Can the RNC supplement the security provided by Secret Service and law enforcement and to what extent?

Question

Secret Service and local law enforcement representatives said Sunday there are no plans to change the security measures for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee this week.

Law enforcement officers reiterated their confidence in the security apparatus already in place, saying their security footprint will remain as planned despite Saturday’s attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump.

“We’re not anticipating any changes to our operational security plans for this event,” said the Secret Service’s RNC coordinator, Audrey Gibson-Cicchino. She declined to answer several questions about Saturday’s events in Pennsylvania, citing her RNC-specific jurisdiction.

Gibson-Cicchino emphasized that the security planning in Milwaukee has been underway for 18 months and has already been designated the highest level of security event.

Can the RNC supplement to the security provided by Secret Service and law enforcement and to what extent? The Secret Service and law enforcement don't plan on adding extra security measures for the next convention in Miwaulkee this week. I am wondering if the RNC can provide extra measure if it sees fit to add extra security.

Answer 1

Theoretically, sure. The Secret Service partners with any number of local law enforcement agencies as well as with public and private security services for visiting foreign dignitaries or for protectees on foreign trips. Nothing would prevent them from partnering with private security hired by the RNC or anyone else.

As a practical matter for this specific convention, there would be grave objections about adding additional security partners on the eve of the convention. Security plans for the RNC have been in place for some time. Numerous briefings have been held between the various partner agencies to ensure that everyone is on the same page. One of the major ways that security incidents like this past Saturday happen is that a miscommunication happens and agency A thinks B owns some aspect of security while B thinks A owns that. Adding additional agencies and changing responsibilities at the eleventh hour would be a nightmare of possible communication breakdowns unless the additional agency was deployed somewhere completely outside the current security footprint (i.e. an additional outer security perimeter).

As a political matter in general, the secret service would likely push back on private security for one of their protectees. One of the points of having a secret service is to ensure that all presidents get excellent protection whether or not they happen to be independently wealthy. Hiring private security would a strong signal that the protectee had lost confidence in the secret service. Even in the aftermath of this weekend, it is highly unlikely that any politician would want to send that particular message. They might seek to reform the secret service but they aren't going to bury it.

Answer 2

(note: this answer concerns the general notion of allowing a political party to assist in protecting its candidates, not the desirability of switching approaches at the last minute before conventions in the coming weeks).

One interesting question is whether parties would be willing for the really high costs likely involved in hiring, vetting, training and moving around a professional security detail (hiring some cheap locals may very well end up causing more problems than it would solve).

Currently, the Secret Service is paid for by federal funds and local law enforcement costs tend to fall onto... local taxpayers.

Presidential Campaign Security: What to Expect When a Candidate Comes to Campus - Campus Safety Magazine

The campaign staff will always tell you it is the Secret Service’s responsibility to pay police officers since it is part of the protection of the candidate. However, do not expect to be reimbursed by the Secret Service; they do not pay for your service.

Certain elements of the crowd management plan could very well be considered part of the protective operations. Is traffic direction part of the protective operation? Your institution should plan on covering the cost of additional police officers and other security staff. One consideration would be to build some of the cost into the pric e of the venue.

---

Note: I XXXed the name below because it really doesn't matter overmuch - I suspect the non-incumbent POTUS candidate behaves the same way in most cases.

---

Why the XXX campaign won’t pay police bills – Center for Public Integrity

But when Lebanon City Hall sent XXX’s campaign a $16,191 invoice for police and other public safety costs associated with his event, XXX didn’t respond. XXX’s campaign likewise ignored Lebanon officials’ follow-up reminders to cover the sum — one rich enough to fund the entire police force for nearly two days in this modest city of 21,000, between Dayton and Cincinnati.

But in many of these cases, there are no signed contracts between the municipal governments and the XXX campaign. The cities dispatched police officers to secure XXX’s events because they believe public safety required it — and the U.S. Secret Service asked for it.

Now, $20000-ish doesn't sound like that much. But it's only for existing local police overtime for one day. Deploying a full protective detail that would move the needle would involve hiring, vetting, paying full time salaries (of people who would have be highly qualified to matter) and all the logistics of moving a big team around. I could easily see that reaching in the hundreds of thousands for each day's events. Are campaigns willing to reach in their own pockets to that extent, rather than spending their cash on ads and other direct campaign spending?

Well-done (and, yes, coordinated with the Secret Service) this could be a big improvement on the under-resourced specialized forces present in Pennsylvania.

But the Post reported that it had seen an exchange of messages in which a former Secret Service officer asked colleagues how the suspect had got a gun so close to Trump. He was reported to have received the reply: "Resources."

I saw a POTUS security detail in Paris in the mid 90s. Flying The Beast in is a very different look (and somewhat patronizing to the host nation) than not being able to secure or overwatch a rooftop 130m away from Trump's podium. In that sense, it's hard to see how a properly sourced campaign security team would be more blowback-prone than current arrangements.

(nothing against the local cops btw - it's just not their day to day livelihood).

Answer 3

Only if the secret service agrees and approves the plan to provide extra security at the event. If they don't any security that the RNC provides is likely going to be treated as a threat of some kind and dealt with. For these types of events both the secret service and other law enforcements are going to want to fully vet and know about any security plans and personal that are in place.

The important thing to remember is that the secret service is in charge of security for all presidents past and current as well as all presidential candidates. Local law enforcement, the RNC, the DNC, or other organizations are not responsible for that protection.