On Inauguration Day, the extensive premises of Washington, D.C., will be secured and re-secured. Hordes of protesters and professional activists will descend on the capital. Terrorists, wannabes inspired by the Islamic State, madmen and cop-haters will literally set their sights. But the Secret Service will stand ready to protect President Obama, President-elect Trump and both of their families from harm.
There will be constant foot, bike and vehicle patrols. There will be metal detection, K-9 bomb sniffing, X-ray and coordination between the military and at least fifty agencies from across the nation. There will be counter-sniper, counter-recon, counter-assault, SWAT, communications monitoring, radiological and explosive ordnance detection. Every single manhole and window will be screened and patrolled.
As some would have you believe, the only thing impairing the Secret Service are the unparalleled challenges presented by Trump. It’s true that his children, grandchildren and many residences create significant challenges. Still, every new president brings unique tests. The agency will always adapt. But it’s at a crossroads for another reason.
The Secret Service’s greatest challenge is not external. It doesn’t come from assassination threats and social unrest. It’s internal, and unless addressed soon, it will become a true danger to Trump, his family, the government and the American people.
The Secret Service that I served, and still love, has two major problems: A systemic ethics problem that makes the protection of its own image a priority, and the employment of far too many administrators and not enough doers.
The 151-year-old institution has been disgraced by scandals involving drones, prostitutes and drunken agents (one of whom, the second-in-charge of Obama’s personal detail, plowed his government car into a barrier at the White House after a late-night rager).
The Secret Service always had issues, but they were exacerbated following the Clinton administration’s cascade of scandals (From 1991 to 2003, I protected Hillary Clinton, President Clinton and their family as an officer in the Secret Service Uniformed Division.) The agency wrongly decided that its public image was just as important as its charter mission. Curating image, of course, requires money. At this point, the Secret Service has become another part of the bloated bureaucracy preoccupied with its own expansion.
To prevent embarrassing leaks, the Secret Service retains under-performing employees, some devoid of an ethical compass.
Here’s one telling story: Officers were pressured to destroy reports of an agent’s Uzi — a fully-automatic submachine-gun — found on the pavement at the White House’s entrance. The Uzi fell off the rear bumper of the first lady’s limousine, where it was carelessly left. The cover-up was allegedly intended to “protect the President.” In reality, it was to protect the agency.
Moreover, the Secret Service suffers from a paper-pushing, antiquated management style. Multiple layers of defense are good. Multiple layers of red tape, however, create slow responses, complacency and internal confusion. The “death by committee” mentality runs deep.
Take, for example, the events of Sept. 19, 2014: A knife-wielding man not only jumped the White House fence and got across the entire lawn, he also made it through the north portico doors. Many radioed, yet just one officer “engaged” the assailant. Why? The officers were fearful of “mishandling” the situation and getting backstabbed by their administrative overlords.
The Left will undoubtedly focus on the “out-of-control” costs of Trump’s Secret Service protection, cherry-picking travel expenses to and from New York City. The Secret Service will surely capitalize on the spin. I can see the agency’s lobbyists salivating at the juicy prospects. Soon, they’ll be begging Congress for a fast cash infusion. But no binge ever satiates an addiction.
Like breaking any bad addiction, the Secret Service must first admit its problem. For every 100 doers, how many administrators does the Secret Service need?
The Secret Service needs a leadership and management style overhaul, and the presidency of a leader who vowed to change the way Washington works provides the perfect opportunity. A streamlined federal agency looks like a Christmas tree with more doers at the bottom, where the real work is, than facilitators at the top. But most federal agencies resemble inverted Christmas trees. We can only hope that Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp” will carry over to the institution tasked with shielding his life and those of our other national leaders.
The agents and officers of the Secret Service are ready for anything, at least in spirit. The enemies’ names and methods change, but our nation’s resolve perseveres. The agency will hold the line no matter the stakes. Yet the Secret Service must also no longer shoot itself in the foot. It has an unofficial doctrine: “We have to be right 100 percent of the time. The bad guy only has to be right once.”
Gary Byrne is a retired air marshal, former Secret Service officer and author of the New York Times best-seller “Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate.” Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
