We cannot lose trust and confidence in the Secret Service

The recent news alleging that the United States Secret Service deleted texts related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, coupled with testimony that raises questions about the Secret Service response to the events at the Capitol that day, have cast a shadow on a storied agency and threatened to overshadow the work the agency performs on a daily basis. A dynamic such as this would be uncomfortable for anyone, but especially for an agency whose mission is to protect our leaders by remaining in close proximity to them and tracking down anyone intending to do harm to our nation and its citizens.

Not too long ago, the Secret Service found itself thrust into another scandal, involving Monica Lewinsky, who had an affair with Bill Clinton. The Secret Service, housed under the Treasury Department prior to being moved to the Department of Homeland Security, pushed back. Then-director Lewis Merletti said, “We continue to believe that any action that could distance the Secret Service from the president increases the danger to his life and that of future presidents. While the court did recognize that the Secret Service’s views are legitimate, we are concerned that the court did not fully appreciate the impact that its decision could have on the safety of the president and other people the Secret Service protects.”  

That argument was made because of the forced, lawful close proximity that Secret Service personnel have under 18 USC 3056, the federal statute mandating the Secret Service to provide protection to the president and a list of other individuals. The law also gives Secret Service personnel law enforcement authority. This unique relationship — one required by law and based in part on cooperation — has no legal framework of reference other than the wording of the statute and policies set forth by the Secret Service and its new parent, Homeland Security.

After much legal back and forth in the Lewinsky investigation, a federal judge ordered Secret Service personnel to testify about what they allegedly knew and to produce a myriad of records. When asked if the relationship between Clinton and his protective detail “cooled a bit” because of this forced testimony, Mike McCurry, then the White House spokesman, responded, “Conceivably, yeah.” Why did that happen? Because it was clear that the Lewinsky investigation was about the president and not the Secret Service, yet they were thrust in the middle.

The same argument can be made today. While the House January 6th Committee is lawfully examining all facets of activities in Washington that day, the committee chairman’s opening remarks made clear what he believes: “Donald Trump was at the center of this conspiracy. And ultimately, Donald Trump — the president of the United States — spurred a mob of domestic enemies of the Constitution to march down the Capitol and subvert American democracy.”  

So, while the Secret Service has made mistakes in the past — and perhaps made mistakes with regard to handling the aftermath of Jan. 6, 2021 — there is no argument or assertion that the Secret Service failed at its overriding mission of protection on that day or any other day.  

In a recent study, 87 percent of local officials surveyed observed an increase in attacks on public officials in recent years, and 81 percent reported having experienced harassment, threats and violence. On average, the U.S. president receives about 2,000 threats per year. During the Obama administration, the threats increased by some 400 percent, compelling Obama to form a Threat Task Force to address this trend.  

Yet, in 2021, the Secret Service handled 4,887 protective visits, including 787 foreign visits, and handled 6,040 protective intelligence (threat) investigations, during which the agency mitigated any threats and kept its 48 protectees and all sites they visited safe. This included the interdiction of Scott Ryan Merryman from Kansas, who was accused of traveling to Washington to deliver a message to President Biden that “people were fed up with the divisiveness in the country and to turn back to God (or go to hell).” Agents reported finding a magazine loaded with three rounds of .45 ammunition and a spotting scope. In another case that year, Kuachua Brillion Xiong, 25, of California, was accused of carrying AR-15-style rifle, ammunition, loaded magazines, and body armor in his car and of telling investigators that he wanted to “kill persons in power,” including President Biden and former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.   

After the Senate acquitted President Clinton of the impeachment articles in the Lewinsky investigation, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) proposed the Secret Service Protective Privilege Act of 1999 with the support of former Sen. Orrin Hatch. The bill would have required agents to testify only about criminal malfeasance that occurs in their sight. As Leahy explained, “The assassination of a president has international repercussions and threatens the security and future of the entire nation.” 

Perhaps, then, the question we should ask is this: In this modern threat environment, if the Secret Service loses the trust and confidence of its protectees and they refuse protection, could our nation handle the potential result?

Donald J. Mihalek is retired senior Secret Service agent and regional field training instructor who served on the President’s Detail during two presidential transitions. He also was a police officer and served in the U.S. Coast Guard. He is currently executive vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) Foundation.