Congress all over the map with ideas to move embattled Secret Service out of Homeland Security

Scrutiny of the Secret Service in the aftermath of two assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump has led some lawmakers to question the agency’s home in the Department of Homeland Security.

Members of Congress have complained that the department has not been cooperative enough with its investigations into the assassination attempts and has too many missions to provide effective management of the Secret Service.

“It could be better run and be more finely tuned,” Rep. Roger Williams, Texas Republican, told The Washington Times.

For years, Mr. Williams has proposed legislation to move the Secret Service back to the Treasury Department, its home for more than 100 years before it was transferred to Homeland Security in 2003.

Congress enacted the law making that change and could pass a bill to reverse it or rehome the Secret Service outside either department.

Lawmakers also have suggested moving the Secret Service directly under the White House, where its top-level protectees are, or under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which could help the agency better analyze and manage threats.

The Secret Service is most known for providing protective services to current and former presidents, vice presidents and their families, as well as candidates for those offices and visiting foreign dignitaries.

The Secret Service is also charged with conducting criminal investigations into financial crimes, including credit card, wire and bank fraud, counterfeiting, and cyberattacks on the nation’s financial systems.

That is why some lawmakers see the Treasury Department as its more natural home.

“They could focus more on what their mission is if they were under Treasury,” Mr. Williams said.

While Mr. Williams had led the push in the House, Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, has proposed a move in the Senate.

Mr. Graham told The Times he is seeking a new lead Democratic co-sponsor for the legislation after the death of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but he doesn’t see any opportunity for it to be considered before the next Congress.

Other lawmakers The Times interviewed agreed that any effort to rehome the Secret Service should not be rushed.

“I think we need to sort through this direct problem of the seeming competency problem and resource problem, whatever it is, and figure it out before we think about where it belongs,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat. “Let’s get it working right first.”

Mr. Whitehouse, who co-sponsored Mr. Graham’s legislation to return the Secret Service to the Treasury Department, said he still supports that concept.

“Homeland Security is very unwieldy and would be delighted to narrow its scope and move law enforcement agencies more to where their original homes were,” he said.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and another previous co-sponsor, said he supports moving the Secret Service but doesn’t expect quick action from Congress.

“Homeland Security was a hodgepodge to start with, so I think that’s been part of the problem,” Mr. Cornyn said.

With the security lapses that led to the assassination attempts on Mr. Trump, the Secret Service is “not covering itself in glory now,” Mr. Cornyn said.

“So I really think they need to get back to their primary function, which is dignitary protection,” he said. “And I know historically, they’ve done other things, but this is getting beyond ridiculous, and so I’m for whatever will make that better.”

Sen. Roger Marshall, Kansas Republican, said the Secret Service’s mission “is never going to be a priority for DHS.” He has suggested moving the agency to the White House Office of Management and Budget because it has direct contact with the president, the Secret Service’s top protectee.

“I’m not ready to say that’s absolutely the best place for it,” Mr. Marshall told The Times. “But I do think that people smarter than me need to bring all those facts to the table and discuss the pros and cons of where they do fit. But certainly something’s wrong now.”

Rep. Cory Mills, Florida Republican, suggests the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a better home for the Secret Service, at least for its protective divisions, given threats from adversarial nations such as Iran, which has targeted Mr. Trump and other U.S. officials.

“It doesn’t make sense that you would harness those all under one umbrella,” Mr. Mills said of the Secret Service’s multiple missions. “I think that they should be delegated to the areas of responsibility and jurisdiction.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri Republican, said the Department of Homeland Security is “maybe not” the best home for the Secret Service, given its performance and “the worst secretary in the history of the agency,” but he didn’t have a preference for an alternative.

“DHS has been a big part of the problem when it comes to the Secret Service’s cooperation with congressional investigators,” he said.

Others were less convinced that a move would help solve issues with the Secret Service.

“That’s just kind of moving chess pieces around the chessboard,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican. “Government just doesn’t work, bottom line. If I were Trump, I’d have my own security detail. I mean, I’d use the government resources, but I would have somebody myself in charge.”

Mr. Johnson said it was a mistake for Congress to move the Secret Service to Homeland Security because it is “way too large a bureaucracy.”

Mr. Johnson is the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations, which has been working with the full committee leaders to investigate the Trump assassination attempts.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who chairs the subcommittee, said an interim report revealed numerous chain-of-command and resource issues within the Secret Service that must be addressed.

The solution is better management, not moving the agency to a different department, he said. “The challenge is for the head of the Department of Homeland Security to impose reforms and new leadership in the Secret Service, regardless of where it is.”

Sens. Christopher Murphy, Connecticut Democrat, and Katie Boyd Britt, Alabama Republican, the leaders of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Homeland Security and Secret Service funding, were also not ready to consider moving the agency.

“I don’t see another more appropriate home,” Mr. Murphy said. “To the extent the Secret Service has challenges, I don’t think that the challenge is the department they’re housed in.”

Ms. Britt said the Secret Service’s issues of “management and direction” can be fixed only within the agency, and that needs to be the priority heading into the presidential election’s final stretch.

“We need them making tough decisions, being more strategic and being thoughtful about the task in front of them,” she said. “Now is the time to focus on the Secret Service doing its job and doing it well.”

Ms. Britt said she would be “open to a robust conversation” about moving the Secret Service after the elections and the conclusion of congressional investigations into the assassination attempts.

Other lawmakers agreed that a thorough vetting process would be needed to consider such a significant change.

“You don’t just pick them up and plop them down over here,” Sen. Thomas R. Carper, Delaware Democrat, told The Times. “It’s something that, in fact, I think could only be done with a lot of forethought, a lot of hearings and discussion.”