How Trump’s protectors are failing him over and over again — and will get him killed unless we act now
New York Post
Overall Assessment
The article is a first-person opinion piece disguised as investigative reporting, using dramatic language and self-promotion to argue that Trump's security is dangerously inadequate. It relies solely on the author’s assertions without independent verification or balanced sourcing. The framing emphasizes imminent danger and institutional collapse, prioritizing emotional impact over factual neutrality.
"What I’ve found is not just failure, but an alarming level of negligence that will get the president killed unless we act now."
Editorializing
Headline & Lead 30/100
The headline and lead employ alarmist and emotionally charged language to frame Secret Service failures as systemic and life-threatening, prioritizing drama over measured analysis.
✕ Sensationalism: The headline uses alarmist language such as 'will get him killed unless we act now' to provoke fear and urgency, which exaggerates the article's tone beyond standard news reporting.
"How Trump’s protectors are failing him over and over again — and will get him killed unless we act now now"
✕ Loaded Language: Phrases like 'failing him over and over again' imply repeated moral or professional failure without neutral assessment, framing the security apparatus as negligent rather than challenged.
"How Trump’s protectors are failing him over and over again"
Language & Tone 25/100
The article is written as a personal polemic rather than a neutral report, using emotionally charged language and moral condemnation to frame security lapses.
✕ Editorializing: The author presents personal opinions and judgments as fact, such as declaring 'an alarming level of negligence,' which is a value-laden assertion not typical of objective reporting.
"What I’ve found is not just failure, but an alarming level of negligence that will get the president killed unless we act now."
✕ Appeal To Emotion: The repeated emphasis on imminent death and catastrophic failure is designed to evoke fear rather than inform calmly.
"will get the president killed unless we act now"
✕ Narrative Framing: The article constructs a story of inevitable doom due to incompetence, fitting facts into a dramatic arc of failure and danger rather than a neutral timeline of events.
"four documented assassination attempts... will get the president killed unless we act now"
Balance 35/100
The article relies entirely on a single, self-promoting source with no balancing perspectives from official agencies, experts, or opposing views.
✕ Vague Attribution: The author refers to his own firm and experience repeatedly but provides no independent verification or counterpoint from official sources like the Secret Service or DHS.
"My experience growing Brosnan Risk Consultants from a one-man basement operation into a firm deploying over 7,000 elite security professionals across 43 states..."
✕ Cherry Picking: The article cites four incidents without providing official confirmation, context on threat assessments, or input from law enforcement agencies involved.
"In the past 22 months, four documented assassination attempts have been made against President Donald Trump."
✕ Loaded Language: Describing agencies as having 'collapsed at the most basic level' is a strong, unverified judgment made without sourcing to external experts or reports.
"Local, state and federal agencies collapsed at the most basic level."
Completeness 30/100
The article lacks essential context about official investigations, threat assessments, and operational constraints, presenting a one-sided view of security failures.
✕ Omission: The article fails to mention whether any of the incidents have been officially confirmed as assassination attempts by federal authorities, which is critical context.
✕ Misleading Context: The claim that a drone could have prevented the Butler shooting ignores operational realities, airspace regulations, and the feasibility of counter-drone deployment at political events.
"With readily available counter-drone technology, integrated with ironclad security protocols and real-time command, Crooks would have been identified and neutralized long before he climbed Building 6 and fired."
✕ Cherry Picking: The author selects only incidents that support his thesis of systemic failure, without acknowledging improvements or successful interventions during the same period.
"four documented assassination attempts"
Secret Service portrayed as systematically incompetent and failing in core protective duties
The article uses repeated assertions of failure, negligence, and systemic breakdown to frame the Secret Service and other agencies as incapable of protecting Trump. It constructs a narrative of inevitable doom due to institutional collapse.
"What I’ve found is not just failure, but an alarming level of negligence that will get the president killed unless we act now."
Public safety infrastructure is portrayed as in a state of permanent crisis and emergency
The article constructs a narrative of ongoing, escalating danger using dramatic language and a pattern of near-misses, suggesting a breakdown of normal order and routine security.
"These attempts on Trump’s life were not random acts of God. And the near misses were the predictable result of outdated thinking, weak technology, fragmented command and personnel who lack the elite training and battlefield mindset required for this threat level."
The presidency is framed as existentially endangered due to security failures
The article repeatedly emphasizes imminent death and catastrophic vulnerability, using fear-based language to suggest the office itself is under constant, unmitigated threat.
"will get the president killed unless we act now"
Law enforcement agencies are framed as untrustworthy and negligent in their duty
The author claims agencies 'collapsed at the most basic level' and failed to deploy basic tools like drones or canine units, implying a breach of professional integrity and accountability.
"Local, state and federal agencies collapsed at the most basic level."
Domestic security actors are framed as passive and unprepared adversaries against threats
The framing contrasts the lone shooter who 'thought to put a drone in the air' with multiple agencies that did not, casting official actors as passive and outmaneuvered by attackers.
"The shooter was the only person who thought to put a drone in the air that day: Incredibly, none of the multiple agencies on scene did."
The article is a first-person opinion piece disguised as investigative reporting, using dramatic language and self-promotion to argue that Trump's security is dangerously inadequate. It relies solely on the author’s assertions without independent verification or balanced sourcing. The framing emphasizes imminent danger and institutional collapse, prioritizing emotional impact over factual neutrality.
A private security consultant has raised concerns about the adequacy of protection for former President Donald Trump, citing four recent incidents where individuals approached or breached event perimeters. While the author, who leads a private security firm, calls for improved protocols, none of the incidents have been independently confirmed as assassination attempts by federal authorities.
New York Post — Other - Crime
Based on the last 60 days of articles
New York Post
