Connect with us

International

Lawmakers call for changes at Secret Service after second assassination attempt

Published

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

“If Trump had a full USSS security detail following J13, the shooter at Mar-a-Lago wouldn’t have gone unnoticed for 12 hours”

U.S. lawmakers are calling for changes in how the U.S. Secret Service protects former President Donald Trump after a second assassination attempt Sunday.

Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, was able to hide outside a golf course where Trump was golfing. Authorities say Routh pointed the barrel of an assault-style rifle through a chain-link fence toward the golf course, was spotted by an agent, who fired at Routh. The suspect was soon arrested after fleeing the scene.

Routh reportedly waited for 12 hours outside the golf course but was only spotted just in time, raising ongoing concerns about the Secret Service’s work and Trump’s safety.

“If Trump had a full USSS security detail following J13, the shooter at Mar-a-Lago wouldn’t have gone unnoticed for 12 hours,” U.S. Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, one of several lawmakers to call for an increase to Trump’s security detail.

The near-miss encounter comes just two months after Trump was nearly fatally shot July 13 in Butler County, Pennsylvania, when a shooter was able to get on a rooftop overlooking the former president’s position and fired several shots. Trump was grazed in his ear, one rally attendee was killed and two others were wounded. The Secret Service’s handling of that incident – from allowing the shooter to get a direct line of sight to the poor pre-planning to the nearly nonexistent communication with local officers – was widely criticized across the political spectrum and led to the resignation of the agency’s head.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., called for Trump to receive the same protection as President Joe Biden, given the circumstances.

“While we are still awaiting more details about this horrific event, I am thankful that the perpetrator was unsuccessful and the Secret Service agent acted swiftly to ensure that the former president is safe,” Blackburn said in a statement. “But one thing is abundantly clear: within the span of a mere two months, there have been two assassination attempts against a major presidential candidate and former president in the United States of America. It is unfathomable and unacceptable that this incident occurred.”

A coalition of Senators sent a letter to Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe calling on him to allocate more resources to Trump.

Previous Trump requests for more security have reportedly been rejected.

Since Trump is not currently president, he does not receive as large of a team of agents as Biden. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told Congress after the first assassination attempt that Trump’s threat-level status would be increased.

Security experts have echoed that concern. Chris Ragone, owner of Virginia-based Executive Security Concepts who has worked with the Secret Service on presidential security in the past, told The Center Square that if a full presidential-level team of Secret Service agents had been assigned to Trump, they would have found the suspect much faster.

“If they were taking this threat serious… the entire perimeter should have been checked, and they would have found this guy,” Ragone told The Center Square. “You know, if he had parked his car 30 minutes before and got out, OK, but we now know that guy was there for 12 hours, which means there were no resources that checked that entire perimeter. And that’s always the first thing we do is check a perimeter and lock it down.

“I think it wasn’t noticed it because it was a manpower issue,” he added.

As The Center Square previously reported, President Joe Biden told reporters that the U.S. Secret Service “needs more help” though he failed to give specifics when asked.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called on Vice President Kamala Harris to support presidential-level security for Trump as well.

“Two attempted assassinations in 64 days, two failures by Secret Service for having woefully insufficient personnel,” Cruz said on his show, “The Verdict” Monday. “If President Trump wins in November, less than two months away, he will instantly get full presidential Secret Service protection on Election Day. Given that fact, and given the threats and the failures we have seen, the only reasonable and rational thing to do is assign President Trump right now, a full presidential detail that includes the perimeter coverage so that you can’t get a sniper that close, and if Joe Biden doesn’t do it, and by the way, if Kamala Harris had any sense at all, she would join in the call to do this.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections, predicting fossil fuels will dominate well after 2050

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Vijay Jayaraj

A new report from McKinsey & Company, the “Global Energy Perspective,” lays bare what many of us – dismissed as “climate deniers” – have been asserting all along: Coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be the dominant sources of global energy well past 2050.

The McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections. Last year, the management consultant’s models had coal demand falling 40% by 2035. Today, McKinsey projects an uptick of 1% over the same period. The dramatic reversal is driven by record commissioning of coal-fired power plants in China, unexpected increases in global electricity use, and the lack of viable alternatives for industries like steel, chemicals and heavy manufacturing.

The report states that the three fossil fuels will still supply up to 55% of global energy in 2050, a forecast that looks low to me. Today’s share for hydrocarbons is about 64%.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

In any case, McKinsey’s report confirms what seasoned energy analysts and pragmatic policymakers have long maintained: The energy transition will not be swift, simple, or governed solely by climate targets. In fact, this energy transition will not happen at all without large scale deployment of nuclear, geothermal or other technological innovations that prove practical.

In places such as India, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the top energy priorities are access, affordability and reliability, which together add up to national security. Planners are acutely aware of a trap: Sole reliance on weather-dependent power risks blackouts, industrial disruption, economic decline and civil unrest.

That is why many developing nations are embracing a dual track: continued investment in conventional generation (coal, gas, nuclear) while developing alternative technologies. McKinsey says this in consultancy lingo: “Countries and regions will follow distinct trajectories based on local economic conditions, resource endowment, and the realities facing particular industries.”

In countries like India, Indonesia and Nigeria, the scale of electrification and industrial expansion is enormous. These countries cannot afford to wait decades for perfect solutions. They need “reliable and good enough for now.” That means conventional fuels will be retained.

McKinsey’s analysis also underscores what physics and engineering dictate: Intermittent and weather-dependent sources, such as wind and solar, require vast land areas, backup batteries and generation and power-grid investments, none of which come cheaply nor quickly.

The technologies of wind and solar branded as renewable should instead be called economy killers. They make for expensive and unstable electrical systems that have brought energy-rich nations like Germany to their knees. After spending billions of dollars on unreliable wind turbines and solar panels and demolishing nuclear plants and coal plants, the country is struggling with high prices and economic stagnation.

The Germans now have a word for their self-inflicted crisis: Dunkelflaute. It means “dark doldrums”—a period of cold, sunless, windless days when their “green” grid fails. During a Dunkelflaute in November 2024, fossil fuels were called on to provide 70% of Germany’s electricity.

If “renewables” were truly capable, planners would shut down fossil fuel generation. But that is not the case. While wind and solar are pursued in some places, coal and natural gas remain much sought-after fuels. In the first half of 2025 alone, China commissioned about 21 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired capacity, which is more than any other country and the largest increase since 2016.

Further, China has approved construction of 25 GW of new coal plants in the first half of 2025. As of July, China’s mainland has nearly 1,200 coal plants, far outstripping the rest of the world.

McKinsey points to a dramatic surge in electricity demand driven by data centers, which is estimated to be about 17 % annually from 2022 to 2030 in the 38 OECD countries.  This kind of growth in electricity use simply cannot be met by wind and solar.

When analysts, journalists and engineers point out these realities, they’re branded as “shills” for the fossil fuel industry. However, it is not public relations to point out the physics and economics that make up the math for meeting the world’s energy needs. Dismissing such facts is to deny that reliable energy remains the bedrock of modern civilization.

The cost of foolish “green” policies is being paid in lost jobs, ruined businesses, disrupted lives and impoverishment that could have been avoided by wiser choices.

For those who have repeated energy realities for years, the vindication is bittersweet. The satisfaction of being right is tempered by the knowledge that many have suffered because reality has been ignored.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump: Americans to receive $2,000 each from tariff revenue

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump on Sunday said every American with the exception of the wealthy will receive $2,000 from the revenue the U.S. has collected from tariffs.

“A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high-income people!) will be paid to revenue,” Trump posted on Truth Social. He did not say when or how the tariff revenue would be distributed.

“We are now the richest, most respected country in the world with almost no inflation and a record stock market price. 401Ks are highest ever,” Trump wrote. “We are taking in trillions of dollars and will soon begin paying down our enormous debt, $37 trillion. Record investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place.”

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families and pay down the national debt. Economists, businesses and some public companies have warned that tariffs will raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs have been challenged in federal courts as unconstitutional by some business groups and Blue states, who argue that only Congress has the authority to enact tariffs. The U.S. Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments in a consolidated case challenging the tariffs.

Even some of the court’s conservative justices seemed skeptical of Trump’s authority to issue sweeping tariffs. Trump addressed that skepticism in his social media post.

“So let’s get this straight? The president of the United States is allowed (and fully approved by Congress) to stop ALL TRADE  with a foreign country (which is far more onerous than a tariff) and LICENSE a foreign country, but it is not allowed to put a simple tariff on a foreign country, even for the purposes of NATIONAL SECURITY,” he wrote. “That is not what our great founders had in mind. The whole thing is ridiculous! Other countries can tariff us, but we can’t tariff them?  It is their DREAM!!! Businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS. HAS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOT BEEN TOLD THIS??? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON???”

The Center Square’s Brett Rowland contributed to this report. 

Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square.

Continue Reading

Trending

X