Over the past few weeks, I’ve read a couple articles about Trump wanting to continue using a private security detail once he becomes president, including this one. I was struck by the arrogance and insularity of this wish. It seems foolish not to fully rely on the expertise and resources of the Secret Service, and it seems another sign of Trump’s tendency to rely on a group of loyalist insiders as he makes his way in the world, even when better options are available to him now that he’s president. It also hints at a basic incompetence to this inbred approach, perhaps best illustrated by his personal bodyguard's dilatory response to a possible threat at a rally during the campaign.
Most of all, I was struck by the imperial thuggishness of the idea - a security group not accountable to the public or the presidency, but with personal loyalty to this particular president. During the campaign, of course, Trump used his security to throw out people he didn't want at his rallies, or, rather, to throw out people once he'd harangued and otherwise used them to rile up the anger and hate of his supporters. I think we have to assume that Trump intends for such bullying and un-presidential behavior to be the norm for his presidency as well. Given the campaign history of his security team, and the president-elect's authoritarian tendencies, I also can't help thinking of them as the enforcers that any good autocrat keeps at his beck and call to intimidate his enemies. There is a combination of buffoonery and menace to a private security detail that is quintessentially Trump -- but as we learned from his campaign and unfortunate victory, the buffoonery doesn't make the menace any less real or dangerous.
This story posted on CNN raises a couple other significant angles on Trump wanting a private security team. Author Jon D. Michaels notes an implicit message that the Secret Service isn't good enough to do the job, which is of a piece with Trump's - and I would add, with the Republican party's - larger ideological war against competent government. It's another way to undermine the idea that government is good for anything. In an analogous vein, Michaels points out the larger implications of a president who relies on private funds to potentially run his own essentially privatized government, which would be immune from Congress' balancing control over funding the executive relies on. He uses the theoretical example of a wealthy Homeland Security head who uses personal funds to pay for workers to implement anti-immigrant measures despite Congressional restrictions on the budget the department has to work with. This might sound outlandish, but there are laws in place to prevent this sort of thing, which means it's a threat that has already been considered worth addressing; and if you think the Trump presidency isn't going to be about aggrandizement of presidential power and the challenging of political norms across the board, then you haven't been paying attention for the last year and a half.
Again, I'm reminded that one of the central challenges of opposing Trump is choosing where to make a stand when his assault on our values and security is so tremendously broad. I agree with Michaels' assessment - it might not seem like a big deal compared to other issues, but there are important principles at stake. And from a political angle, calling it out is an effective way to link Trump's narcissism, rejection of expertise, and denigration of long-established political norms in a way that can resonate with the public; it neatly encapsulates concerns that so many people have about his basic competence, judgment, and commitment to our traditions.