Why the Secret Service’s use of force on Senator Padilla was legally justified

On June 12, Democratic Senator Alex Padilla was captured on video being ejected from a press conference with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. The video begins with federal agents pushing the senator out of the room, then shows him being forced to the ground and handcuffed despite his protestations and assertion that he was a senator.

Immediately, criticism arose regarding “excessive force” used when the senator was “only asking a question.” Additionally, questions were raised about why federal agents failed to recognize the senator.

The video is incomplete, which can lead viewers to readily accept the criticism as valid. However, context is everything. In any incident involving law enforcement use of force, the “totality of circumstances” must be examined to render any judgment. Although the video lacks full context, viewing it through the lens of the Secret Service’s protective mandate reveals key details.

Inside the Secret Service protective mission

The Secretary of DHS is under the protection of the U.S. Secret Service. This means that wherever the DHS secretary goes, a “secure bubble” is established around them under federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3056. This statute mandates that the Secret Service create these security zones for their protectees, which include the president, their family, the vice president, their family, and others outlined in the law. Violating such a zone of protection can lead to federal prosecution. We have witnessed stage-rushing incidents during the 2016 campaign, White House fence-jumper incidents, and two assassination attempts last year that highlight the agency’s “no-fail” mission and intense focus on preventing unauthorized individuals near a protectee.

Once a protective zone is established, access is strictly controlled. A clear process exists for allowing individuals, including senators and other elected officials, to enter — one that all elected officials are expected to follow.

The role of identification and protocol

As seen in the video, the senator, dressed casually and without his Senate pin, and with no staff introduction, is observed yelling questions at Secretary Noem and advancing toward her in what appears to be a closed press conference. “Closed” indicates that specific press members were invited, had to notify their attendance in advance, and check in. Anyone else arriving would be considered uninvited. The video shows the senator, unidentified at this point, advancing toward the podium and pushing against the Secret Service agents who were there to protect the secretary.

Some have argued that the agents and FBI officers involved should have recognized Senator Padilla. This would imply, in the best case, that those agents and officers were either from California or were intimately familiar with the appearance of every federal elected official.

Secret Service agents assigned to the secretary are typically based where the secretary is, namely Washington D.C. In D.C., when senators attend an event with a Secret Service protectee, they are usually expected, greeted by staff, and escorted in, often wearing a suit with a Senate pin attached. In the video, Senator Padilla adhered to none of these D.C. norms. The FBI officers present were supporting the Secret Service and responded to an unknown individual who appeared to be yelling at and advancing toward a Secret Service protectee, whom Secret Service agents were blocking. In their minds, this constituted aggressive conduct by an unwelcome individual who violated a closed press briefing.

Legal precedent supports agent response

The Secret Service, like every other law enforcement agency in the United States, is bound by standard use of force laws and protocols. These are governed by the 1989 Graham v. Connor Supreme Court case, which established the “totality of circumstances” standard for judging law enforcement use of force incidents. This means the entire facts of an incident, including what was known before, during, and after, must be taken into account when assessing the force used. This standard was reinforced in the 2024 Barnes v. Felix case, which, in a 9-0 decision, stated, “To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” as written in the majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan.

| RELATED: Supreme Court 9-0 in highly anticipated Barnes v. Felix use of force case

Furthermore, for the Secret Service — especially after the assassination attempts on Donald Trump in Butler and West Palm Beach — the use of overlapping protection zones and increased standoff distances has become standard. These protocols, combined with strict access controls, mean any use-of-force decision must be evaluated within the context of the protectee’s identity and threat level. In this case, it was a Cabinet-level official with clear national security responsibilities who has undergone an increased threat matrix since taking office.

| RELATED: The good, the bad and the ugly: An assessment of the response to the Trump assassination attempt

Viewing the Senator Padilla incident in this light, and considering the enhanced measures the Secret Service is authorized to perform to fulfill its protective mission, the force used against Senator Padilla to remove him from the room would appear clearly justified, regardless of his elected position.

The Secret Service had established a zone of protection around the Secretary during the press conference, which was only accessible to invited press. The Senator rushed into the room unannounced and unidentified, walked toward the protectee while yelling questions (which can be perceived as a hostile movement), did not cease when law enforcement officers (Secret Service agents) intervened and told him to stop, and then proceeded to push against those officers as they were trying to remove him from the room.

As the Department of Homeland Security stated, “Mr. Padilla was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers’ repeated commands,” the department added. "@Secret Service thought he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately.”