The Elephant in the Room: Female Secret Service Agents

It was clear today during the House Oversight Committee hearing on the Secret Service's failure on July 13 that Director Kimberly Cheatle is either a shameless liar or completely incompetent—probably both. Her refusal to answer the most basic questions about the shooting, which nearly killed Donald Trump, has disqualified her for the job—full stop. She needs to be fired, along with other incompetent Secret Service bureaucrats in the agency. 

Among other things, she revealed that she didn't sign off on Trump's protective plan that day. In fact, she doesn't sign off on any of the plans. She also admitted that even though she's deeply involved in the supposed investigation of her agency's failures (wherein she is investigating herself), she hasn't bothered to visit the shooting site. 

One issue that repeatedly came up during the hearing was DEI hires in the agency and whether the female agents assigned to Trump were qualified for the job. Last year, Cheatle announced a goal of 30% female recruits, along with a whole host of diversity measures. 

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) called Cheatle a "DEI horror story." 

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) accused Republicans of racism and misogyny because that's all she knows how to do. 

Republicans have exploited this moment to continue to attack programs for racial justice and gender equity in America. Disappointing, but not surprising. I hesitate to repeat their racist and sexist tropes. But in summary, Republicans have wrongfully and shamefully stated that hiring women and people of color hindered the response to the shooting. Now, this is part and parcel of Republican strategy to constantly attack necessary diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts to undermine the contributions that women, people of color, the disability community, and others each and every day, and it is disgraceful in the wake of gun violence and tragic loss of life.

Asked about diversity hires at the agency, Cheatle replied that she's focused on hiring the "best and brightest" and "best-qualified candidates."

But is that true? 

I wrote this on our liveblog the day of the shooting: 

It's time to have an adult conversation about the elephant in the room — women in the Secret Service. The question must be asked: Was Trump's security detail compromised by diversity hires (women, gays, trans people, etc.)? In the case of women, it's indisputable that men are stronger and faster than women. No one but the hopelessly deluded DEI enforcer believes otherwise. Someone going by the moniker @eyeslasho posted this chart on X today:

It shows how the physical fitness standards are lower for female Secret Service trainees—in this case, pushups, with men's scores on the left. For a man to be considered "Excellent" in the 20s age group, he must complete 55 pushups; for a woman, it's only 40. Women can get away with only 26 pushups and still be considered "Good." (Note: a man in his 20s should be able to do WAY more than 55 pushups.) 

Eyeslasho added, "Shockingly, a total of only 6 points is required to pass the four-element test," which includes pushups, sit-ups, chin-ups, and a 1.5 mile run. "And even if you don't score 6 points, you can still be admitted upon further 'review and recommendation.'"

"Overall, I'm not impressed by what is physically required of those who enter the Secret Service," he concluded. 

Neither am I. 

We've all seen the pictures of a bloodied Trump surrounded by his protective detail. The men on the team were tall enough to place their heads between Trump's head and the shooter; the female agent was significantly shorter, exposing Trump's head. 

Make no mistake: The agent in the picture above was incredibly brave. She placed her body between Trump and the shooter without hesitation and deserves to be praised for her effort. It's not her fault that she is shorter than the male agents or that someone at the Secret Service placed her in that position. 

Diversity, for its own sake, is ridiculous; diversity in jobs where someone's life is on the line could be deadly. 

I work out with some female law enforcement officers, and they are absolute beasts in the gym. But the strongest women in the gym can't compete with the men when it comes to strength tests. 

If I place my life in the hands of the Secret Service, I want the strongest, fastest, and best-trained agent possible. Women can be incredibly strong and fit and can certainly be well-trained. But if I had to choose between a man and a woman of similar age and training, I'd go with the man every time. If someone's going to have to carry my lifeless body off a dais, I want the guy with huge biceps and legs like tree trunks. "Yasss girl power!" is not going to cut it. 

Yes, I know it's not politically correct to speak about gender in a way that suggests women ≠ to men, but as the managing editor of PJ Media, I don't demand political correctness. I don't force writers to use "preferred genders," unlike other sites (one of which rhymes with "box"). That decision has gotten us demonetized, throttled, and censored, but we refuse to back down. You should demand no less of the websites you frequent. 

If you agree with this policy, please become a supporting VIP member today. For a limited time, we are offering 60% off memberships. For $1.68 per month, you can support our conservative journalism and analysis. In return, you'll gain access to hundreds of exclusive, members-only articles every month. For a few bucks more, you can level up to GOLD and get exclusive content at PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, Twitchy, HotAir, and Bearing Arms, plus live chats with your favorite contributors across all the sites. Sign up here today!