When Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent with more than a decade of experience protecting American presidents, raises alarms about the safety of a former president, it deserves serious consideration. Bongino isn’t a media commentator with no direct experience; he was on protective details during a period when presidential security doctrine changed radically after 9/11. His professional background gives weight to his claims about evolving threat landscapes, how rhetoric and politics influence risk, and the real-world consequences of complacency in protection. Given that Trump remains one of the most polarizing political figures in modern U.S. history, Bongino’s warnings don’t come from partisan hyperbole but from someone familiar with assessing and responding to genuine threats. Though much of the public discourse has focused on legal wrangling, political narratives, and media outrage cycles, Bongino’s statements were intended to spark a sober national conversation about the intersection of politics, trust in institutions, and physical risk.

Bongino’s career in the Secret Service spanned from 1999 to 2011, including time on presidential protective details where he worked alongside high-level officials and witnessed firsthand how threat environments change over time. His perspective is informed by decades of exposure to both domestic security operations and evolving global geopolitical tensions. In his assessment, several threat streams are converging around Trump in ways that historical precedent doesn’t fully capture. These include hostile foreign actors with strategic incentives, increasingly radicalized domestic extremists, and what Bongino perceives as institutional hostility or politicization of protection practices themselves. Each threat alone would require heightened vigilance, but their simultaneous interaction—what security professionals call threat convergence—creates a volatile environment that demands careful, nonpolitical attention. According to Bongino, neglecting even one of these vectors could have serious consequences; taken together, they represent a level of risk that cannot be ignored simply because the subject of concern holds opposing political views.

Bongino places particular emphasis on the foreign threat dimension. U.S. actions taken during Trump’s presidency, particularly the 2020 strike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, have left lingering geopolitical tensions. While Iran’s leadership has publicly denied any assassination plots against Trump, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement have previously attributed threats to Iranian-aligned actors—though Tehran has repeatedly disputed involvement.  Moreover, Trump himself has publicly stated that he would order severe retaliation if Iran attempted to assassinate him. Regardless of how these specific dynamics are interpreted, the broader point remains: major foreign adversaries often view high-profile American political figures through strategic lenses, and intelligence agencies routinely monitor foreign interest in U.S. leaders for this reason. The risk, Bongino argues, is not merely abstract rhetoric but a real indicator that hostile actors may seek opportunities when domestic contexts are distracting or when institutional focus is fragmented.

On the domestic front, Bongino underscores how rhetoric matters—even when it is intended as satire, performance, or protest. Years of dehumanizing language directed at Trump from various public figures have, he claims, blurred lines between criticism and incitement. While most participants in political discourse do not intend violence, threat assessment professionals know that extreme rhetoric can resonate with unstable individuals and escalate into lone-wolf attacks. Scholarly literature on threat assessment supports the idea that repeated cues—especially those that frame violence as justified or necessary—can be interpreted by some people as moral permission for violent action. Bongino stopped short of accusing specific individuals or groups of direct responsibility, but he emphasized that cumulative effects matter: persistent hostile characterization of any political figure raises the probability that someone with ill intent might act. This dynamic has been observed in past political violence across ideological lines, where individuals influenced by extreme language or imagery carry out attacks without direct coordination.

Arguably the most unsettling part of Bongino’s argument focuses not just on threats themselves, but on whether protection mechanisms can become politicized. The U.S. Secret Service is legally bound to make protection decisions based on objective threat assessments rather than partisan sentiment. However, Bongino has publicly questioned whether political hostility toward Trump could influence decisions about visibility, resource allocation, or security protocols. His concern is that decisions driven by image management or discomfort with Trump’s persona could undermine the integrity of protective measures. In protective services, anything that shifts focus from rigorous, threat-based analysis—such as optics or resentment—constitutes a major red flag. Historical security failures, including those involving presidents like Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, often stemmed not from lack of information but from choices influenced by considerations tangential to security. Bongino’s warning is meant to highlight that institutional trust and restraint are as critical as physical security measures.

American history offers sobering reminders of what happens when warnings about threats are dismissed. Lincoln’s safety concerns were regarded as paranoia, Garfield’s assassin was known but disregarded, and Kennedy’s motorcade route remained exposed due to aesthetic and political considerations. In each case, failures occurred because institutions underestimated risk or prioritized factors other than protection. Bongino’s warning arrives before any tragedy, giving policymakers and the public a chance to consider adjustments proactively rather than reactively. Moreover, the issue extends beyond Trump himself: the safety of former presidents is a national interest that transcends partisan divides. If protection systems are weakened by political hostility, every future president—regardless of party—could be vulnerable to the same corrosive logic. This moment tests whether the United States can maintain protective institutions above the political battlefield; history has shown that failures in that domain carry dire human and national consequences.