Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Fires Security Details for Pompeo and Bolton
Remember how Trump insisted he wouldn’t have to take revenge against his enemies? That his success would be his revenge? I even remember writing about this decision and I admired him for taking the high road. I just didn’t anticipate his breaking his word to punish Republicans.
I’m referring to his decisions to cancel the security details of Mike Pompeo (Trump’s Secretary of State in his first term) and John Bolton (National Security Advisor in Trump’s first term). The background story is that after both men left office, they were critical of Trump’s role as president. Just what did Mike Pompeo say? His comments were related to the classified documents that Trump removed to his home:
By all indication, he said, ‘Trump had classified docs when he shouldn’t have had them, and when given the opportunity to return them, he chose not to do that.”
Then explaining the gravity of that misdeed, he continued: ‘That’s inconsistent with protecting America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines … if these allegations are true, some of these were pretty serious, important documents.’
Pompeo even stayed on after January 6, when others were resigning in droves.
John Bolton’s criticisms were much more personal and demeaning. Observers have said that he was put out because President Trump wasn’t taking his advice seriously on foreign policy. In Bolton’s memoir, he had a number of criticisms of the president:
Bolton, who served in Trump’s White House in 2018 and 2019, accused the Republican presidential frontrunner of having no political philosophy or coherent policy outlook. If re-elected, Trump could leave the NATO security alliance, curb support to Ukraine despite Russia’s 2022 invasion, embolden China to blockade Taiwan and generally pursue isolationism, Bolton warned.
‘Trump is unfit to be president,’ Bolton wrote in the new foreword to ‘The Room Where it Happened,’ his account of the 17 months he spent as Trump’s national security adviser. ‘If his first four years were bad, a second four will be worse.’
Given the exchanges between the two of them, there’s no question that they shared a deep animosity.
President Trump apparently wanted to send the message that he was angry with both Pompeo and Bolton. I think anyone would be upset at the comments that both men made, although I believe Bolton’s remarks were much more insulting than Pompeo’s. Nevertheless, Trump wanted to punish both of them for what he likely perceived as betrayals.
His actions were to cancel the security details of Bolton and Pompeo, which had been assigned to them after they left their positions:
Mr. Trump reportedly has ordered an end to security protection for three former advisers who are living under threat of assassination by Iran. Pray it won’t happen, but what if one of them now gets attacked?
John Bolton, a longtime Iran hawk who was Mr. Trump’s national security adviser in 2018 and 2019, said the Secret Service called him on Inauguration Day evening to give him the news. In the summer of 2022, the Justice Department charged a member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with planning to kill Mr. Bolton by attempting ‘to pay individuals in the United States $300,000 to carry out the murder in Washington, D.C. or Maryland.’ [Robert O’Brien had a security detail that was cancelled in December 2023, and an aide, Brian Hook was the third person to have his detail removed.]
Bolton was recently informed that the threat against him has not diminished, and believes the threat is actually an action against the United States. Pompeo was threatened around the same as Bolton.
Apparently, Trump can cancel their security details whenever he chooses. When asked about his decision, this was his response :
‘When you have protection you can’t have it for the rest of your life, do you want to have a large detail of people guarding people for the rest of their lives?’ Trump told reporters in a press conference at the Oval Office on Thursday.
He added, ‘There’s risks to everything.’
It was noteworthy that he didn’t point out how expensive it was to provide security details:
According to the documents, for a 10-month period, starting Dec. 1, 2021, and ending Sept. 30, 2022, the payroll bills for the U.S. Secret Service to protect Bolton were $4,934,963. For a year-long period starting on Oct. 1, 2021, the payroll bills to protect O’Brien were $5,778,713.
Perhaps he thought referring to the cost to protect these men was a bit unseemly.
I wonder if he’s thought about the message he is sending to his Cabinet—that when their time is up, they’d better keep their mouths shut.
I understand his wanting to take revenge. And I think it was an unwise decision.
Published in Domestic Policy
For further/deeper consideration: President Trump Removes Diplomatic Security Service from Mike Pompeo Detail
Sounds a bit over the top in some ways, philo.
But nothing untrue in it.
Are you certain of that? Why hasn’t it been widely publicized?
Even so, revenge is still ugly.
Sheer genius . . .
Saving money is a wise decision. It does make sense for not only the President, but former cabinet members and high-level staffers to continue to have protection after leaving office. Nonetheless, unless they are required to have protection, they can protect themselves like the rest of us . . .
I like Pompeo and hope Trump sees the value of using him somewhere in his administration in the future …. Bolton has proven himself to be a creature of the DeepState.
My big issue is that they had credible assassination threats. That’s my main point.
I want to follow-up on my comment in response to philo’s comment #1 (which I very much appreciate). There are a few questions at play. First, should a Cabinet member receive protection after he leaves office? I don’t think so, as a matter of course. Second, if there have been credible threats to their lives, should they receive government protection? I believe they should, although the length of time is kind of tricky; if there’s no reason to think that the threat has been dropped, they should receive protection indefinitely. Third, is there anything a Cabinet member (or equivalent) could do that would make them ineligible to receive protection? Unless they have done something traitorous, I think not.
What do you all think?
If you check the link in comment #1, you may have second thoughts..
I don’t understand your outrage – just as I don’t understand why out of office individuals (not just these guys) have and think they should automatically be given (by taxpayer funding) such services. It strikes me much as ole Prince Harry has been griping for years about the Crown no longer paying his bills when he doesn’t work for the Crown anymore. I see it in much the same way as freezing outstanding State Department foreign “aid” contracts in order to assess the contribution of such contracts to the interests of the United States. I’d like a whole lot more of Why are we spending this money on ____.
These – and others – make hay (often a lot of it) from their prior positions. They do not currently provide any service to the government. I do not think I owe them lifetime security, particularly if they are employed or earning their living elsewhere. If they retain security clearances – how many of them really have need for them? – they should understand and have every reason to keep their mouths shut about national security matters.
As to public knowledge about their shenanigans – it’s hardly been a priority of the Biden administration to shine any light on them – they continued to be useful in their own ways.
Just to be clear, you understand Iran has put a price on their heads.
Every account I’ve read is that Bolton and Pompeo were given a few hours notice not enough time to make alternative arrangements. In contrast when Biden’s Secret Service pulled critic Robert O’Briens protection he was given 60 days notice. This indicates to me that it is intended as a show of vindictiveness not a budget or resource constraint move.
I have concluded the president intentionally cultivates an image of petty vindictiveness as a means of enhancing his political power. That is he want’s people to be afraid of him and it mostly works. Trump is not the first politician (LBJ?) with a “Winning through intimidation” strategy of governing but he certainly makes a show of it. Anyway to sell an image it really helps if the image is based on the underlying reality and in this case I think it is. Petty and vindictive are fair descriptions.
Random thought
If Biden’s admin would have some culpability if the unprotected presidential candidate RFK jr was assassinated then Trump should be assigned similar blame if Pompeo or Bolton are killed. On the bright side with Biden gone the Iranians will think hard before attempting to have them killed.
Yesterday, I started making of a list of good, bad and neutral/undetermined actions of the Trump admin. This one fell into the bad category.
I pretty much agree with all you say. If he’s choosing to be vindictive, I don’t get it. Thanks, Terence.
Yes. Just as I know Iran make similar threats all over the place. These individuals are not unique.
Do you then agree FAUCI should continue to get tax-payer funded protection to the tune of $15,000,000.00 for two years? Bolton published a book with sensitive information in it. He advocated for war, when Trump wanted peace. Pompeo questioned Trump taking classified info — he was the President, and he’s the only one with the right to do it. Has it been proven he jeopardized national security by doing that? When Biden took classified material as Vice President, and possibly when he was a senator, he broke the law! Doesn’t Trump’s estate has an SSID (is that the right term?) room — where documents can be viewed securely? How many safes are in Mar-A-Lago? Didn’t the SS cover security there? The security was upgraded on the advice of the National Archives. Biden’s files were in a garage next to his Corvette, an unlocked office, and open file cabinets. No, security details for Cabinet officials, etc., stretches resources too thin. It is wasteful of people, materiel, money, and time.
I’d be the first one to say to throw Biden in jail. But we knew nothing would happen.
This is a correction, not revenge. We don’t need to be run by an aristocracy, we need to be run by citizens, who are focused on extracting from tax-payers long after they have completed their “service”. If these guys want to continue to live off my tax dollars, confess to some crimes and go to federal prison for 3 meals a day and a cot. And free security!
Are you talking about Pompeo and Bolton? Crimes?
At some point, people who have profited considerably from government positions (book deals, etc.) have to step up and provide their own security. Bolton was National Security Advisor under Trump for only 18 mos. and is a prime example of this. I’m good with dropping his detail, although more notice would have been good.
Pompeo was both CIA director and Secretary of State throughout Trump’s term and those positions are far more likely to provoke retaliation. Regardless of various (unsubstantiated?) allegations about his activities, his need/qualification for security is considerable. Failure to provide it, as the O/P has suggested, is petty and potentially harmful. It’s a side of Trump that we do not need.
Did Dean Rusk or Robert McNamara have government-furnished security after leaving public office as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense? Or did George H. W. Bush have government-furnished security after leaving as head of the CIA. Nope. They were not part of the government. For that matter Secret Service protection for Presidential children used to end after they became adults until Bill Clinton changed things.
Why should any government official get taxpayer-funded security after leaving office? The only exception I would make is for ex-Presidents and their spouses (as long as the ex-President is alive) and their minor children. End it afterwards. It has become a form of patent of nobility, something specifically barred by the Constitution. Let ex-officials enjoy the same privileges and risks as their policies have engendered as every other US citizen.
Beyond the de-facto patent of nobility government security provides, it is also evidence of safetyism – the belief than no risk is too small to protect against no matter what the cost to the public purse. It is the same argument Karen Bass is making when she won’t let Angelenos clean up their fire-damaged houses, that it is not safe and that we have to ensure safety. Most, if not all, ex-government officials face no real risk, and by providing it we send the message that they are (a) in real danger, and (b) so special as to be cossetted from danger.
What if terrorists attack an ex-official? Simply make it a public policy that the US will no longer tolerate that. If a US official or ex-official is attacked, or killed by terrorists, the opposite number in the country sponsoring the attack will be taken out in retribution. And follow through if it happens. The US has the military ability to make this happen. After the first time, there would not be a second time.
I want to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying that if an ex-official of the US is killed by a terrorist, we should kill an official of the terrorist’s nation? What if that nation didn’t sanction the act? How do we choose who to kill? I don’t think it’s as straightforward as you might think, Seawriter.
Doesn’t matter. Any Iranian official would do.
Biden gave everyone pardons. There are few options left to use against them and to send a message to any future persons who would undermine the president. The EOs are online and have the rationale. All three did something egregious. Fauci made millions and can afford it. Bolton should not have written his book until after Trump was long gone, if ever. Pompeo’s faults were shocking, too. Part of cleaning up the swamp requires deterring bad behavior on our side, too. With all punitive legal means off the table, what was left? Something had to be done.
I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but we’ve had people voicing opinions on both sides of the argument–and I’m grateful and impressed. I’m hoping this post might be starting an effort in Trump’s second term for us to discuss ideas we feel passionate about, and where we differ, but can “listen” with an open mind. Perhaps no one’s mind will be changed, but we will learn from each other. I think that is important and valuable.
And consider that many of those nations embrace a culture of martyrdom, etc.
Now that is an interesting observation, ke! It wouldn’t be a sacrifice at all!
I think these two points are related.
If a former president and/or first lady were kidnapped, there would be far-reaching ramifications in terms of national security.
Not only would it be a blow to our self-image, but the victims would have in their heads quite a bit of information that I’m pretty sure I would not want in enemy hands. But the worst of it would be the celebrations that the Taliban or Al Qaeda or Iranians or North Koreans would have.
If it were up to me, I’d always have them protected to whatever extent was possible without restricting their personal freedom.
I just want to throw this out there:
It’s just my guess and opinion, but I’ve often thought that Trump and others who do this (Rush Limbaugh did this too from time to time when others would attack him)–that is, make issues “all about themselves”–do it intentionally for a couple of reasons.
One, to avoid legal liabilities. As soon as you mention some one or some organization, you run the risk of offending someone or speaking for someone who might not like it. There’s also a huge risk of letting loose some classified information. It’s extremely difficult to speak extemporaneously safely, especially as much as Trump does. As long as you talk only about yourself, you’re probably safe. I’ve often thought that’s why he does this.
Two, to be less manipulative of the audience. I really don’t like it when celebrities turn attacks on them into attacks on me. It’s obvious to me that their line of reasoning is just manipulation to garner political and moral support for themselves. I appreciate it when Trump sticks to talking about himself.
However, I say that reservedly because, unfortunately, in the cold war that has been going on for several decades now between the Democrats and Republicans, there is a great deal of truth to Trump’s assertion that they are coming after me too, as soon as they get him out of the way.
1,500 political J6 prisoners convinced me that Trump is right to sound the Paul Revere alarm.
Marci, I usually so appreciate your comments, but I don’t understand your points. I don’t understand the legal liabilities you refer to. Nor the manipulation of the audience. Maybe I’m missing something…
My only comment is that for an accomplished diplomat, Bolton has a singular difficulty making friends.
It’s probably a difference in perspective. A long career in book publishing in which I was always on high alert for statements made in passing by an author that might cause a lawsuit, even a frivolous one, has probably shaped my opinion here. :) We are, as George H. W. Bush pointed out as he left office, truly a “litigious society.” Writers and speakers have to be very very careful.
I’m not sure why my second point isn’t clear. If someone steals my purse and I want help in tracking down the thief, I might say to an audience, “You need to help me because this could happen to you too.” Sometimes that’s a fair and accurate statement; sometimes it’s just manipulative–that is, it is just an attempt to get you as upset as I am. You really aren’t at risk.