Hawley Demands Secret Service Respond to Whistleblower Allegations Regarding Second Assassination Attempt of Trump

Thursday, September 19, 2024

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sent a letter to U.S. Secret Service Acting Director Ronald Rowe detailing new whistleblower allegations about the Secret Service’s apparent failures to secure known vulnerabilities at former President Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla., this past Sunday, Sept. 15. 

“[A]n individual who has in fact protected President Trump at that very location—alleges there are ‘known vulnerabilities’ in the fence line surrounding the course: places that offer a clear line of sight to the former president and others playing the course,” wrote Senator Hawley. “The reality is that the would-be assassin should never have been able to linger around the course for that long undetected.”

Background

As a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC), Senator Hawley has been a leader in the investigation into the attempted assassination of former President Trump. Just this week, Senator Hawley released a new 22-page whistleblower report detailing the failures of the United States Secret Service in connection with the July 13 attempted assassination of former President Trump.

Yesterday Senator Hawley’s amendment directing the Secret Service to release any and all information pertaining to the July 13 assassination attempt passed unanimously in HSGAC. 

Read his new letter here or below. 

September 18, 2024

The Honorable Ronald L. Rowe, Jr.
Acting Director
U.S. Secret Service
245 Murray Ln SW, Building T-5
Washington, D.C. 20223

Dear Acting Director Rowe,

My office has received new whistleblower information regarding the most recent attempt on the life of former President Donald Trump, raising troubling questions about Secret Service protocols on that day.

A whistleblower with direct knowledge of Secret Service protection at former President Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach—an individual who has in fact protected President Trump at that very location—alleges there are “known vulnerabilities” in the fence line surrounding the course: places that offer a clear line of sight to the former president and others playing the course. As a result, the whistleblower alleges it has been Secret Service protocol to “post up” agents at these vulnerable spots when Trump visits the course. That apparently did not happen on September 15. Instead, the gunman was permitted to remain along or near the fence line for some 12 hours.

It is further unclear from your recent press conference whether agents swept the perimeter of the golf course at any point, or whether drones were used to surveil the fence line. The reality is that the would-be assassin should never have been able to linger around the course for that long undetected.

Please answer immediately the following questions raised by these new whistleblower allegations:

  1. Did Secret Service personnel “post up” at known vulnerabilities in the perimeter fencing?
  2. Did Secret Service personnel sweep the perimeter prior to the former president’s arrival on the site?
  3. Did Secret Service use canine units or Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) elements to monitor the perimeter of the golf course? How were they used?
  4. If counter surveillance personnel were present at the golf course on September 15, as you stated at a recent press conference, in what manner were they deployed? Why did they not detect the gunman sooner?
  5. What was the specific counter surveillance mitigation plan for the known vulnerabilities outside the fence line that day?

Sincerely, 

Josh Hawley
United States Senator

— 

Whistleblowers with information are encouraged to contact Senator Hawley’s office by email at tips@hawley.senate.gov or by phone at (202) 224-6154. Whistleblower identities will be protected against disclosure. Tips from federal employees are protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2302, which prohibits the federal government from taking any personnel action on the basis of a disclosure of evidence of gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or illegal activity.

Issues