and the I&A, has been conflated and in many cases conspicuously absent from media reporting and investigations to include the January 6th Committee.
The DHSIG in their report evaluating the Secret Service’s preparation and response to the events of January 6, 2021 determined the Secret Service PID prepared two (2) reports indicating the likelihood of violence based on various reports, sources and tips but did not take commensurate protective actions.
The facts cited above added to the concerns about the security planning prior to the 2025 vote certification and the upcoming Inauguration. Many leaders and rank and file members of the USCP, the DCMP, the DCNG, the Republican House and Senate and media outlets expressed this. There are valid reasons for this. It is noted the original DoD Office of Inspector General (DoD IG) Report No. 2022-039, dated November 16, 2021 entitled: “Review of the DoD’s Role, Responsibilities, and Actions to Prepare for and Respond to the Protest and its Aftermath at the U.S. Capitol Campus on January 6, 2021,” was submitted as the final review of the DoD’s actions on January 6, 2021. Due to the numerous investigations, reports and testimony of officials with direct knowledge and roles prior to and during January 6 vote certification, conflicting facts were uncovered.
For these reasons, Barry Loudermilk, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight sent a letter to Inspector General Robert P. Storch, dated November 21, 2024 requesting “a full correction” to the DoD IG’s inaccurate findings and statements regarding the intelligence and security failures on January 6.[30] Numerous, key witnesses, eight (8), were intentionally not interviewed. Subsequent investigations determined their accounts of the DoD’s command responses to urgent requests directly contradicted the DoD IG’s report. Chairman’s Loudermilk’s conclusion: “The inability of the DoD IG to adequately review these and other DoD actions on January 6 has informed the Subcommittee’s finding that DoD IG is complicit in intentionally concealing DoD actions to delay the DCNG’s response to the Capitol on January 6.”
Additionally, recent some media outlets are reporting, due to these and other exacerbating circumstances, law enforcement may not be adequately prepared for the Inauguration on January 20, 2025. Tenuous relationships and the history of selective information sharing between the FBI and the USCP along with the Secret Service has fostered a level of skepticism regarding intelligence gaps. This distrust has further eroded the trust in the intelligence agencies, particularly with the FBI with the release of Senator Grassley’s letter dated December 9, 2024 to FBI Director Wray detailing the extent of FBI’s abuses.[31] In addition, the Secret Service is facing scrutiny due a “loss” relevant emails from January 6, 2021 and continuing into 2024 to include sparse information releases following the two Trump assassination attempts and related missteps. In the wake of the Chairman Kelly’s Final Report by the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump, the ability of the Secret Service to protect Trump and other protectees is being called into question.[32] This is in part being attributed to a lack of reliable intelligence, a lack of competence, lack of requisite funding, lack of training and as whistleblowers contend—partisan pressure from the current administration and DHS to dilute security resources for the Trump detail. Due to these and other facts, the ability of the USCP and the Secret Service to maintain order and security in its preparation for the Inauguration on January 20, 2025 and beyond is a concern and is being questioned.
Moving forward in 2025 the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies are collectively facing a disturbing quandary of mistrust across the board…discriminating fact from disinformation is becoming increasingly challenging as of this writing. The need for integrated, robust and complete operational planning with the USCP, the Secret Service, USPP, DCMP along with the DCNG is a serious concern. Further, the critical and immediate need for the FBI and I&A to be transparent, diligent and forthcoming with ALL relevant intelligence (real time) impacting the Inauguration and future events is mandatory.
These concerns in 2025 are legitimate based on documented facts of poor integration among law enforcement agencies, diluted threat information sharing and attempts to coverup the intentional, delayed responses of DoD resources to the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021. Specifically, the in-depth chronology of the preparations, miscommunications and intentional delays to release DCNG troops, DCMP police officers and crowd suppression resources are well documented in Chief Sund’s book, Courage Under Fire, Under Siege and Outnumbered 58-1 On January 6th. Notably, among other revelations, Sund’s book details “An exposé of critical intelligence and military failures surrounding January 6 and the subsequent attempts to cover them up.”[33]
These critical intelligence sharing omissions and others did not allow the responsible law enforcement authorities, i.e. the USCP and the DCNG to adequately prepare for and rehearse responses to large, unruly crowds that flooded the Capitol grounds and some entering the Capitol building. In view of all the above facts, the appointment of the January 6th Committee by Nancy Pelosi and the integrity of its subsequent investigation has been questioned by many. Steps need to be taken immediately to ensure transparency of all agencies’ official preparations and actions.
What Can be Done Immediately?
In addition to the USCP, Secret Service and FBI, the Senate and the House of Representatives leadership; Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries, the Senate and House Sergeants at Arms and the collective membership need to come forth with the following unified and unequivocal actions and message:
· There will be ZERO TOLERANCE for any disruption during the transfer of power and for any official post-election events ow and in the future.
· This official position needs to be unanimous and declared applicable nationwide;
· Enlist the media outlets to convey this message to the nation;
· Prepare pre-recorded messages for dissemination to the public;
· For the Metropolitan DC area—The DCNG, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, the DCPD, the Arlington Police Department, and USPP will partner with the USCP and the Secret Service and craft Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and devise an integrated plan(s) based on prior events held on the Mall;
· Establish a clear, chain-of-command communications approval process among the Chief of the USCP, the DCNG and the respective Pentagon leadership to minimize any troop and other responder deployment delays to the Capitol/contiguous areas for crowd control needs;
· Provide dedicated and tested communication links to the National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) to facilitate immediate intelligence and incident reporting from all law enforcement sectors, local, state and federal;
· Provide dedicated communication links with the FBI/Behavioral Threat Assessment Center to monitor terrorist threats and Russian, Venezuelan and migrant gang activity; and
· Establish consensus among law enforcement agencies via MOUs for timely information sharing of protest and/or riot planning and critically— response criteria and notifications.
Collectively these recommendations and the following examples underscore the critical need to implement effective integration and transparency during security planning for government sponsored events, especially MOU’s. The January 6 Select Committee proceedings did not include fair, bi-partisan representation. Subcommittee investigations into the committee’s findings and the DoD’s handling of their response to the Capitol riots uncovered evidence that show the following:[34]
· Thousands of hours of video footage taken at the Capitol on January 6th were hidden and some destroyed;
· Several key witnesses were not included or their testimony was not included in the January 6 Committee inquiry.
· “Liz Cheney colluded with “star witness” Cassidy Hutchinson without Hutchison’s lawyer’s knowledge.”
· The DoD intentionally delayed the deployment of DCNG troops when urgently requested;
· The DoD IG intentionally failed to disclose evidence contradicting their false conclusions;
· The actions of the highest senior DoD officials, i.e. Secretary of the Army’s failure to honor the DCNG repeated deployment requests;
· The DCNG were prepared, ready and able to respond with a timely deployment;
· The Secretary of the Army falsely stated to Congressional leadership that he told the sheltering Members of Congress: “We have the greenlight. We are moving” at 3:18PM; and
· The DCNG in fact did not leave the Armory until 1700 (5PM).[35]
The recommendations cited below by Senator Gary Peters need to be institutionalized and implemented now and for future events. [36]
The State of the Secret Service – Can it be Saved?
A serious concern that January 6, 2021 brought into focus, and more recently with the two assassination attempts of Trump in July and September of 2024, is the competence of the Secret Service. Directly connected is its relationship with the intelligence agencies and the Biden Administration. Equally troubling is the lack of protective resources, i.e. experienced protective agents, counter-sniper teams, technical security teams, counter-surveillance and intelligence teams and worse—weak leadership—have profoundly hampered the Secret Service mission. In addition, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policy initiatives, excessive demands to staff 35 protective details (for a variety of government officials), lack of mandated training, diluted hiring practices and very low morale have exacerbated the agency’s problems.
Today’s Secret Service finds itself in the midst of a cauldron of divisive issues that has been boiling in recent years. Given this, it is critical to identify strategies and plans to improve its protective competence and get ahead of any post-election potential unrest with growing domestic and foreign threat levels. This may prove to be a herculean task since successful mitigation is predicated on open and coordinated bipartisan support. This may be a naïve goal given the division in the nation’s populous, even now, post-election. It appears the basis of the contention up to the election and now, despite the clear Trump election victory, was to beat Trump. Now many Democrat leaders are vowing to sabotage the Trump administration’s proposed initiatives. Many Democrat representatives, current and former government officials (and former intelligence officials) have stated this through media outlets. With the upcoming Inauguration of President-elect Trump, these facts need to be addressed now and beyond the Inauguration into the next four years of the Trump administration.
These factors and others continue to affect the effective protective operations of the Secret Service.
Considering these circumstances and alarmingly, two assassination attempts, the identification of Iranian assassination plots coupled with the recent operational failures of the Secret Service to implement basic protective security measures—their mission capability will require profound changes.
Reports continue among the Trump detail security agents, whistleblowers and former President Trump and now President Trump, the FBI has selectively and slowly released assassination plot and other threat information to the Secret Service. This has created distrust between the FBI and the Secret Service. On October 26, 2024, Business & Politics (BPR) reported “the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) admitted to Senator Grassley the DHS has a troubling history of obstruction, which Grassley cited as a “major red flag” for oversight.” Violations of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) are also being reported.[37] Other disturbing whistleblower reports allege “Acting Secret Service Director Rowe ‘blocked’ OIG auditors from reviewing former President Donald Trump’s security protocols.” [38]
Most disturbing, there is evidence of mistrust within the Secret Service ranks. For its mission to survive, the leadership must be overhauled, top to bottom. It will require a thorough assessment to redefine its mission and test its capability in the face of the emerging threats from enemy states. This cannot be accomplished in-house.
Following the Capitol protests in 2020, USCP Chief Sund implemented a pro-active intelligence gathering approach but received no threat intelligence by the FBI, Secret Service, DHS and DCMP. Sund stated “there was no indication that a well-coordinated, armed assault on the Capitol might occur on January 6.” This assessment was based on intelligence or the lack thereof provided to Sund. On January 4th and January 5th, Sund hosted two intelligence meetings with the USCP Intelligence and Inter-Agency Coordination Division and with a dozen of the top law enforcement and military officials from Washington, D.C., including the FBI, U.S. Secret Service and the National Guard.[39]
Sund stated: "During both meetings, no entity, including the FBI, provided any intelligence indicating that there would be a coordinated violent attack on the United States Capitol by thousands of well-equipped armed insurrectionists."
In the DHSIG’s Final Report: The Secret Service's Preparation for, and Response to, the Events of January 6, 2021 dated July 13, 2024, by Joseph V. Cuffari, Ph.D., the Inspector General reported intelligence failures and policy related operational failures.[40] Six recommendations were made to improve preparedness between the Secret Service and the USCP. A few have been met.
The burning question—with this backdrop, how can the Congress and law enforcement officials adequately rely on intelligence agency reporting, the current administration’s support (or the lack thereof) and media reporting to prepare for potential disruptions in 2025? To effectively prepare for Inauguration Day, the Secret Service should establish specific and stringent MOUs with the FBI and the I&A to ensure they share timely and thorough intelligence impacting their protectees and NSSE’s in the future. This was not done prior to January 6, 2021. Further, security planning with the USCP and the DCMP, should include ongoing collaboration with military counterparts. This includes the DCNG and the DCMP to expedite crowd control responses. Critically, an agreed upon communications (tested) protocol among these agencies is required.
It has been observed by many law enforcement authorities the Secret Service is operating under a flawed threat model, i.e. a 1960’s era lone assassination threat. Today’s Secret Service has not fully embraced emerging technologies. The agency has not studied terrorist threat methodologies to see its benefit in varying environments.
The Secret Service published the <a href="https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-01/usss-ntac-maps-2016-2020.pdf"> Secret Service Threat Assessment Centers Mass Attacks in Public Places Guidance in January 2023 through its National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC). This guidance focuses primarily on behavioral threat assessment metrics based on meta-data gleaned from 173 shooting attacks. It appears this guidance is not consistently followed in the current protective training model. The current training model is based more on reactive threat responses rather than proactive threat identification. Very little, if any study and/or training focuses on terrorist pre-attack behaviors i.e. recognizing and mitigating Islamic radicalization, attack planning (target selection, probing, testing), the purchase of precursor bomb making materials and countering multi-coordinated attacks.
Matthew Crooks clearly defeated the Secret Service at its own game. How is this possible? Are the Secret Service advance procedures too canned, too predictable? Strategic planning organizations in the public and private sector, especially in high threat environments, employ Red Team planning. At a basic level this means considering the adversary’s perspective and attack plan. Protectors should simulate attacks as an adversary would and fortify against them with security planning. In other words, wear two hats—your “good guy hat and the bad guy hat.” This is fairly obvious to seasoned military planners and strategists, However, since this strategy appears to be absent from the security planning where two assassination attempts occurred in Pennsylvania and Florida in 2024, it requires review. In simple terms…advance planners need to ask themselves: If I were a shooter or bomber, how would I identify the security plan’s vulnerabilities? What weakness would I exploit? Security planners need to ask what are we doing to fix them? This needs to be an evolving, on-going process. The Army does this on a continuing basis.
There is no evidence the Secret Service conducts any substantive Red Team exercises. The irony is Crooks, the would-be assassin who shot at Trump in Butler, PA and Ryan Routh, who attempted an assassination from a sniper position along a fence line at the Trump International Golf Course at West Palm Beach, FL, conducted better pre-attack planning than the Secret Service’s protective (counterattack) advance security team. Routh’s ability to get within easy shooting range, and remain virtually undetected for12-hours, exposed many other security operational weaknesses. To be clear both assassination attempts, one an actual AK shooting and one pre-empted, were catastrophic failures. This is a jolting and tragic wake-up call. Crooks’ and Routh’s budgets were probably less than $500 respectively. The Secret Service Presidential Campaigns and NSSE budget is reported to be ~$73.3 million from the Office and Management and Data. Clearly the security failures are not due to a lack of money.
What if the attacks at Butler or West Palm Beach had been planned by well-trained terrorists using multiple, simultaneous attack methods as witnessed in the series of coordinated Islamist terrorist attacks on Friday, 13 November 2015 in Paris, France? The Secret Service and the IC at large should be acutely focused on the possibility of diversionary, multitargeted attack scenario planning prior to the Inauguration (or any future major event). There are many analyses of asymmetrical attack methods that should be studied. Other salient examples include Mumbai (2009), Brussels (2016) and Barcelona (2017). DHS has published planning guidance to identify and prevent Complex Coordinated Terrorist Attacks (2018). Would the Secret Service be able to detect an attack plan like these let alone respond to them?
Since the 9/11 attacks billions of tax dollars have been invested in defense strategy revisions, police, military and emergency responder training, communications upgrades and field exercises to better equip all concerned to address evolving threats. The National Response Framework (2019) defines five core capacities to guide the training of the response community: prevent, protect, mitigate, respond, recover. The purpose is to “better integrate government and local response efforts.” Simply stated, all security partners need to focus more on prevention and work as a cohesive team. It appears these capacities were not incorporated in the security plan at Butler, PA or West Palm Beach, FL.
This guidance needs to be incorporated and operationally reinforced into all joint security efforts in the field; not only in training.
Agents from other DHS agencies sed to support Secret Service protective details should be required to meet the same protective training metrics required of Secret Service agents. The required training hours should be increased as outlined in the Secret Service Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Human Capital Strategic Plan.
The Secret Service needs to redefine its protective mission. The current policies and procedures are based on dated threat models. The old threat models guiding the Secret Service culture are myopic and limit creative thinking. More effective proactive strategies, policies and training that match evolving attack methods are needed:
· Move the Secret Service back to the U.S. Treasury Department;
· Re-examine basic security procedures;
· Recognize and respond to lone shooter profile behaviors;
· Incorporate Red Team planning and training;
· Review lone shooter and coordinated terrorist attack methodologies;
· Develop security advance training to include preventive and deterrent attack strategies;
· Require the IC to proactively and thoroughly brief the Secret Service PID and protective details with ongoing and timely protectee threat intelligence;
· Develop specific integration protocols with public safety counterparts;
· Require a Secret Service supervisor, partnered with the local jurisdiction law enforcement supervisor, to review the security advance Incident Action Plans (IAPs) and visit each site to be visited prior to the protectee’s arrival.
· Conduct post event hot washes and train to correct missteps;
· Partner with elite military forces, i.e. Delta and Seal teams to revise a range of protective measures and training;
· Reinstate annual physical medical screening with a coronary emphasis;
· Reinstate mandatory quarterly physical fitness testing for all gun carrying personnel;
· Develop scalable protective training based on emerging attack methodologies with a terrorist focus; and
· Specifically study and create protective training scenarios that identify terrorist simultaneous attack planning targeting routes, site access/egress locations, command posts, agent and law enforcement personnel staging areas and respective equipment.
Equally troubling, the recommendations set forth by the 435-page U.S. Secret Service: An Agency in Crisis from December 2014 (after serious security failures prompted this inquiry) as of this writing, have yet to be fully implemented. Conspicuously absent among them remains—the failure of protective detail agents to complete consistent training—“at least 12% of work hours by fiscal year 2025.” According to Jason Chaffetz, the agency has woefully failed to achieve this training target. He says the Secret Service has been on notice since 2015 to implement effective changes, namely training and accountability to prevent the failures. Many key recommendations have not been met.[41]
The collective observations and recommendations outlined above are further delineated, along with others, in the FINAL REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS completed by the Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump, dated December 5, 2024. This report was issued by Chairman Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Jason Crow (D-CO).[42] These recommendations should be prioritized with elite military forces. Establish scalable protective survey plans that can effectively adapt to changing locales and environments.
The world of team sports provides a compelling metaphor for how games are won. Team members are assigned positions based on ability and experience. They rehearse their plays incessantly until they get it right. Success in the protective security arena requires the same focus.
If the Secret Service team expects to win their zero-fail mission, they will need to rebuild a foundation of trust—first. Leadership deficits, disparate experience levels, inconsistent training, dated technology and other security advance omissions are fixable. Restoring trust among their fellow agents and with their brothers and sisters in blue and critically with their prized asset—the protectee—poses their biggest challenge. Winning is impossible without trust.
Is the Country Being Effectively Protected by its Intelligence Agencies?
To fully answer this, a hard look at the intelligence agencies and their successes and failures need to be critically examined in 2025. There have been more than 70 successful terrorist interdictions since 9/11. Unfortunately there has been an increase of serious failures in the last eight years, many preventable, in the homeland that dilute these successes. Many observers and media outlets are reporting partisan politics has rendered the agencies responsible for investigating and preventing many attacks in the past four years less proactive and less effective. Congressional committees and Inspectors General reports conducted in response to whistleblower testimony and media reporting have shown the FBI reallocated its resources from its primary mission to protect the nation from domestic and international terrorism. Their focus has shifted from cyber-threats, organized crime, violent crimes, human trafficking etc. to lesser crimes with a political bent. This shift in focus by the FBI along with collaboration with DHS has added to the rise of Domestic Terrorism.[43] According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) there has been a 357% increase in domestic terrorism from 2013 – 2023.[44]
After the 9/11 attacks on September 11, 2001, a candid review of the nation’s intelligence failures—contributing causes, i.e. agency information sharing dysfunction and the “siloed” structure of the IC; namely the CIA, FBI, NIA, DIA and the NSA was reviewed. The 9/11 Commission Report, released on July 22, 2004 examined these failures in detail.[45] Notably, the consensus finding was and unfortunately remains today—the intelligence agencies lack imagination and do not effectively share domestic and foreign threat information, particularly with a terrorist nexus. Bureaucratic and administrative restrictions delay the release of “sanitized” threat information that is in large part, not immediately useful by its consumers. Among the 9/11 Commission’s many recommendations—create a DHS in an effort to centralize 22 different federal agencies into one department. The intent was to unify security operations to be more responsive and less siloed in its handling of, sharing and responding to threat information to the homeland.
Unfortunately, this has not happened. DHS has been widely criticized for being stymied by bureaucratic dysfunction. Many have observed the amalgamation of the 22 agencies, in many cases, has had the opposite effect…these agencies, many of which with a more than a 100-year history, were not fully on board to “play in one sandbox” and share their tools risking the loss of their respective agency eminence.[46] As a result some argue many agencies hold onto information to be able to control investigations, justify funding, etc. Several studies show the goal of more effective information sharing has not been achieved despite the creation of several Presidential Directives enacted post 9/11 and the creation of more than 80 Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs).[47]
The numerous recent intelligence failures we are seeing and continue to experience is alarming. The conclusions of many Inspectors General reports and House Committee Hearings have further revealed the key intelligence agencies, CIA, FBI and others are not fully effective protecting Americans. It has been proven these agencies have been weaponized against conservatives and directly at Donald Trump and his family. This leads us to only one conclusion —our IC is broken. This is supported by the footnoted documents referenced in this writing. Among the many glaring facts: 51 former intelligence officials declared the Hunter Biden laptop, disinformation—later proven to be false. Further, the CIA admitted many of the 51 signatories were paid CIA contractors.[48] [49]
Several FBI, IRS and Secret Service whistleblowers including former FBI agents Richard Stout and Nicole Parker (and many others) have publicly called out the credibility of the FBI; specifically the leadership who have not prioritized the core mission of the FBI.[50] On December 9, 2024, Senator Grassley sent a letter to FBI Director citing as many as 60 examples of the FBI’s blatant failures to uphold the rule of law and obstruct the work of the Congress. The letter stated, “the FBI has shown an outright distain for congressional oversight during your tenure.”[51] Instead, recent FBI Directors, Comey and Wray chose to violate their oaths denying fair and due process rights to several hundreds of citizens and Brady rule violations for political purposes. Whistleblower testimony corroborates the FBI leadership, at many levels, were aware of this but continued this blatant dereliction of duty anyway.
It has been empirically shown the FBI and the DOJ, under the Biden Administration, have implemented an ongoing two-tier system of justice strategy targeting Republicans at large, prominent conservatives and Donald Trump while ignoring instances of clear federal statute violations (with undeniable probable cause) by the Democrats and leftists. “These include pay-to-play schemes by the Bidens and the Clintons.”[52] Not the least of which are the 18 instances of arson and vandalism targeting pregnancy resource and other faith-based centers by the group Jane’s Revenge which the FBI has not addressed.[53]
Basically, the FBI has shifted its focus and resources from counterintelligence, established terrorist threats, China hacking our nation’s IT infrastructure, sex trafficking of minors and organized crime to targeting Catholics, declaring parents attending school board meetings ”domestic terrorists,” investigating thousands of January 6th attendees and protesters and arresting pro-life demonstrators. Among the most egregious investigations and warrant executions was the unprecedented search of former President Trump’s residence, staging evidence and doctoring photos in August 2022 to justify prosecutions.[54]
Equally egregious, FBI failures identified by Senator Grassley included serious threats posed by foreign actors treated with tepid urgency if at all. For example, the FBI did not thoroughly vet Afghan evacuees under the Operations Allies Welcome (OAW), at least 50 of which were later flagged with “potentially security concerns.” This and the “open border” policy of the Biden administration, the dilution of ICE resources, restricting ICE’s arrest and deportation enforcement purview, defunding the police and weak enforcement of crimes committed by a high number of migrants entering the U.S. illegally has increased the nation’s vulnerability.[55] On June 25, 2024, DHS identified more than 400 crossed the U.S. border with an ISIS-affiliated network.[56]
Another disturbing example of the egregious failures and unlawful government oversight is documented in Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-ORE.) recent release of documents confirming the NSA and the FBI are unlawfully purchasing Americans’ internet browsing records and personal data.[57]
Restoring faith in America’s intelligence agencies to prevent what we have witnessed for at least the last eight (8) years will require significant reforms.[58] Essentially, there is a call for more transparency and bi-partisan oversight across the board.[59] Various national polls reflect more than 60% of Americans do not trust the government—especially the FBI.[60]
The GAO found the greatest number of domestic terrorism attacks are committed by either racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, (this includes homegrown violent extremism) many of whom have been radicalized since 2010.[61] A few notable examples include:
· May 3, 2024 - Two Jordanian foreign nationals attempted to force their way onto Marine Base Quantico. Both were in the country unlawfully;
· May 9, 2024 – Trevor Bickford of Maine received a 27-year prison sentence for attempting to kill police officers in Times Square in 2022. He claimed he wanted “to wage Jihad and kill as many targets as possible;” and
· June 9, 2024 – 8 Tajikistan nationals were arrested in New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles with ties to ISIS plotting terrorist attacks in the U.S.
Recent intelligence failures are compounded by disjointed inter-agency information sharing, fewer proactive responses to threat intelligence, poor monitoring of social media posts and not responding to credible law enforcement reporting. A key policy failure is the open U.S. border and restricting the Border Patrol’s ability to identify illegal crossings and account for “gotaways.” Collectively, these intelligence failures have led to increases in a wide range of crimes as follows:
· A resurgence of terrorist attacks;
· Human trafficking;
· Drug trafficking;
· Attacks targeting law enforcement officers and their equipment;
· Homegrown violent extremism;
· Lone wolf attacks at mass gatherings;
· Hate crimes;
· Attacks on churches;
· Active school shooter attacks;
· Attacks on family planning centers; and
· Cyber-attacks/Ransomware attacks.
Fixing this will require honest, bipartisan commitment. The IC, above all, will need to be accountable to their staffs and the American people. The proposed remedies (some of which cited below) are required to ensure the respective intelligence agencies are transparent with the appropriate federal and local law enforcement agencies. This is needed to prevent a repeat of the abuses identified earlier that targeted a variety of individuals and groups by the Biden administration.
· Establish a special bipartisan committee with full access to all intelligence and threats to ensure proportional decisions and actions to protect the homeland are made above politics and reviewed before being implemented;
· Ensure the investigations conducted by the intelligence agencies are strictly within their jurisdictional purviews;
· Assess the effectiveness of the collaborative sharing information practices and formal agreements between the FBI and DHS. A 2023 GAO study shows threat information is not shared effectively by them and is not immediately useful. This GAO report identified a key reason for this serious information sharing dysfunction:[62]
“FBI officials told us they did not use the data DHS collects on domestic terrorism incidents because they weren’t aware DHS was collecting it. DHS officials in turn told us they didn’t share their incident data with their FBI counterparts because they weren’t asked for it.”
· Verify that any unmasking follow CIA & FBI rules. The names of many U.S. citizens were improperly released instead of or with foreign targets;[63]
· Enact strict verification processes to prevent using circular reporting by “creating” false and damaging information, leaking it to the press and then opening investigations based on that. It has been established the FBI under Director Comey and other FBI officials engaged in this practice; and
· Enact strict adherence to verification processes to ensure the basis of any Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application requests are factual. Rampant abuse of the FISA process by Director Comey and other FBI officials (from 2016 – 2017 and beyond) has been confirmed by the DOJ IG.[64]
On December 9, 2019, Attorney General William Barr stated the DOJ IG determined the evidence put forth to the FISA Court to secure warrants to surveil the Trump campaign and his administration “were not factual, omitted consistently exculpatory information.” AG Barr further stated: “ The malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process;”[65] [66]
Looking Forward
As we begin 2025 and we assess the state of our government, the state of our safety, the state of our security, our sovereignty and most important, America’s pre-eminence on the planet; now is a great opportunity to work to rejuvenate the bedrock principles that make us the sterling example of freedom and strength. It is possible to reignite the nation’s status as the “Shining City on a Hill” as President Reagan described it.
It will take an honest commitment for the new Trump administration to set things right. In the last several years many of our agency heads and politicians put egos and politics ahead of the nation’s guiding principles. How many of them were boy scouts and forgot the first point of the scout law?: “A scout is trustworthy.” How many attended military academies and committed to the credo?: “A cadet shall not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate anyone the does.” How many swore allegiance to the United States and their Oath of Office (5 US Code Sec. 3331)?: “I do solemnly swear I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...I take this obligation freely without purpose of evasion..."
If there was ever a time in the history of our nation when accountability, honest introspection and reform is critically needed...it is NOW!
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/16/us/politics/democrats-anti-trump-battle-plan.html
[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6kj383k4ko
[5] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/08/donald-trump-iran-assassination-plot-00188498
[6] https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/24/asia/russia-china-north-korea-iran-new-axis-intl-hnk/index.html
[11] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/democrats-congress-trump-january-6/677545/
[13] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/10/20/trump-overturn-2024-election-plan-00184103
[16] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/politics/election-warning-russia-iran.html
[18] https://www.dhs.gov/publication/special-event-assessment-rating-sear-events-fact-sheet
[19] https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/25-011.pdf
[20] OIG-24-42-Aug24-Redacted copy.pdf
[22] https://www.newsweek.com/ex-capitol-police-chief-sounds-alarm-jan-6-cover-1817365
[25] https://cha.house.gov/press-releases?ID=1E353E41-4087-428A-A477-B70E5FD46FA1
[29] https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2022-04/OIG-22-29-Mar22-Redacted.pdf
[31] Letter from Chairman Charles Grassley, Se. Comm. on Fin., to Director Wray (Dec. 9, 2024), https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_fbi_-_failures.pdf
[34] https://cha.house.gov/press-releases?ID=1E353E41-4087-428A-A477-B70E5FD46FA1
[35] https://cha.house.gov/2024/12/chairman-loudermilk-releases-second-january-6-2021-report
[41] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Oversight-USSS-Report.pdf
[43] https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-104720-highlights.pdf
[44] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-104720
[45] https://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.pdf
[46] https://www.thoughtco.com/department-of-homeland-security-4156795
[47] https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114425/witnesses/HHRG-117-JU08-Wstate-JonesS-20220217.pdf
[48] https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-laptop-jim-jordan-facebook-disinformation-twitter-1767369
[50] https://ijr.com/richard-stout-how-to-reform-our-politically-weaponized-fbi-and-restore-public-trust/
[51] Letter from Chairman Charles Grassley, Se. Comm. on Fin., to Director Wray (Dec. 9, 2024), https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_fbi_-_failures.pdf
[53] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/zero-arrests-16-janes-revenge-attacks-pro-life-organizations
[56] https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CHS-10.3.24-Terror-Threat-Snapshot.pdf
[57] Senator Ron Wyden (D-ORE.) recent report by Ars Technica states the NSA has admiied to buying records
[61] https://www.gao.gov/blog/rising-threat-domestic-terrorism-u.s.-and-federal-efforts-combat-it
[62] https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-104720-highlights.pdf
[63] Lt. General Flynn and other Trump administration officials were improperly unmasked during 2016 – 2017.
[64] Section 702 authorizes targeted foreign intelligence information collection related to terrorism. U.S. persons may not be targeted and their names indiscriminately used without a specific nexus to terrorism.
[66] https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/4012650-fbi-misused-surveillance-tool-fisa-section-702/
