Head of US Secret Service NYC field office calls it a career: ‘An incredible honor to serve'
Freaney, 48, gave it another shot and went on to a decorated 25-year career with the elite federal agency, guarding US presidents, UN dignitaries and rising to the top spot in the Big Apple field office.
This week, he's calling it a career.
5 Patrick Freaney, 48, began his career as a state trooper and finished up as head of the Secret Service in New York.
Matthew McDermott
'I always felt a strong connection to New York, even from my early days in the service,' he told The Post. 'To conclude my career here as the Special Agent in Charge will always be a source of personal pride. It's been an honor and a privilege to lead this amazing group of dedicated professionals.'
Raised in Long Beach, Freaney was the son of an FDNY captain and a New York City school teacher, and went on to attend Siena College, where he was a standout lacrosse player.
But he dreamed of a career in law enforcement, inspired by his FBI agent grandfather, and joined the state police department in 1998, serving in Farmingdale, Brewster and Wappingers Falls.
Seeking to join the Secret Service, at first he was rejected.
5 Raised in New York, Patrick Feaney wanted to follow his FBI agent grandfather into law enforcement — and did.
Matthew McDermott
'It was humbling, but it was also a really good lesson early in life that things will not always go your way,' Freaney said. 'It also taught me about resolve and it obviously worked out when I re-applied.'
This time, he got in, and joined the service on July 21, 2000, starting in the New York Field Office.
On Sept. 11, 2001, he survived the collapse of 7 World Trade Center during the terror attacks, and joined first-responders in follow-up evacuation and recovery efforts.
His career then took off, joining the Counter Assault Team in the Special Operations Division in 2005 and moving to the Presidential Protection Division in 2008, where he was part of the unit protecting former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
'People always know the service for its role in protection, but we also have an investigative mission where we focus on financial crimes that significantly impact the public and our financial system.'
5 Patrick Freaney's Secret Service career included protecting dignitaries at the United Nations General Assembly.
ZUMAPRESS.com
5 Patrick Freaney was part of the security details protecting former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
AP
In June 2012 he returned home as assistant to the special agent in charge in the New York office, and in March 2016 was promoted to resident special agent in charge of the White Plains office.
Two more promotions quickly followed, to assistant special agent in charge of the Electronic Crimes Task Force in 2018, deputy special agent in charge the following year, and, finally, to special agent in charge of the New York office in June 2021.
Among his duties was protecting the United Nations General Assembly — a massive job that requires protecting at least 130 foreign dignitaries when they converge on Manhattan.
'You can never get risk to zero,' he said. 'There's always risk. It's our job to mitigate it. In a global threat environment, we need to be aware of the issues and take everything into consideration.'
5 Following a 25-year career with the Secret Service, Patrick Freaney will be head of security for Bank of New York.
Matthew McDermott
Now, after fulfilling every task his country asked him for, he's retiring on Thursday.
'I want to thank him for everything he has done for the NYPD, for New York City, for the country, and beyond,' said Rebecca Weiner, Deputy Commissioner, Intelligence and Counterterrorism for the NYPD. 'Pat is the best of the best.
'He navigates the stormiest waters with unflappable competence, treats colleagues as family, and approaches his job with consummate professionalism,' Weiner said. 'We will miss Pat, and we wish him all the best in his future endeavors.'
That endeavor will be head of global security for the Bank of New York Mellon.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Five things to know about possible FBI involvement in Texas redistricting battle
Several Republicans are opening the door to getting the FBI involved in forcing Texas Democrats to return to the state amid a protest over an even friendlier congressional map the GOP wants to pass. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel this week, urging the agency to help Republicans bring back Democrats to the Lone Star State. President Trump left open the possibility on Tuesday, saying 'they may have to.' The statements from Trump and Cornyn mark a remarkable escalation in an already heated redistricting battle that started in Texas and has since fanned out across the country. But the comments invoking the FBI's assistance are raising questions around whether that's even possible. Here are five things to know about possible FBI involvement in the Texas redistricting battle: Why are Republicans calling for FBI involvement? Some Republicans are calling for the FBI's involvement after Texas Democrats left the state beginning on Sunday to block Republicans from passing a new map that would offer the Texas GOP five additional pickup opportunities in the House. Democrats broke quorum, meaning the minimum number of lawmakers needed to conduct legislative business, in an effort to stall passage of the maps in the state's lower chamber. They left for states including New York and Illinois, which Republicans point out were also gerrymandered by Democrats. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) have called for the lawmakers that fled to be arrested, and Abbott has already started the process of trying to remove at least one Democrat from office. But Democrats can technically stay out of the state as long as they want, which is why some Republicans have floated the use of federal law enforcement to compel them to return to Texas. What has the FBI said so far? So far, the FBI is staying mum on the issue. The FBI declined to comment when contacted by The Hill regarding the push to get them involved in bringing back Democrats to Texas. Attorney General Pam Bondi has also not said anything publicly about the issue. One looming question is how much pressure Trump puts on the Justice Department and FBI to act as the standoff continues. Does the FBI have the power to bring Democrats back to Texas? Some experts that spoke to The Hill appeared skeptical that the FBI could intervene in the matter, noting that the agency is concerned with violations of federal law while the Texas standoff is primarily an issue concerning individual states. 'I don't see why the FBI would be involved in this at all. I mean this is Texas politics and the FBI has no business trying to enforce Texas state law,' said Richard Painter, who served as associate counsel to the president in the White House Counsel's office during former President George W. Bush's second term. 'The only federal law that I think is being violated in Texas and in Illinois and several other states is voting rights,' said Painter, who's now a law professor at the University of Minnesota. 'I think gerrymandering violates voting rights, but the U.S. Supreme Court's not willing to do anything about it.' Painter's comments allude to a Supreme Court ruling in 2019 that gerrymandering is a political matter, not a legal one, and thus doesn't fall under the purview of federal courts. He said that if he were detained by the FBI in that situation and they said he needed to return to the Lone Star State, 'I'd be filing for a writ of habeas corpus tomorrow, and I think I'd win.' Another expert poured cold water over the idea as well. 'There's no offense against the United States. There is no reasonable basis that arresting Texas legislators will prevent the commission of a federal crime,' wrote Anthony Michael Kreis, an associate professor at Georgia State University College of Law, in a post on X, linking to an article by The New York Times regarding Cornyn's call to get the FBI involved. 'This is simply @JohnCornyn asking for the unconstitutional, lawless, and arbitrary federal power,' he added. Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor and professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said she wasn't sure, when asked about whether the FBI can compel Democrats to return to the state and if Trump can require officials to do this. 'Seems like an inappropriate use of federal law enforcement powers to address a political issue, and I don't see what the federal offense would be,' she told The Hill in an email. How are Democrats responding? Democrats have heavily criticized Republicans' efforts to push the FBI to get involved in detaining Texas lawmakers. 'Impeached Ken Paxton and twice impeached Donald Trump are threatening to send the FBI after Texas House Democrats. It's an illegal, authoritarian move that will not stand,' tweeted Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), one of the original lawmakers that fled the state in 2003 to deny Texas Republicans during mid-decade redistricting. Speaking to late night host Stephen Colbert on Tuesday, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) said 'they've not broken any federal law,' when asked about whether the FBI could get involved. 'And frankly, in the state of Illinois, we're not going to let them get taken away. We're going to protect those Texas House Democrats.' Meanwhile, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) wrote on X that doing so would be 'indefensible.' 2024 Election Coverage What other means is the GOP using to pressure Democrats? Republicans aren't facing many good options in terms of forcing Democrats to come back to the state. Abbott on Wednesday filed a lawsuit seeking to remove Democratic leader Gene Wu from his seat in the Texas state House. And Paxton has also called for the ouster of the Democrats who fled. But so far the GOP's options appear limited. There's no question that Democrats will come back eventually — they will have to at some point after being away from their families and constituents for so long, and also must address other hot-button issues in the state like flood relief. The real question is how long Democrats will stay away, which will be determined by lawmakers' stamina and resources.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump, Vance blast ‘fake news' Epstein meeting
President Trump and Vice President Vance blasted reports on Wednesday that said a group of top administration officials were gathering to discuss whether to publish audio and a transcript of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump was asked if Vance was hosting a gathering to discuss the Epstein situation, after CNN first reported that the meeting at the vice resident's residence was taking place that evening. 'I don't know, I could ask you that question,' Trump said, looking at his vice president. 'I don't know of it, but I think, here's the man right here.' Vance then chimed in, bashing the journalists who reported it. 'I saw it reported today, and it's completely fake news. We're not meeting to talk about the Epstein situation, and I think the reporter who reported it needs to get better sources,' Vance said. The president added, 'look, the whole thing is a hoax. It's put on by the Democrats.' He added that the reporting is a 'way of trying to divert attention to something that is total bulls—.' The vice president's office earlier Wednesday also criticized the reporting. 'The CNN story is pure fiction. There was never a supposed meeting scheduled at the Vice President's residence to discuss Epstein strategy,' said William Martin, communications director to Vance. The meeting was reportedly expected to include Vance, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI director Kash Patel and Blanche. The FBI didn't respond to a request for comment from The Hill. Blanche recently met twice with Maxwell, a longtime associate of deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein, as the administration faces increasing pressure to release more information from the Epstein files. Trump on Wednesday also said he hasn't been briefed on what Maxwell told Blanche. He said earlier this week that he wasn't aware of the decision to move Maxwell from a federal prison in Florida to a federal prison in Texas. 'I didn't know about it at all,' Trump said. 'It's not a very uncommon thing.' The move to Texas comes as Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking and is serving a 20-year prison sentence, and her legal team are appealing her case to the Supreme Court in hopes of having her conviction overturned.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump Keeps Making the Epstein Saga Worse
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Donald Trump doesn't want you to read this article. Don't let it go to your head, and I won't let it go to mine; we're not special. He doesn't want anyone reading anything about Jeffrey Epstein, or his own relationship with the late sex offender. And yet his intensive efforts to change the subject to something—anything—else seem to bring only more scrutiny. This evening, CNN reported, a group of top administration officials, including the vice president, attorney general, FBI director, and White House chief of staff, had been planning to gather to discuss whether to release the recording of an interview between Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker and an Epstein associate, and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Then, this afternoon, Reuters reported the meeting had been canceled, with Vice President J. D. Vance's spokesperson denying that it had ever even been planned. Yesterday, Republicans in the House subpoenaed the Justice Department for some records related to Epstein. As the Epstein story's lock on headlines enters its second month, the president has employed three main tactics to try to dislodge it. First, he has ordered his supporters to stop talking about Epstein. 'Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this 'bullshit,' hook, line, and sinker,' he wrote, part of a long and anguished Truth Social post on July 16. This has been somewhat effective in certain quarters: In the days after Trump's pleas, Fox News aired less coverage of the story. Trying to stifle coverage this way has flaws. Much of the interest in Epstein originated in MAGA media itself, so claiming that these supporters fell for a hoax is dodgy—especially when the attorney general and the FBI director were among the foremost merchants of innuendo. And it almost goes without saying that screaming at people not to pay attention to a topic will only make them suspect there's something to see. Some Trump-aligned outlets may be willing to take his lead, but other media organizations are not. A press that might have treated the Epstein story as either old news or somewhat prurient just a few months ago is now eager to find new information about it. Julie K. Brown, the Miami Herald reporter who doggedly pursued the story, is the most desired guest on the podcast circuit. Just yesterday, The New York Times published photos of unclear provenance showing the inside of Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Second, Trump has tried to change the subject, whether that's attempting to breathe new life into his claims of a ' Russia hoax,' threatening to federalize the District of Columbia, or taking a walk on the White House roof. Distraction has long been an effective tactic for Trump, but it's also a familiar one. Trump's efforts have produced an amusing dynamic where no matter what he does, many people treat it as an attempt to distract from Epstein, which only points back to Epstein. Trump also keeps stepping on his own ploys. When the president announced the return of the Presidential Fitness Test last week, he invited the Hall of Fame linebacker Lawrence Taylor to join him. But Taylor is a sex offender, having pleaded guilty in connection with paying a 16-year-old to have sex with him. This was not only a strange invitation on its own; it was also a reminder about Trump's former friend Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking of girls. Third, the Trump administration and its GOP allies have tried to provide at least some information to the public, in the hope that it will sate appetites. Frequently, these moves have just whetted them. The Justice Department released what it said was 'raw' footage from the jail where Epstein died, only for Wired to report that the tape was, in fact, spliced. (Attorney General Pam Bondi attributed the missing footage to a quirk of the security-camera system, though government sources who spoke to CBS News disputed that explanation.) Blanche's interview with Maxwell is at least ostensibly an attempt to find new information, though it lends itself to further conspiracy theories about backroom agreements. This is especially true given Maxwell's unexplained move to a minimum-security prison shortly after the interview, as well as Trump's refusal to rule out pardoning her. House Speaker Mike Johnson has called for 'full transparency' about Epstein, yet he also adjourned the House rather than hold a vote on releasing files related to the case. The mystery of the reported planned meeting scheduled for tonight is more fuel for intrigue. When Trump himself has spoken out recently, he has brought only more attention to the matter, to borrow his phrase. The president was evidently aware of Epstein's sexual proclivities—'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,' he told New York magazine in 2002—but has said that he didn't know about Epstein's criminal activity. For years, reports indicated that Trump had fallen out with Epstein, a longtime friend, over a real-estate matter. Last week, however, Trump suggested that their clash came after Epstein 'stole' employees from Mar-a-Lago —possibly including Virginia Giuffre, a prominent Epstein accuser who died by suicide in April. This drew understandable outrage from Giuffre's family but also raised questions about what Trump might have known about Epstein's trafficking. And when The Wall Street Journal reported on a letter the president had allegedly written to Epstein, Trump denied writing the letter but also insisted that he'd never made drawings—which elicited plenty of examples of past doodles, weakening his excuse. His splashy defamation lawsuit and demand to promptly depose the Journal 's owner, Rupert Murdoch, fanned the flames. (The paper says it stands by its reporting.) Yesterday, I wrote about how Trump talks about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. In that case, Trump's heated denials fed a belief among many of his critics that he must be hiding something. But the juiciest rumors did not prove true; the worst of the scandal had already been made public. Perhaps the same is true of Epstein: We already know that Trump was friends with him, and we already know that Trump was seemingly aware of his interest in young women. If Trump isn't hiding anything, though, he's not doing a good job of convincing the public of that. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News President Donald Trump announced that he will double tariffs on Indian exports to the United States to 50 percent by late August, citing India's continued purchase of Russian oil. The move aims to pressure Russia over the war in Ukraine. Five soldiers were shot at Fort Stewart-Hunter Army Airfield, in Georgia. The suspect is in custody, and the shooting is under investigation. According to sources familiar with the plan, Trump told European leaders that he intends to meet with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky to push for an end to the war in Ukraine, though it is unclear if the two have agreed to the meetings. Evening Read Enough With the Mom Guilt Already By Maytal Eyal As I inch closer to motherhood and all of the unknowns that come with it, I sometimes feel as if my entire future is suspended in midair: How might my personality shift? What will my child be like? How will my marriage change? In the midst of that uncertainty, therapy culture tells moms, You can ensure that your kid will grow up to be happy and healthy if … and then provides a guidebook of tips to read and details to obsess over. In a country where mothers receive so little structural support—where community has eroded, maternity leave is minimal, and child-care costs can be astronomical—the promise that parents alone can conjure all of the stability their child might need can feel like a warm hug. But really, that promise can be a trap. To be clear, I'm not arguing that moms shouldn't work on their own mental health, or that they shouldn't think deeply about their approach to parenting. Rather, I worry that therapy culture prompts mothers to gaze obsessively, unhealthily inward, and deflects attention from the external forces (cultural, economic, political) that are actually the source of so much anxiety. More From The Atlantic Read. Elaine Castillo's second novel, Moderation, captures the numerous ways that screens help people hide from themselves, Sarah Rose Etter writes. Watch. In 2020, Sophie Gilbert recommended 20 undersung crime shows to binge-watch.
