Gee, waddya know? The incompetent head of the Secret Service finally resigned.
Less than a week ago, Ethics Alarms expressed disgust and amazement that Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle hadn’t resigned from her job (She’s “historic,” see, so that’s why President Biden wouldn’t fire her.) “This is basic management ethics,” I wrote then. “When the organization leader fails that badly—and it is hard to imagine a worse failure—the leader takes full responsibility and leaves, because the organization cannot retain public trust as long as that leader is in place. There is no other honorable or ethical course.”
Yet she defiantly said that she would not resign, despite also saying that she accepted “full responsibility.” She had spent all of the time since the Secret Service’s incompetence nearly got Donald Trump killed making absurd excuses, trying to blame local police, and lying outright. Yesterday, Cheatle further soiled what remained of her dignity and reputation, evading questions and infuriating members of Congress trying to get to the bottom of what happened in Pennsylvania. Almost as one, the House members told her she needed to quit. If Cheatle has done anything laudable, it is bringing together the parties in a bi-partisan expression of outrage at a single target.
In an appropriately demented statement today, “President Biden” said, “As a leader, it takes honor, courage and incredible integrity to take full responsibility for an organization tasked with one of the most challenging jobs in public service.” It doesn’t take any of that to say you’re taking full responsibility and then to refuse to accept any of the appropriate penalties that should accompany it. Biden’s ghost-written salute would have been an apt send-off if Cheatle had resigned immediately after Trump was shot. Now, it’s just more typical Democratic “It isn’t what it is” gaslighting. She resigned because it was obvious that her life would be a living hell if she didn’t. Wow. Integrity!
Of course, Biden’s response to his debate collapse that rendered him a Dead Candidate Walking was essentially the same, so it’s no wonder that he thought Cheatle behaved impeccably.
In that earlier post, I wrote, “Why hasn’t Cheatle resigned? She hasn’t resigned because she’s unaccountable, unprofessional, and unfit for her post, that’s why.” True, but that still doesn’t explain why someone in her position wouldn’t realize that she was going to have to resign sooner or later, and that the longer she waited, the worse she would look. If she resigned immediately after Trump’s near-death experience, at least that would demonstrate a sense of honor as well as the courage to take her hemlock, as bitter as it might be.
Such a resignation tells the public, “When things go this wrong, someone has to be accountable so the public realizes that mistakes and misdeeds by their government have consequences.” The response of placing blame on the official in charge is symbolic as well as practical. Thus Donald Rumsfeld offered his resignation to President Bush after the Abu Graib scandal. (Bush should have accepted it.) The higher the official is who has to fall on his or her metaphorical sword, the clearer it is to the public that what happened won’t be permitted to occur again.
It also informs the public that their government officials aren’t in their jobs just to collect paychecks, but to discharge a sacred duty. Yesterday, Cheatle said, more than once, that she had not quit because she sincerely believed that she was the individual best qualified to lead the Secret Service. Talk about bias making you stupid! Of course, most of us think we’re the bee’s knees—I know I do—but when that conviction is completely the opposite of what everyone else believes, attention should be paid. If this bungler is the best there is, no president is safe: that is literally what her obstinacy communicates.
Why couldn’t she see that? Has taking responsibility and accountability, and being willing to do what is best for your organization, society and country even when it involves personal sacrifice, simply vanished as a cultural norm in the U.S.? Is everybody like Cheatle, determined to hang on to every position, privilege and benefit by their fingernails until there is no other option than to let go? Is the tradition of leaders resigning after a debacle so dead in our culture that recent generations don’t comprehend why it existed for so long?
Or…is this partially a result of the DEI infection, where merit is no longer viewed as a necessary justification for staying in a position of power? Was Cheatle thinking, “Wait, why should I resign? I’m still a woman, right? That’s why I have the job, isn’t it? What’s changed?”
This is a crucial concept that in foundational in an ethically functioning culture. Somehow, we have to find a way to revitalize it.
Ethics Alarms 
“When the organization leader fails that badly—and it is hard to imagine a worse failure—the leader takes full responsibility and leaves, because the organization cannot retain public trust as long as that leader is in place. There is no other honorable or ethical course.”
“It also informs the public that their government officials aren’t in their jobs just to collect paychecks, but to discharge a sacred duty.”
The former quote struck me last week when you wrote it. The latter struck me today. What was striking about them is that I had never quite thought about things in these ways.
It all makes more sense now. Thanks.
-Jut
The most charitable interpretation is that the leader doesn’t view the incompetence of their subordinates as anything the leader could have detected or corrected before it caused a problem.
Of course, that view would have more credibility if the leader investigated and provided a public statement explaining exactly what happened to cause the problem and what the organization was doing to prevent that problem, similar problems, other problems they anticipated, and other problems that can be mitigated even without being specifically foreseen.
“…but to discharge a sacred duty.”
I was in DC recently (I’ll be there again in a few weeks.) One of the visits I made was to the Tomb of the Unknown (hadn’t been there since I was a child) – mostly because I have such profound respect for the young men and women sentinels who guard the tombs. They do so, not just with honor, but with absolute perfection.
There is a documentary about the sentinels and in it it talks about a time during the inspection phase of the changing of the guard that a sentinel was sent back because a small piece of lint was noticed on the back of his jacket. He was sent back – over a piece of lint.
I mention this because these young men and women understand the meaning of sacred duty. The rest in Washington would do well to take note.
Well, if you have a gap in your schedule, I’m just a hop, skip and a jump away, and would love to meet you in person.
I would love that. I’ll email you.
We are overdue to meet too – Maybe next year when they do the Andrews AFB show?
Me? Or Jack? Or both? Either way, sounds like a plan!
(My dearest, life long friend is in Bethesda; a stone’s throw over the district line. I’m there often.)
That was pitched more at Jack, BUT, I would not mind meeting you either. Or Sparty, who’s also in the area.
Andrews is in September 2025, I may take a week and go to that show then make my way down to VA Beach for the Oceana show the next weekend. I remember I went to Andrews in 2017 to watch a tremendous display of war machines…and the next day I was at the Museum of the Shenendoah Valley, walking in a rose garden designed by a gay man.
ok – that made me laugh out loud. Your response was nestled under mine so I wasn’t sure who you meant. An Ethics Alarms meet and greet with whoever would like to join would be fun. Let’s keep it in mind!
Yes, an event would be nice. Jack could even do some CLE for all the practicing attorneys in the commentariat.
Point of clarification? I doubt she resigned from the Secret Service. I’m pretty sure she simply resigned from her position as head of the Secret Service. She’ll be demoted but still remain employed at the same pay grade and benefits and pension.
Lovely.
Probably not, since she’d already retired once.
She doesn’t even KNOW that a leader is supposed to resign when their agency has disgraced itself. She was asked what H. Stuart Knight did after Reagan was shot, she assertively said “He continued to serve!”. She was shocked when she was told that he resigned. Her argument up to that point was that to resign was to betray the organization and all the people in it. She didn’t even KNOW that resigning is how you take responsibility for the failures of the agency you lead. Now, it should be noted that this was the 3rd attempted assassination of a president during H. Stuart Knight’s tenure as head of the Secret Service.
The one thing I might say in defense of her testimony yesterday is that it is my understanding that, in situations like this, it is the FBI’s job to investigate what happened as the Secret Service itself is considered a suspect, particularly as a member of the Secret Service killed the perpetrator.
I don’t know if that is true, but that is what I have heard (and it makes sense that the Secret Service would not be put in charge of investigating its own failings-it’s biased and motivated to cover things up). If she starts investigating within her own department, it could be viewed as “getting their story straight,” otherwise known as collusion or witness tampering.
However, if that is the case, she should have said so. At the same time, if it is the FBI that is doing the investigation, she has little control over that 60-day timeframe she mentioned. And, if it is true, Congress should know that, unless the Representatives simply wanted to grandstand, which would probably be the first time that ever happened (yesterday).
As for the calls for her resignation, she should have told them that she serves at the pleasure of the President, the leader of a co-equal branch of government, and they can shove their demands into the White House Suggestion Box. Or, Bite Me. (Can you tell I hate Congressional Hearings?)
-Jut
It’s also grandstanding on the part of the Administration not to fire her and grandstanding on Ms. Cheatle’s part not to resign until ten days later. The Administration wants the hearings so their lapdogs (aka “the Media”) can report how Ms. Cheatle was forced to give up her position under withering attacks from Republicans investigating President Trump’s collision with a bullet. It will be highlighted that Cheatle is a woman – a historical first as head of the Secret Service – and most of those excoriating her were men deeply ensconced in a patriarchy. The Administration is then able to paint her as an heroic “servant of the American people”, worked to the bone and doing her very best in a largely sexist, misogynist environment.
But see?…all that narrative is lost if whoever really calls the shots in the Biden Administration simply fires her immediately…or if she resigns immediately.
It’s pathetic.
Good riddance, and go back to protecting cans of Pepsi.
I suspect Cheatle was told in private that even if the current president wouldn’t fire her, the next one would. Trump would have no hesitation, and Harris might feel a LITTLE more sorry for her, but Harris would have her own skin to worry about. Plus, said skin is darker than Cheatles’s, so progressives would give Harris a pass.
The problem with that narrative is that the condemnation and calls to resign came from almost everyone there including some Democratic heavyweights — like Ro Khanna and AOC, and I think Jamie Raskin.
I believe it was a Democrat who asked her if she had seen the testimony of the three college presidents last year. He said something like ‘they ended up having to resign, and that’s what is in your future too’.
I watched some snippets of her testimony and it was just infuriating. It had been 9 days since the assassination attempt and she refused to answer some of the most basic questions. She used the ‘active investigation’ dodge, along with others. It was like “How dare you ask me questions, don’t you know who I am?”
The more I see of this incident, the worse it gets. The Secret Service heard an hour in advance that this guy was acting suspiciously. They were alerted that he was carrying around a rangefinder. More than one of the fans in attendance pointed out a guy with a rifle on that roof.
I’m also hearing that the SS agents guarding Trump may not have been in communications with the communications center– that would account for them letting him on the stage to start with and not pulling him off.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if I were I could go to town.
It’s definitely time for Bismarck: “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, and the United States of America.”
Diego, you make valid observations in your first two paragraphs, but I was thinking more of “the narrative” presented by the media, rather than the truth of what really happened.
And I completely agree with the balance of your response. The more we hear, the stenchier it all gets.
I am waiting for the rewrites to come in. This draft of the script is just not believable. They need to fire the writers and get some better ones. The writers who put the staging area for the officers in the building need to talk to the people who decided the shooter should stash the rifle for several days in that same building and then retrieve it (in front of all the officers?) just before the shooting and work out the issues with that.
When these agency heads claim to take full responsibility for some significant lapse I want to know why they are not asked what do they understand accountability to mean. Why are they let off the hook? I also would like to know if the advance agent and or detail lead officer were also terminated for his or her failures. The agency head should not be the only one taking heat.
Due to my law enforcement background, I have read with forensic interest every bit of information I can find, and watched all the video and news reports I can discover, about the attempted assassination. This event will involve numerous investigations. In my experience it is indeed the FBI that’s has primary responsibility for the federal criminal investigation of the shooting and the shooter. There is also a state investigation of the homicide of the firefighter and attempted homicide of any others wounded aside from Mr. Trump. Of course the death of the shooter somewhat simplifies investigations -particularly the state-level ones. The “what went wrong” investigation of the events of that day remains primarily the responsibility of the Secret Service as an internal matter. Homeland Security could assign others to support that investigation. If that internal investigation reveals evidence of criminal culpability by anyone involved in the protective operation, then the FBI would immediately be brought in to determine if federal laws were broken and who broke them. There is a fine line to be observed between investigative transparency and the exposure of agency operational processes that might benefit future would-be assassins. Every agency participating in the event should engage in some serious introspection of their role and performance in the event. I struggle with the cognitive dissonance scale in this matter. All my contacts with and work in cooperation with the Secret Service during my career were very positive and indeed professionally rewarding. A couple of retired agents are good friends of mine. A former sheriff that I worked for was retired from the agency. Of course, that was well before federal law enforcement became the playground of woke politics. But it is hard for me to imagine the Secret Service as I knew it making such monumental blunders in threat and risk management. It displays a staggering level of incompetence that beggars my reliance on Hanlon’s Razor. In my experience, that rooftop would NEVER have been left unsecured (unmanned) and any officer (local, state or federal) having contact with an individual wandering the area in possession of a rangefinder would have figuratively grabbed said individual by the belt and held them fast until they could be vetted, not allowed to get lost in the crowd. Normalcy bias and complacency seem to be hard at work here, and are anathema to effective protective operations. Cheatle’s duty to her agency -and to the public interest generally- compelled her immediate resignation. Her failure to do so, and her response to questions at the Congressional hearing, show us that she lacks the leadership ability required for the post she held. I am hopeful that her resignation will start the difficult process of rebuilding this agency on the basis of merit and restoring trust in the agency’s ability to perform its duties.
Very insightful comment — thanks!
Unfortunately it seems that sometimes it takes a monumental catastrophe to spur needed reforms and shake agencies out of their complacency. Examples that spring to mind are Challenger, Florida 2000, the Reagan shooting, the Boeing crashes.
We are just beyond fortunate — both sides of the aisle I believe — that Trump was only grazed and not killed. Those on the left wishing otherwise I believe have no conception at all what a successful assassination would have unleashed, especially once all these blunders came to light.
I hope Trump dumps the Secret Service. He probably will have no choice now, since they are telling him he can’t have outdoor rallies anymore. This isn’t a problem for Harris, since Biden/Harris have trouble filling the high school basketball arenas where they have rallies. As with Clinton before them, they draw dozens or hundreds to their appearances, while Trump draws tens of thousands.
They can’t order him not to have outside rallies, and Trump should say “Bite me.”