Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
The Secret Service’s failure to prevent an assassination attempt on President Trump has the country wondering why an organization with a life-or-death mission is hiring according to race and gender quotas rather than picking the most qualified person for the job.
Last week’s resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, triggered by the uproar over the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, has ignited a fiery debate. Cheatle was a strong advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the agency, pushing for a notable boost in diversity hires, with a target of achieving a 30 percent increase in minority representation by 2025.
Critics argue that the emphasis on DEI contributed to the shortcomings that allowed the assassination attempt to occur. The Secret Service’s failure to properly secure the location, devote enough resources to the rally, and respond appropriately when the shooter was flagged as suspicious more than an hour before Trump took the stage have all been highlighted as critical errors. Additionally, there has been particular scrutiny of the women serving in the detail at the time of the assassination attempt, raising questions about the effectiveness of diversity hires in such high-stakes environments.
From the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump to the contentious issues surrounding DEI within the Secret Service, the call for discernment has never been more pressing. These events are not just political but profoundly spiritual and moral challenges that call for a biblically grounded response.
As the nation grapples with this latest development, one pressing question emerges: Should DEI resign? Furthermore, given the cultural backlash against DEI initiatives in both public and private organizations, what does the future hold for such programs?
From the founding of the United States to the mid-20th century, American culture has predominantly emphasized meritocracy — a social system in which individual abilities, talents, and achievements determine rewards and advancement. This focus on merit has been fundamental to America’s development.
The establishment of America as a nation arose from the determination of men and women who had to build their lives with limited resources. In the nation’s early years, ideals rooted in individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness encouraged personal achievement based on ability and hard work. Early settlers faced immense challenges, discovering a new way of life in an untamed land. With limited supplies and a harsh environment, they relied on ingenuity, hard work, and resilience to survive and prosper. This spirit of determination laid the foundation for a culture that valued personal achievement based on ability and effort.
This ethos was further strengthened during the Industrial Revolution when figures like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller embodied the “rags-to-riches” narrative, and throughout the Progressive Era, which promoted equal opportunity through educational reforms. After World War II, the GI Bill expanded access to education and homeownership, reinforcing the belief in upward mobility through merit.
However, it is essential to recognize that not all groups have had equal access to these opportunities. Ethnic, gender, and economic barriers have frequently hindered the potential of many. In recent decades, the emphasis on diversity has sought to correct historical inequities, advocating for the inclusion of underrepresented groups in education and employment.
This shift, however, raises concerns when hiring decisions, college admissions, or promotions prioritize diversity based on ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation over individual merit. This approach can undermine the principle of rewarding excellence and effort, potentially fostering resentment and questioning the competence of those who are advanced under such criteria. Identifying the best candidates for positions is essential while ensuring all have an equal opportunity to compete.
The attempted assassination of President Trump, and the death of his supporter Corey Comperatore, highlights the tricky line between pushing for inclusivity and upholding the highest standards of excellence. This is especially true in high-stakes roles, like those tasked with protecting national leaders, where every decision counts.
The controversy surrounding the Secret Service’s handling of DEI initiatives adds another layer of complexity to the current political climate. Critics have pointed to DEI policies as directly undermining the effectiveness of the Secret Service, highlighting lapses in security that may have contributed to the assassination attempt on former President Trump. This critique raises another critical question: Is DEI costing lives?
When diversity becomes the sole goal of any hiring practice, the focus shifts away from selecting the most qualified and competent individuals. The emphasis on increasing minority representation, achieving gender parity, or accommodating sexual preferences does not inherently equate to improved organizational effectiveness or security outcomes. Competency, not demographics, must be the priority in roles critical to national security.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s research suggests that diverse law enforcement agencies can increase community trust, but this does not necessarily translate to superior performance in high-stakes situations like those the Secret Service faces. Moreover, while McKinsey & Company found that organizations with high gender diversity are more likely to outperform on profitability, this correlation does not imply causation. It does not necessarily apply to the unique operational needs of security agencies like the Secret Service.
The implementation of DEI policies within the Secret Service, aiming for a 30 percent increase in minority representation by 2025, clearly prioritizes diversity metrics over the agency’s core mission of protecting national leaders and their families. The focus on picking employees based on filling diversity quotas can compromise the effort to select the most qualified and capable individuals for critical security roles. Harvard Business Review’s claim that diverse teams are more likely to perform better in high-stakes environments must be critically examined, as performance relies heavily on specialized skills, experience, and cohesion rather than simply demographic diversity.
According to Pew Research, only 57 percent of employees believe their company’s diversity and inclusion efforts are effective. This indicates significant skepticism about the practical impact of these initiatives. This skepticism is warranted, particularly when DEI policies detract from the primary objectives of maintaining rigorous security protocols and operational excellence.
Additionally, the different requirements for women in the Secret Service, such as physical fitness standards and other operational criteria, have been adjusted to promote gender parity. While the intention is to create a more inclusive environment, this results in lowered standards, not only potentially compromising the agency’s effectiveness and readiness but also potentially putting those being protected, as well as Secret Service agents and the general public, in more danger. This is a crucial area where the focus on diversity over competence can have profound implications.
In navigating the intricate matters of diversity, equity, and inclusion, alongside the integrity needed to respond to violence and political unrest, we must seek wisdom from Scripture. The Bible asserts the inherent value of every person, created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), urging us to respect and love all, irrespective of ethnicity or background. The Apostle Paul reminds us of our unity in Christ (Galatians 3:28), emphasizing that equality should guide our interactions.
The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30) teaches that while diversity is inevitable, we must focus on competency and stewardship of our abilities, striving for excellence in all endeavors. When faced with violence and turmoil, biblical wisdom advocates for measured responses. Romans 12:19 emphasizes trusting God’s justice, maintaining our integrity, and advising against personal vengeance.
Essentially, the Bible provides a framework that honors individual dignity, fosters unity, and calls for discernment in the face of societal challenges. We can navigate complexities with faithfulness and wisdom by anchoring our actions to these biblical principles.
From a Christian perspective, the issue of DEI must be approached with a commitment to biblical principles of justice and equality. While trying to ensure that everyone gets an equal chance is a commendable goal, it should never compromise the integrity and effectiveness of essential services.
Given these considerations, the Secret Service and similar agencies must prioritize performance, competence, and effectiveness over meeting diversity quotas. Ensuring the security of national leaders and the effectiveness of protective operations must remain the foremost concern, free from the potential distractions and compromises introduced by politically driven DEI initiatives.
Instead, focusing on the diversity of ideas and aptitude within a meritocratic framework can provide the real benefits that diversity advocates seek. Diverse perspectives from varied experiences and skills can enhance problem-solving and innovation without sacrificing the standard of excellence required in critical roles.
As Democrat leaders critical of Trump intensified their questioning, it became apparent during the interrogation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle that calls for her resignation were imminent. DEI initiatives and the necessity of having a woman in the agency’s highest position would no longer be sufficient to justify Cheatle’s continued tenure. This historical precedent highlighted the importance of accountability and the expectation that roles crucial to national security should meet the highest standards, regardless of an individual’s gender or background.
Given this context, we must ask: Is it time for DEI initiatives themselves to face resignation, or should we seek a more balanced approach that truly supports the mission and operational effectiveness of the Secret Service and similar agencies? Although the intention behind diversity, equity, and inclusion policies is commendable, these initiatives must not compromise the fundamental goals of upholding high performance and security standards.
Equal opportunities through recruitment practices are essential, ensuring everyone has a fair chance to demonstrate their capabilities regardless of their background. However, only the most qualified and capable individuals should be hired for roles critical to national security. A focus on merit and competency must remain paramount to maintain the effectiveness, readiness, and excellence required in such high-stakes and potentially deadly environments.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
