WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump has officially revoked the Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris, a security detail that had been quietly extended by the Biden administration. The decision, effective Monday, has ignited a firestorm of controversy and raised alarms among security experts and political opponents who view the move as an act of political retaliation that places a former senior official at significant risk.
The Authority and the Decision
By law, former vice presidents are entitled to Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office. For Harris, that statutory period concluded in July. However, former President Joe Biden had signed an executive directive to extend her protection for an additional year, citing the continued high threat environment facing prominent political figures. The new Trump administration directive, delivered to the Department of Homeland Security, cancels that extension, stating that the Secret Service is “hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum, beyond those required by law.”
The move is not unprecedented, but its timing and context have drawn widespread scrutiny. The Trump administration has previously removed security details for perceived political adversaries and figures who have fallen out of favor, including members of the Biden family and former national security adviser John Bolton. The decision to strip Harris of her protection comes just weeks before she is set to embark on a national book tour for her new memoir, “107 Days.”
A senior adviser to former Vice President Harris, Kirsten Allen, offered a brief statement, saying Harris “is grateful to the United States Secret Service for their professionalism, dedication, and unwavering commitment to safety.” However, Democratic officials have been far more critical.
“The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses,” said a spokesperson for California Governor Gavin Newsom. “This puts the former vice-president in danger and I look forward to working with the Governor to make sure Vice-President Harris is safe in Los Angeles.”
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, in whose city Harris resides, echoed the sentiment, calling the revocation “another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation.”
Security in a Polarized Climate
The U.S. Secret Service’s mission is a dual one: to protect the nation’s leaders and to investigate crimes against the financial infrastructure of the United States. Its protective duties are defined by law, but they can be expanded by presidential directive, as was the case with Biden’s extension for Harris and Trump’s own extension for his family after leaving office in 2021. For more information on the Secret Service’s protective mission, you can visit their official website.
Security experts are raising concerns that the revocation is particularly dangerous in the current politically charged environment. Last year, both Trump and Biden faced assassination attempts while on the campaign trail, highlighting the very real and present threats that high-profile political figures face. The Secret Service’s work goes beyond a physical detail; it includes extensive threat intelligence to identify and neutralize potential risks before they can materialize. Without this federal protection, Harris and her team would need to find and fund private security, a costly and less comprehensive alternative.
The decision is also seen as a strategic power play by the current administration. By controlling access to the federal security apparatus, the president has a powerful tool to reward allies and punish rivals. Critics argue this subverts the non-partisan nature of the Secret Service and uses a critical national security function for political ends.
This latest move adds to a growing list of actions by the Trump administration that have blurred the lines between political power and federal authority, a trend that began with the removal of security clearances for political enemies and continues with the current decision. As Harris prepares for her book tour, her security will now fall to a patchwork of private and potentially state-level resources, a situation that many view as an unnecessary and dangerous gamble with her personal safety. The long-term implications for how former officials are protected in the United States remain an open question.