Independent Panel Slams Secret Service for ‘Deep Flaws,’ Urges Major Overhaul
An independent panel investigating the July 2024 assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, has found “deep flaws” within the U.S. Secret Service. The panel's findings point to serious operational and cultural problems within the agency, concluding that only “fundamental reform” can ensure its effectiveness in protecting high-profile government figures.
In a letter signed by all four members, the panel said it uncovered “numerous mistakes” during its probe, but warned that the issues ran deeper than isolated errors. They identified systemic problems demanding urgent attention.
“The Secret Service as an agency requires fundamental reform to carry out its mission,” the panel wrote. “Without that reform, the Independent Review Panel believes another Butler can and will happen again.”
The report honors the victims of the July 13 attack, including Corey Comperatore, who was killed, and James Copenhaver and David Dutch, who were wounded, as well as their families.
“These actions will be responsive not only to the security failures that led to the July 13, 2024 assassination attempt but, importantly, to what the Independent Review Panel describes as systemic and foundational issues that underlie those failures,” the panel stated.
The group raised serious concerns about the agency's internal culture, pointing to a “troubling lack of critical thinking” by agents in the days surrounding the attack. Other issues included a “lack of clarity” over who was responsible for site security and “corrosive cultural attitudes” around resourcing and decision-making.
According to the panel, Secret Service leadership failed to assign the most qualified agents to critical roles and neglected to take full responsibility for security planning at the Butler event. These lapses, they said, reveal ongoing and potentially ingrained weaknesses.
The review calls for a change in leadership, ideally bringing in individuals from outside the agency, and stresses the need for the Secret Service to recommit to its “core protective mission.”
“The Secret Service must be the world’s leading governmental protective organization,” the report stated. “The events at Butler on July 13 demonstrate that, currently, it is not.”
In response to the attack and the panel’s findings, President Donald Trump has nominated Sean Curran—head of his personal Secret Service detail—to serve as director of the agency. Curran, who was among the agents that quickly moved to shield Trump during the shooting, had been widely expected to take on the role.
Trump praised Curran in a post on Truth Social, calling the appointment an “honor.”
“Sean is a Great Patriot, who has protected my family over the past few years, and that is why I trust him to lead the Brave Men and Women of the United States Secret Service,” he wrote.
“He is brilliant leader, who is capable of directing and leading operational security plans for some of the most complex Special Security Events in the History of our Country, and the World. He proved his fearless courage when he risked his own life to help save mine from an assassin’s bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania. I have complete and total confidence in Sean to make the United States Secret Service stronger than ever before,” Trump added.
Meanwhile, a separate federal report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is calling on lawmakers to confront the emerging risks posed by generative AI.
Released Tuesday, the GAO report outlines the environmental and societal effects of the technology, suggesting that agencies, Congress, and industry stakeholders adopt existing government frameworks—such as those from the GAO itself and the National Institute of Standards and Technology—to mitigate risks involving privacy, safety, and disinformation.
While generative AI holds transformative promise, the GAO cautioned that it consumes “large amounts of energy and water.” Developers have not yet disclosed the environmental costs of training AI models, especially water usage, and the watchdog recommended that policymakers encourage the development of more sustainable methods.
“The benefits and risks of generative AI are unclear, and estimates of its effects are highly variable because of a lack of available data,” the GAO stated. “The continued growth of generative AI products and services raises questions about the scale of benefits and risks.”