By Ryan McMaken
July 20, 2024
Within minutes of the July 13 attempted assassination of Donald Trump, observers were asking how the assassin managed to gain a clear shot of Donald Trump at the Butler Farm Show Grounds near Butler, Pennsylvania. Since then, the question remains unanswered, but many allegations about the shooting have emerged. For example, multiple sources plausibly contend that both local police and the Secret Service had spotted the armed shooter-on a nearby roof with a rangefinder and a gun-several minutes before the shooting occurred. Law enforcement officers and agents chose to do nothing.
Videos of the event show bystanders vocally warning both police and federal agents of the shooter's presence. Again, law enforcement did nothing. The New York Post reports that a "counter sniper team" staffed by local law enforcement were actually inside the building below the shooter himself. Again, law enforcement officials couldn't be bothered with controlling access to this roof which offered an ideal position for a potential assassin.
Meanwhile, a variety of former snipers and those with anti-sniper training-i.e., former Navy SEALS and Green Berets-noted repeatedly in both social media and mainstream media outlets that it would be impossible for any competent law enforcement agents to so blatantly botch security in this way.
New information continues to flow in but virtually all of it forces us to one of two conclusions: the police officers and federal agents at the Butler rally were either (1) disastrously incompetent or (2) complicit in the assassination attempt.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the truth of the matter given how little information we have right now. Certainly, the Secret Service (USSS) will not be providing any honest assessment of the situation. Local police will close ranks to protect themselves and their jobs-as is standard practice. We can expect investigations to go on for years with law enforcement officials stonewalling Congress every step of the way. Moreover, FBI agents will likely be called into conduct much of the investigation, and we know how that will go. As Thomas Massie wrote a few hours after the shooting, the FBI is "The same bureau that investigated the Las Vegas shooting and the January 6th pipe bombs is now investigating the attempted assassination of Trump....This is also the same bureau that raided Mar-a-Lago.... I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of this soon."
Option 1: Law Enforcement Was Complicit in the Assassination Attempt
Local law enforcement-namely, the Pennsylvania State Police-and the USSS partnered up to screen the area for weapons and for potential areas from which an assassin might operate. Clearly, neither of these agencies performed these tasks properly. The Secret Service's failure is especially damning given that the agency's primary mission-apart from investigating counterfeiters-is to protect their assigned subjects from assassination.
So, was the USSS intentionally "forgetful" when it came to securing the area? Was the slowness of the USSS's agents in confronting the shooter part of a conspiracy to "allow" the assassin access to Trump? At this point, one can only guess, but we do know there are many reasons to suspect the idea. After all, the Secret Service is your typical federal agency, and its members are your typical federal bureaucrats who do quite well for themselves under the status quo. They have every reason to oppose any political figure who is seen-rightly or wrongly-as one who threatens the current establishment in any way. After all, it became abundantly clear during the Trump years that FBI agents had no qualms about illegally spying on Trump. FBI agents also cooked up the narrative of "Russian collusion" in an effort to cripple the Trump administration.
It's easy to see why federal agents would be opposed to a Trump presidency. Federal agents enjoy large salaries, high levels of prestige, and the promise of a long, cushy, well-funded retirement-all paid for by taxpayers. There's good reason for USSS agents to actively oppose any candidate seen as a significant threat to the status quo. Moreover, federal agents handling presidential security are part of the Washington, DC culture. They are, to use modern parlance, "swamp creatures."
Yet, one might question the "complicity" charge on the grounds that it would be exceptionally difficult to keep an assassination conspiracy quiet among any sizable number of law enforcement agents. That's true enough, but in this case, it would only be necessary for those in positions of leadership to be part of the conspiracy.
The conspirators would only need to ensure complacency and a reluctance to speak up among the rank and file.
This is not hard to achieve. The conspirators-assuming they are in positions of leadership-could simply ensure that the event is understaffed or staffed with less-experienced agents who rely on more direction from above. Then, the conspirators need only issue orders to stand down at critical times, and to hem and haw long enough to allow "the plan" to play out.
Moreover, experience has shown that law enforcement officials are not ones to speak up against the powers that be. Federal agents in this case would be shielded from prosecution by a friendly Justice Department. Meanwhile, local police are largely bought and paid for by the Department of Homeland Security which funnels billions to state and municipal police departments.
We should not expert much at all in the way of whistleblowing or critical thinking from any state law enforcement personnel or from any lower-ranking USSS agents. Recent years have made it abundantly clear that state and local police are far more concerned with keeping their jobs and pensions than with opposing even the most blatantly immoral or unconstitutional assaults on the people.
After all, how many police officers resigned in protest during the covid lockdowns? During that period, police were tasked with closing churches, arresting churchgoers, and closing down private businesses for the "offense" or peacefully assembling or engaging in commerce. Police arrested mothers who visited playgrounds closed for fear of a virus. Police beat up ordinary people who didn't wear masks.
Through it all, we heard only a tiny number of police voices protesting these assaults on the Bill of Rights. It is apparent that most police officers were willing to carry out virtually any order from their government masters.
So, it would be pure naivete to think that any local law enforcement officers would oppose any of the USSS's questionable orders that might have come down on July 13. In other words, USSS officials were free to do whatever they wanted.
Option 2: Law Enforcement Officers Were Incompetent
The other option is that the USSS and local police really are just incompetent. Laziness, of course, is a type of incompetence, and it is entirely possible that the unguarded roofs, the lack of concern about the assassin's rangefinder, and the general slowness of response were all motivated by mere laziness. Of course, it is also possible that law enforcement was not lazy so much as it was simply too ignorant to even know the correct way to control access to the president during the rally.
The "incompetence" narrative rose to near-comical levels on Tuesday when USSS director Kimberly Cheatle claimed that the rooftop on which the shooter perched was left unguarded because the roof was too dangerous for agents. As Cheatle put it, "That building in particular has a sloped roof... so, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof. And so, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside." (According to the New York Post, it was local police who were responsible for securing the building.)
Clearly, the building was not secured from "inside" or anywhere else, and it is laughable that the USSS would think this explanation about a dangerously sloped roof would deflect criticism of the agency.
But, what if Cheatle is telling the truth? What if the decision to leave the roof unguarded was simply a byproduct of incompetence on the part of the USSS and local police? This would certainly jibe with the dogma of "officer safety" that is so prevalent among law enforcement agencies nowadays. After all, we saw this philosophy at work at the school shootings at Uvalde and Parkland. In both cases, police elected to run away and hide rather than confront a shooter who was slaughtering children. Police looked to their own safety first.
It's not beyond belief that USSS brass might decide that it would be overkill to put personnel on every roof, especially when it's hot and uncomfortable and potentially dangerous up there. It wouldn't be the first time law enforcement officials substituted safety and ease-for themselves-in place of public service.
"Mistakes Were Made"
For obvious reasons, the USSS itself has decided that the "incompetence" narrative is preferable to the "complicity" narrative. We can expect law enforcement officials to die on the "incompetence" sword since to admit complicity would rock the foundations of the regime's legitimacy. Thus, claims about the "slopey roof," although humiliating, will be offered as evidence that the USSS and local police "did their best" but failed. In other words, we will hear that "mistakes were made," but it won't happen again.
This is complicated by the fact that law enforcement officials can't even claim that no one was seriously hurt in the assassination attempt. Spectator Corey Comperatore was killed, and two others were critically injured. Federal and Pennsylvania law enforcement officers are to blame for allowing that to happen.
But don't expect any heads to roll. Indeed, if this story follows the usual narrative that accompanies federal screw-ups, we can expect higher budgets for the agencies that fell down on the job. After 9/11, for example, the CIA and FBI, who utterly failed in their jobs that day, received more taxpayer money as a result. No one lost their jobs, and there was no accountability. With the possible exception of Cheatle herself, it's extremely unlikely that anyone at the USSS or the Pennsylvania state police will face so much as an official reprimand.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.