A New Cut on the Incompetence and Cowardice of the Director of the Secret Service

Any competent executive would fire Kimberly Cheatle now.

There has been much discussion and writing about the failings of the Secret Service that led to the attempted assassination of President Trump. These include Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle’s embrace of unequal standards for men and women in the hiring and retention of Secret Service agents. Her agenda includes a goal of having women comprise 30% of the Secret Service agents by 2030.

We have all seen pictures of Trump immediately after the shooting. He was surrounded by agents, but the female agents were so short that even when clustered around him, they left his head and neck exposed. Because the mandate and training of the agents on personal protection details is for the agents to physically shield the principal from gunfire with their own bodies, putting short women on that detail is simply inexplicable for any reason except a desire to meet an arbitrary 30% DEI quota.

There has been much discussion of these and related topics already and it is not my intent to repeat that or to analyze them further here. Instead, I want to address two recent disclosures that may not have yet come to many readers’ attention.

Incompetence marinated in spinelessness

Observers from network commentators to restaurant servers have been wondering why the building where the assassin set up was not secured. That, too, has been the subject of much discussion that is beyond the scope of this article. But in a new development, Director Cheatle has just explained why there were no agents on the roof — it was not a flat roof! She gave an interview to ABC News on Monday that it publicized today. In it she explained:

That building in particular has a sloped roof, at its highest point. And 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.

Take a look.

Credit: New York Times

Credit: Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Good Gawd Almighty. That was about all I could think of to say when I first saw her interview. And look at her words: “There's a safety factor that would be considered….” I can only imagine what the terrorists of the world are thinking. What did she think was going to happen? Would her highly trained agents roll off this roof? The cowardice and timidity embodied in her statement, especially to any agent, police officer, soldier, or anyone who has served in harm’s way, is mind-boggling.

I have to wonder what the courageous agents who have thrown their bodies between a would-be assassin and their principal are thinking — this Director doesn’t “want to put somebody up on a sloped roof” because it might not be safe? What a leader.

A police sniper on another roof did not seem to be perturbed by what appears to be at least an equal or perhaps slightly greater slope.

Credit: AP Photo/Gene J. Puskan

Take a look at a slightly steeper slope. Here is a picture near and dear to my heart that shows what the U.S. Army does on a daily basis. It is the Blues from “B” Troop, 1/9 Cavalry in Vietnam.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the Bravo Blue platoon leader had tried to scrub that mission because the troops were having to jump out of a hovering helicopter onto a steep hillside? I can only say that there doubtlessly would have been a new platoon leader the next day.

The dual standard in Secret Service fitness standards — DEI at work.

The Secret Service publishes its required physical fitness standards for agents. It says that these “measure strength, endurance and aerobic capacity in four key elements.” Those four “elements” comprising the standards are push-ups, sit-ups, chin-ups and a 1.5 mile run. For each element there are separate and unequal standards for men and for women. All the men’s standards are more rigorous than those for the women. I will focus here on two of them to illustrate the disparity: Push-ups and chin-ups. I picked these because they are the ones that most measure strength which is — or should be — a critical requirement for a secret service agent, especially those on a personal protection detail. They are shown on the charts below, which you can read and analyze for yourselves. In my comments I will focus on the Age Category of 30-39, since that mid-range would include experienced agents who might be given greater responsibilities but who should still be near peak fitness.

Push-ups — Here are the standards for men for push-ups, with a 1-minute time limit:

And here are the push-up standards for women:

As you can see, in the 30-39 age group, a man must do 50 push-ups to be rated “excellent,” while a woman only has to do 30, or 60% of the men’s requirement, to be given the same rating.

A 30-year-old man who can only do 29 push-ups will basically flunk with a deservedly “Very Poor” rating. But a woman of the same age will be at the top of the female “Very Good” scale.

Let’s look at Chin-ups — Here are the men’s standards:

And the women’s chin-up standards:

For chin-ups I should note that sometimes very strong men may not be able to do many. A very fit and strong man who tips the scales at 225 lbs. is likely not going to be able to do as many chin-ups as an equally fit 150 pounder, because he is having to lift much more weight with each repetition. But doesn’t that mean that women generally being lighter than men, should excel at chin-ups vis-a-vis the men? No, it does not because — unpopular as the thought may be — the undeniable fact is that men generally have much more upper body strength than do women.

The Secret Service standards and requirements for women’s chin-ups, a key measure of upper body strength, are substantially less than those that apply to men, precisely because women, generally speaking, are not as physically strong as men. So, we see that a woman of any age who can get her chin over the bar 4 times is rated as “Excellent.” On the other hand, a 29-year-old man who can only manage 4 chin-ups properly flunks with a “Very Poor.”

I should add at this point that in my judgment, based on extensive experience with such things, these standards are abysmally low for “elite” actors such as Secret Service agents, especially those bearing the heavy responsibility of a personal protection detail. I strongly suspect that most of the male agents that I have seen likely excel at this puny test. That causes me to wonder if the standards have been watered-down to reduce the discrepancy between the men’s and women’s scores.

Strength and the intimidating appearance of a large, strong man are key requirements for a secret service agent or any serious bodyguard. There is a reason that bars don’t hire 5’ 4,” 140 lb. women as bouncers. Cheatle’s promulgation of these puny and unequal standards tells us one of two things: Either she does not have a clue what the standards and requirements should be for Secret Service agents on personal protective details, or she places a higher priority on DEI than on effective protection of a president or presidential candidate.

Cheatle should have been gone the day after the shootings. These new revelations provide additional reasons mandating her immediate termination. They show that she combines cowardice with incompetence at the Director level. If she is not fired immediately, it will be more proof that the DEI regime is out of control and at odds with our national security.