Replies

He signed off on the security plan. So now you suddenly think the security plan was okay?

There are still more questions that need to be asked and answered before I am willing to go down this road.

Does "signed off" mean what you suggest that it means?"
Did Curry have veto power over the plan, or was he just the detail leader? If Curran didn't have veto power, they he didn't "sign off" on the plan, he only acknowledged that he had seen the plan and understood his duties and responsibilities.
The entire security detail included an agent in charge, an advance team that pre-scouted the scene, a commander at the operations center, coordinators at the operations center to handle cross-communications with local law enforcement, a sniper detail, a drone operator, and roving agents in the field. Was Curran in charge of all of these people? If not, then he did not "sign off" on the plan, he only acknowledged that he had seen the plan and understood his duties and responsibilities.
There were reports that the security team requested additional resources and was denied. They requested additional drones and was denied. They requested more experienced agents and was denied. Was it Curran who made those requests or someone else?

I did an AI search on these questions. For question #3, the response was the acknowledgement that these requests were made and denied by Secret Service headquarters, but there are no reported names of the people who made the requests or who specifically denied them.

For question #2, the response was that Sean Curran was Special Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protective Detail (PPD) and had significant operational authority over the immediate team protecting the president. He could raise objections, request changes, and escalate concerns about security plans. He had the ability to halt or delay a movement or event if he perceived an imminent threat or a critical flaw in the immediate security posture.

For question #1, the agent in charge (such as the Special Agent in Charge of the protective detail) is required to acknowledge that they have reviewed the security plan and understand their responsibilities and accountabilities for the event. Ultimate veto authority over the entire operation, including strategic resource allocation, major changes to security posture, and approval of plans, resided with Secret Service headquarters and senior leadership. If a detail leader like Curran believed a plan was inadequate, he could formally object and escalate the issue, but headquarters had the final say on whether to implement changes or provide additional resources.

So, Sean Curran was the top-ranking agent for Trump’s immediate protection and played a significant role in coordinating the broader security operation, but he was not the sole commander of every specialized team or the entire protective apparatus. His authority was substantial at the event level, but ultimate operational control is distributed across multiple layers within the Secret Service.

Curran’s role required him to review, acknowledge, and execute the security plan for the event. He could raise objections or escalate concerns, but he did not have unilateral authority to approve or veto the entire plan if headquarters had already made determinations about resources or strategic posture.

In my opinion, Curran did not "sign off" on the whole operation, as the GP article is suggesting.

-PJ