In light of the recent second failed assassination attempt on 2024 presidential candidate, President Donald Trump –happening within just 2 months of the previous attempt, this time by a gunman found hiding among trees and bushes by the Trump International Golf Club in Florida– US lawmakers have been scrambling to address the severe deficiencies in the security of major candidates. Rep. Mike Lawler stated: “That these incidents were allowed to occur is a stain on our country”, with agreement from many others about this feeling of embarrassment around the country’s shortcomings. 
Former President Donald Trump is helped off the stage after an attempted assassination during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13. - Gene J. Puskar/AP
With a 405-0 vote in the House of Representatives, they have successfully raised the standards at which agents would be assigned to protect major political candidates. Among other reforms such as an increase in training, many positive changes have been made, but the House of Rep. insists on doing more.
However, with only months before the inauguration and the uncertainty on what the extra money could be spent on, people are hesitant. The Secret Service themselves claimed that the lapses in security that led to the assassination attempts on Trump were not due to funding shortfalls, and have reported that the Secret Service revealed they are “still evaluating” what the money would even be spent on. Furthermore, it has been argued that the shortcomings of the Secret Service were an issue of manpower rather than funding. As of now, Biden has the highest possible level of private security with a vast infrastructure and support from the military, while candidates have their security supplemented by local law enforcement. Biden has stated his wishes to increase the security level of Vice President Kamala Harris and President Donald Trump to be on par with his. This calls for an increase in manpower; more employees and more hours. While an increase in funding could fulfill these needs as stated by sitting representative of the Secret Service himself, in response others have pointed out that since 2017 the Secret Service has asked for an increase in funding every year and has received it every year. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise emphasizes the importance of how they’re allocating their money rather than how much money they have.
A Florida Lawmaker claims “I think it’s irresponsible to just throw money at it when they’re not even sure what exactly they need and how quickly they can get it”, hinting at possible Republican resistance against this proposed funding boost. On the other hand, some Democratic representatives believe that the extra funding could be helpful, with Democratic Rep. Glenn Ivey noting, “I know that there's some folks who see a $3 billion budget and think that should be enough. But when you look at where all of the bodies have to go, that’s a problem”. This development hints at some possible tensions between the two parties on how to proceed with this previously bipartisan situation. With the House of Rep.’s votes already in, the legislation only waits on the continued debates within congress to be enacted into the law.
With people's lives at stake and an increased sense of urgency with the election coming up, it's hard to hesitate, let alone refuse help, to the agency that could prevent the loss of these lives. However, with the uncertainty around the needs of the Secret Service and arguments on both sides, it's a hard decision to make whether an increase in funding for the Secret Service is the right step to take.
Sources
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-bill-to-boost-trump-security-as-congress-scrambles-to-ensure-candidate-safety
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4890505-house-bill-trump-security-assassination-attempt/
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4885147-secret-service-funding-boost-republicans-question/
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-harris-election-09-15-24/index.html
4 comments:
I agree with the stance that this problem is not going to be solved by only increasing funding. Especially in modern times, where political tension is at an all time high, security for candidates of all parties should be an important and even prioritized part of the presidential campaign. Obviously, the secret service takes their job seriously, and I think that the recent assassination attempts and security breeches are not so much a fault of specific agents and rather the organization of the system as a whole. Although funding would help to solve this problem, it will only help if accompanied by a plan, that adequately addresses flaws within presidential security. For one, securing a premises and perimeter should not be a difficult, nor nuanced, idea, and would most likely prevent assassination attempts from surrounding areas. Money is always helpful, and an increased budget means the secret service will be able to hire more manpower and fund their operations better. However what they also need is to create an effective plan that will protect candidates from potential dangers in a public area.
While I agree with what Silas says about the need for a solid plan for how to utilize a large secret service budget, and that more money may help them do their job more effectively. But I also believe you could look at the problem from another angle: why is there such an increased need for security? Why are assassination attempts on political figures becoming more and more frequent and what does that say about the American public? I think there is an argument to be made that congress's efforts should go towards stopping the people from even making the attempts or threatening public figures in the first place. This could be achieved through making stricter gun control laws that will help stop radical people from even having the ability to harm another individual. Additionally, if we work to decrease political party polarization, these security breaches may decrease in frequency because people are going to be less likely to hate the opposing candidate as much. While the Secret Service would benefit from more money, I don't think that will help solve the root of the problem and is therefore not what is needed in our country.
I agree with your point, Camille, about digging deeper into the root cause of the issues our country faces and combating the problems that way. For this particular example, yes, stricter gun control laws and working to depolarize the political beliefs, although difficult, are extremely necessary. Easier said than done, but I think that if the media can play a huge role in polarizing politics (painting politicians in a narrow, negative light, dramatizing past and current actions/comments, etc.), then it can also do the opposite as well.
Another issue related to this article that emphasizes the need to combat the root of the issue is the plague of school shootings that have fallen over our country in recent years. I’ve seen many theoretical and recently developed products circulating on the internet like bullet-proof backpacks for kids and bullet-proof safe rooms/barricades, and the fact that parents and schools feel the need to implement these products is disheartening. While the intentions are certainly there, these methods aren’t necessarily going to decrease the number of shootings. This is just like increasing the Secret Service budget; it’s a temporary solution that is in a way a waste of time and resources because it won’t prevent the actual problem itself from happening. Instead of piling on the band-aids, a more effective way to lower the number of school shootings would be to address the mental health crisis, stop bullying and abuse, increase gun control and safety, etc. because then there is less of a reason for it to even happen in the first place.
It is super devestating that differences in political views have turned towards inflicting violence upon a Presidential candidate. Even while being Trump's running mate, Kamala Harris was said to have checked in with Trump immediately after the second assassination attempt on him, making the immensely supported claim that "there is no place for political violence in our country." Although these two running mates don't seem to be fond of one another, as seen through the comments they make about one another----such as when Trump refered to Kamala Harris as "mentally disabled" at his recent Wisconsin rally---at least both candidates and the greater of American society can regognize the value of human life, and the obsurdity of trying to end one's life due to differing opinions. On the topic of opposing parties coming together on the topic of political violence, I find it very respectable that Joe Biden not only advocates for Kamala Harris to experience an increase in private security, but has been said to also wish for an increase in his former running mate Donald Trump's security. I feel that actions like these typically go unnoticed as the media is so obsessed with pinning presidential candidates against eachother to create excitement. On a separate note, I find it interesting that many Republicans are against a funding boost, for it is their presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who has recently needed better secret service protection as he has been the main target of political violence.
Post a Comment