The Secret Service‘s motto is “Worthy of Trust and Confidence.”
There’s more to that motto than meets the eye. To ensure the confidence of the people and the “protectees” assigned to it, the Secret Service must ensure its agents and officers are trusted. The absence of trust risks a protectee creating distance between themselves and their protective detail. A protectee who does not trust the agents around them may also avoid disclosing factors critical to their protection. This trust factor underlines why Secret Service Assistant Director Anthony Ornato and former Secret Service Special Agent in Charge Robert Engel may be reluctant to testify before the House Jan. 6 committee.
This is not to say that they should avoid testifying or wish not to do so. On the contrary, media reports suggest that Ornato, Engel, and the Secret Service agent driving the vehicle on Jan. 6 are all willing to testify that then-President Donald Trump did not lunge at the wheel. This is relevant because former Trump administration aide Cassidy Hutchinson has testified that Ornato told her Trump had tried to seize the steering wheel of a Secret Service suburban after agents refused to drive him to the Capitol. Hutchinson testified that Ornato was told this by Engel, who was with Trump in the car as either the shift supervisor or presidential protective division agent in charge on Jan. 6. Although it would be theoretically possible for him to do so – Secret Service vehicles are designed to allow agents to rapidly move to the passenger area in an emergency – Trump has vehemently denied attempting to seize the wheel.
Still, even if the three are willing to testify, it would be a mistake to infer ill intent by any reluctance on their part to do so or by the fact that they have not yet testified under oath.
For a start, Engel is now retired and likely wants to get on with his life. But Ornato, a former agent in charge for Trump’s PPD who was the senior White House logistics and security officer on Jan. 6, and the driver on that day, remains a Secret Service employee. Ornato now heads the agency’s training for new agents and officers. The driver on the day in question may still be assigned to the PPD for President Joe Biden. That puts these agents and the Secret Service in a difficult position. While they and the agency will want to push back against any false information, they will also be reluctant to provide information that may embarrass Trump.
With legitimate reason.
If the three do testify, the Jan. 6 committee will likely ask them whether, for example, Trump made any irate comments or spoke in a way that suggested support for those rioting at the Capitol. Asked those questions under oath, the three’s answers would risk jeopardizing the Secret Service’s protective “trust” and thus the “confidence” of Trump and the public regarding his effective protection. Trump remains under Secret Service protection as a former president. This concern is a far more likely motive for any reluctance to testify than the conjecture offered by some media commentators that the three may wish to evade or lie to protect Trump’s reputation.
Consider that as a shift supervisor or, like Ornato, PPD agent in charge, Engel would have held one of the most important positions in the U.S. government. Like the PPD agent in charge, shift supervisors hold high-level security clearances. This reflects their need to maintain close proximity to the president at all times and thus overhear exceptionally sensitive information. Engel and Ornato will have been in the room when Trump spoke with foreign leaders on the most sensitive matters and was briefed on or made highly classified national security decisions. Both men will also be aware of security protocols governing nuclear warfare, for example. The driver will have completed the Secret Service’s most advanced driving courses, likely with exceptional proficiency. Again, proximity to the president means proximity to sensitive personal or presidential information.
Put another way, these are not just some average Joes who were lucky in getting their jobs. Ornato’s service record proves as much.
Ornato served on PPD during the administrations not just of Trump but also those of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. He was clearly trusted in the Secret Service as an exceptionally capable agent. Ornato also directed the agency’s protection of visiting world leaders at three consecutive U.N. General Assembly summits. The arrival of more than a hundred world leaders during these summits makes this protection mission exceptionally challenging — especially, that is, when one considers those arriving can include foreign despots, ardent U.S. enemies with ulterior interests, and leaders such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who holds a special place in the hearts of many Secret Service agents and not for positive reasons. In recent years, the Turkish president’s security detail has beat up protesters, physically assaulted Secret Service agents assigned to support them, and breached Obama’s inner security bubble.
The trust and confidence point sustains.
Trump’s character and emotional temperament mean that he has likely said things that have nothing to do with the events of Jan. 6 but might be highly embarrassing to his person and thus of value to Trump’s political opponents on the House committee. This was the same rationale behind the Secret Service’s deep reluctance to testify to Ken Starr as he investigated former President Bill Clinton. Considering that Trump may run for president again, the Secret Service will be highly reluctant to jeopardize its apolitical status. The agency is the finest in the world at what it does, deeply respected but also sometimes viewed wearily by its foreign counterparts for its obsessive fixation on the small details. But it has suffered major scandals in recent years. The last thing it wants is to now become a political football kicked around by all sides.
Yes, Ornato, Engel, and the driver should testify. But with due recognition for the Secret Service’s most important mission, the Jan. 6 committee should keep its questions tight and offer them in a closed setting. If the three are asked questions without the most direct relevance to the committee’s remit, they and Secret Service lawyers should reference executive privilege in refusing to answer.
