WASHINGTON — After the second assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump in two months, a fevered debate has broken out in Congress over whether the Secret Service needs more money.

Because the dispute is unfolding on Capitol Hill and comes little more than six weeks before a presidential election, the question has, perhaps predictably, become mired in politics. And given that there are only 11 days before Congress’ deadline for extending federal spending, it is threatening to complicate already contentious negotiations aimed at heading off a government shutdown Oct. 1.

Related Story: To Win Votes, Trump Floats an Array of Expensive Tax Cuts

Republicans Blame Democrats

Republicans have sought to pin blame on Democrats and their anti-Trump statements for the actions of Ryan W. Routh, 58, who was arrested Sunday after hiding in the bushes with an assault rifle at Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, in an apparent attempt to target the former president. They have accused the administration of providing better protection for President Joe Biden than for Trump and plan to vote Friday on a bill that would ensure that Trump is protected at the same level as the president — something the Secret Service says is already happening.

Democrats, who routinely note that Trump has long trafficked in the kind of bellicose language that can fuel political violence, have said they are all for beefing up protections for him and fixing what is broken with the Secret Service.

They have even offered to increase funding for the embattled agency, including potentially through a stopgap spending bill they are negotiating to avert a government shutdown. In doing so, Democrats are effectively daring Republicans — who are bent on slashing spending, not increasing it — to be the ones to object to paying for increased protection for Trump.

“If the Secret Service is in need of more resources, we are prepared to provide it for them, possibly in the upcoming funding agreement,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, said on the floor this week.

On Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans — who typically shower the Secret Service with more money than the agency requests in annual spending bills — were discussing an increase over the agency’s existing budget of nearly $3 billion, according to people familiar with the talks.

Related Story: Teamsters Union Declines to Endorse Trump or Harris for President

Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, the No. 3 Democrat, said “bipartisan, bicameral” discussions were underway. But he added that the agency had struggled to fill vacant positions and retain staff.

“The Secret Service, like a lot of other federal law enforcement agencies including Capitol Police, have not been able to hire the number of people that they are authorized to hire for a variety of reasons,” Aguilar said. “This is a combination of both funding as well as questions and discussions as to how we ensure that they can staff up to carry on their mission.”

Republicans have largely objected to the idea that the Secret Service needs an urgent injection of funds, demanding that the agency reallocate resources to better protect Trump.

”No, no! We don’t need more funding,” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., said at a news conference Tuesday. “We’ve got 7,000 Secret Service officers out there right now.”

He added: “They’ve got plenty of personnel. They’ve got plenty of money. They need to prioritize where to be placing these Secret Service agents. They’ve got the people to do it.”

Speaker Does Not Believe More Money Is Necessary

Speaker Mike Johnson was similarly skeptical, saying he was willing to back more money for the agency if it was necessary but did not believe funding issues had truly hampered the Secret Service. Instead, he said, the problems at the agency stemmed from a “lack of leadership.”

Republicans were throwing their support behind legislation sponsored by Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is in a competitive race for reelection.

Lawler’s bill would require the Secret Service to “apply the same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect presidents, vice presidents and major presidential and vice presidential candidates.”

The Secret Service told Congress on Wednesday that it was already providing the highest level of protection for Trump. Biden ordered that level of security for Trump after the first assassination attempt in July, the agency said.

“He had the same coverage as a sitting president as he did last Sunday,” said Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., who is the chair of a bipartisan task force investigating the assassination attempts against Trump and received a briefing from the Secret Service.

Related Story: Secret Service Told Trump It Needs to Bolster Security if He Keeps Golfing

Ronald L. Rowe Jr., the agency’s acting director, said the Secret Service had some “immediate needs” and suggested at a news conference this week that it had long been stretched too thin. “We have done more with less for decades,” he said.

The back-and-forth comes as Congress struggles to coalesce around a short-term funding bill before the deadline. House Republicans tried and failed Wednesday to pass a stopgap spending bill tied to unrelated legislation targeting voting by immigrants in the country illegally. With the demise of that plan, lawmakers in both parties expected talks among House and Senate leaders and White House officials on a potential compromise to intensify.

The Biden administration has asked Congress to let the Secret Service spend more quickly to avoid a shortfall in the next several weeks while lawmakers resolve the annual spending bills to fund the government through next fall.

Without such language inserted into a short-term spending deal, the Secret Service would have “insufficient resources to sustain and enhance protective operations,” the administration told Congress this week.

Rowe has also told Congress that his agency could use more robust funding, including additional money for travel and overtime to cover increased protection for Trump and the purchase of new equipment.

–

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

By Luke Broadwater/Kenny Holston
c. 2024 The New York Times Company