Discover more from @amuse
The position of the United States Secret Service Director is one that demands a steely resolve, a steady hand, and an unerring commitment to duty. It is a post meant for those who value the protection of the nation's leaders above any personal aspirations. Yet, Acting Director Ronald Rowe has repeatedly demonstrated an alarming lack of these qualities, culminating in an outburst during a congressional hearing that laid bare his temperament and misplaced priorities.
Rowe's altercation with Representative Pat Fallon (R-Texas) during a congressional hearing may have been shocking, but perhaps not surprising. During the exchange, Fallon pressed Rowe about his conduct at this year's 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero. Specifically, Fallon wanted to know why Rowe was positioned so conspicuously close to both President Biden and President-elect Trump, seemingly displacing other agents tasked with providing the utmost protection. It was a fair and necessary question—after all, protocol exists to ensure the President's safety, not to provide photo opportunities.
Rather than calmly addressing the inquiry, Rowe chose instead to invoke his experience working at Ground Zero after 9/11, as if to justify his actions with an emotional appeal. It was a clear evasion, leveraging the tragedy of September 11th to deflect scrutiny. The problem isn't Rowe's past actions on 9/11, which were surely honorable; it's that his service then has no bearing on whether his decision to alter security protocol at the memorial was sound. When leaders dodge legitimate questions by leaning on past deeds, it signals they lack a coherent defense of their current actions.
Even more concerning than Rowe's deflections was his tone. As Fallon continued to press, Rowe's frustration boiled over into a shouting match. He accused Fallon of politicizing 9/11, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it was his own behavior—jeopardizing security at a memorial event—that warranted political oversight in the first place. It is precisely the kind of loss of control that cannot be tolerated in the head of an agency like the Secret Service. The Director must be someone whose composure remains intact, no matter how heated the situation becomes. Rowe's outburst suggested that when the pressure mounts, his temperament cannot be trusted.
The critical issue at hand is one of judgment, both operational and personal. By placing himself prominently next to the President and President-elect during a high-profile event, Rowe undermined the carefully orchestrated protective measures designed by the agency. It is standard procedure for the Special Agent in Charge (SAIC) to stand closest to the President in these settings. That agent is trained for rapid response, prepared to make split-second decisions that could mean the difference between life and death. For Rowe to displace that agent without cause is more than an error—it is a failure to understand the most basic principles of the role.
Rowe’s defenders might argue that his presence at the memorial was a show of respect, but respect for the fallen should never come at the expense of the living. The Secret Service's primary mission is to ensure that no harm comes to those under its protection. The sight of Rowe positioning himself where the head of Biden's protective detail should have been raises serious questions about whether he values optics more than duty.
Fallon’s line of questioning wasn't gratuitous. He was highlighting an important pattern of behavior—one that suggests Rowe has repeatedly allowed ego and ambition to cloud his judgment. Last summer’s attempted assassination of President Trump stands as another glaring example. As Deputy Director at the time, Rowe delayed visiting the site, an omission that many within the agency viewed as a dereliction of his responsibility to support his agents. This delay reflected poorly on Rowe’s commitment to the agents he was supposed to lead.
The fallout from these incidents is evident within the ranks of the Secret Service. Sources close to the agency describe an atmosphere of frustration and disillusionment, with many agents feeling that Rowe's priorities are misaligned with the core values of the Secret Service. His actions—placing himself in key positions for optics, shouting down congressional oversight, and failing to show timely support for his agents—betray a pattern of self-centered leadership.
The American people deserve better. The role of the Secret Service Director demands not only operational competence but also a profound humility—a recognition that the job is about service, not self-aggrandizement. A true leader would never put personal image over the safety of those they protect. Rowe’s behavior in Congress, his disregard for protocol, and his propensity for defensiveness under pressure all point to a man ill-suited to lead an agency that must operate with absolute precision and discretion.
At a time when threats to national security are as present as ever, the Secret Service requires a leader who can instill confidence both within the agency and with the American public. This leader must be someone who understands that protecting the President is not an opportunity for personal glory but a solemn duty that demands unwavering focus, calm, and integrity. Unfortunately, Ronald Rowe has failed to live up to these requirements.
Leadership in the Secret Service is not about making oneself the center of attention, nor is it about shouting down those who seek accountability. It is about standing quietly at the back, ever vigilant, ensuring that the nation's leaders are safe from harm. Rowe’s missteps reveal a troubling disconnect from these core principles. It is time for the United States to have a Secret Service Director who embodies the ideals of selflessness, humility, and a steadfast dedication to the mission—qualities that are glaringly absent in Ronald Rowe's conduct.
If you don't already, please follow me on 𝕏 at https://x.com/amuse or medium.