The attempted assassination of President-elect Trump in Butler, Pa., July 13 was "preventable and should not have happened," a bipartisan task force concluded on Tuesday. The House panel blamed institutional breakdowns within the Secret Service as well as failures in security planning and execution, most notably missteps in securing the building complex where the shooter fired eight shots, Axios reports . The shooting by a lone gunman killed one person and wounded the Republican presidential nominee and two others. "The various failures in planning, execution, and leadership on and before July 13, 2024, and the preexisting conditions that undermined the effectiveness of the human and material assets deployed that day, coalesced to create an environment in which the former President — and everyone at the campaign event — were exposed to grave danger," the report says. "The Secret Service did not provide clear guidance to its state and local partners about which entity was responsible for the area," the House panel wrote. "An expressed lack of manpower and assets was not sufficiently addressed, resulting in coverage gaps on the ground." The response to the second assassination attempt against Trump two months later in West Palm Beach, Fla., "demonstrated how properly executed protective measures can foil an attempted assassination," the panel said. The report includes recommendations that the Secret Service strengthen its capabilities by evaluating its budget, staffing and personnel retention challenges. The agency may benefit, the panel wrote, from reducing the number of people under its protection. The task force also recommended that Congress consider moving some of the Secret Service's "investigative functions" to a different agency within or outside of the Department of Homeland Security. Secret Service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said the agency "appreciates the diligence" of the task force and that the findings match its internal investigation

Boston may ring in the new year with its fewest homicides and shootings in a single year for the second year in a row. In 2023, the city reported 37 homicides, its lowest number ever since the Boston Regional Intelligence Center began counting. The murder rate of 5.29 per 100,000 residents was the city’s lowest in the 21st century. This year, Boston has reported 22 homicides – a little over half of the 40 it had just two years ago., What is the city doing right? The historic decline began early. In the first quarter, the city of 654,000 residents saw the largest drop among all big U.S. metropolises: Homicides plunged 82% compared with the same period last year, ahead of second-best Philadelphia (37%), reports the Christian Science Monitor. There were only three homicides by June. Even during the summer months, there were just 17 reported by the end of September – a 60% reduction year to year. Gun violence remains the leading cause. with fatal shootings accounting for 18 of this year’s 22 homicides.. Shootings also reached record lows in the city, signaling a broader decline in violent crime. Last year, Mayor Michelle Wu announced a plan to cut homicides and shootings by 20% by 2026. The city has surpassed that target Public safety experts point to the tight-knit network of neighborhood associations and community-based organizations focusing on young people at risk for violence. Police Commissioner Michael Cox credited an increase in anonymous tips and the growing trust and cooperation of Boston’s residents. Criminologist Jack McDevitt of Northeastern University said, "There seems to be a renewed effort to include the community in the process of public safety." He also cites Massachusetts’ low gun ownership rate and stricter gun laws. While Boston remains an outlier, overall reported violent crime and homicides have continued to drop in 2024 in the United States, after a spike during the pandemic. When compared with cities with similar population sizes as Boston, Washington reported 274 homicides, last year, Baltimore 259, and San Francisco 53.

Threats by Kash Patel, President-elect Trump’s pick for FBI director, to use the power of the bureau to scrutinize news outlets critical of the incoming administration are sending a chill through the media, The Hlll reports..  First Amendment advocates say Patel’s rhetoric raises new questions about press freedoms during a second Trump administration and is intensifying worries about whether the president-elect will go after perceived enemies in the media. As Patel rose through the intelligence community and in Trump’s orbit, Patel publicly railed against the so-called “deep state,” which he argues worked to undermine Trump’s agenda during his first term. Part of this hostile apparatus, Patel and other Trump loyalists have said, are mainstream media outlets overly sympathetic to Democrats. “We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media,” Patel told Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast. “Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We’re going to come after you. Whether that’s criminally or civilly, we’re going to figure that out. But yeah, we’re putting you all on notice." “There’s a lot of concern among the newsrooms we’ve spoken with about what to expect,” said Chuck Tobin, a First Amendment attorney who works with press freedom groups. “At the same time, there’s complete resolve to get information to the public about what this government is going to be up to.” Patel’s hostility toward the mainstream media is likely to come up during the confirmation process in the context of whether he or Trump will go after media critics. Trump told “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Patel is "going to do what he thinks is right. If they were crooked, if they did something wrong, if they have broken the law, probably. They went after me. You know, they went after me, and I did nothing wrong.” Department of Justice policy blocks the government from using subpoenas to seize the records of journalists in government leak investigations. DOJ can journalists’ records if they are suspected of committing a crime or working on behalf of a foreign adversary, or if investigators believe there is an imminent risk of death or harm without the records.  Bruce Brown,of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said Patel would have limited power in going after journalists. “We are deeply concerned about the growing hostility and threats toward journalists, as well as the rhetoric expressed by some of the President-elect’s nominees,” The National Press Foundation said . “This increasing tension underscores the need for those in power to understand and appreciate the critical importance of a free and independent press.”