A controversial move: Trump ends Kamala Harris' Secret Service protection amid safety concerns
By willowt // 2025-08-31
Copy
 
  • President Donald Trump canceled extended Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris, originally granted by Joe Biden, effective September 1, 2025.
  • Critics, including California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, condemn the move as "vindictive" and politically motivated, citing concerns over Harris’ safety.
  • Harris loses 24/7 protection, threat intelligence analysis and federal safeguards for her Los Angeles home, raising questions about her safety during an upcoming 15-city book tour.
  • Trump has previously revoked security for political rivals, including John Bolton and Biden’s children, Hunter and Ashley, reinforcing perceptions of retaliatory governance.
  • The decision reignites discussions about the weaponization of executive authority, particularly in security matters, and its implications for democratic norms.
In a decision that has reignited debates over political retaliation and executive overreach, President Donald Trump revoked former Vice President Kamala Harris’ extended Secret Service protection on Thursday, August 29, 2025. The move, effective September 1, rescinds an undisclosed year-long extension granted by then-President Joe Biden just before leaving office in January 2025. The cancellation comes as Harris prepares for a high-profile 15-city book tour promoting her memoir, "107 Days", which chronicles her brief 2024 presidential campaign. The decision was confirmed via a memorandum addressed to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, obtained by CNN. “You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual, effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris,” the letter stated. The order does not cite new threat assessments or security reviews, raising questions about its motivation. Harris, who left office in January, was entitled to six months of Secret Service protection under federal law—a period that had already expired. Biden’s extension, however, had granted her an additional year of coverage, a detail not publicly disclosed until now. The revocation leaves Harris without federal protection just weeks before she embarks on a nationwide tour, heightening concerns among her aides about potential security gaps.

Political retaliation or security reform? Critics sound the alarm

The decision has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic leaders, who accuse Trump of weaponizing executive power for political vengeance. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s spokesperson, Bob Salladay, condemned the move as “erratic” and “vindictive,” stating, “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass echoed these sentiments, calling it “another act of revenge” and pledging to coordinate with Newsom to ensure Harris’ safety in her home city. Harris’ security detail had included round-the-clock protection, threat intelligence analysis and safeguards for her Los Angeles residence—a level of coverage that, if replicated privately, could cost millions annually. Without federal protection, Harris may now rely on local law enforcement, though the Los Angeles Police Department has not confirmed any formal arrangements. The revocation follows a pattern of Trump targeting political adversaries. In March 2025, he ended Secret Service protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden, and in 2023, he stripped former National Security Adviser John Bolton of his security clearance. Critics argue these actions reflect a broader strategy of retaliation against opponents, undermining institutional norms.

Security risks and the road ahead: What Harris loses

Beyond physical protection, Harris’ cancellation of Secret Service coverage means losing critical threat intelligence capabilities. Secret Service details monitor emails, texts, social media and in-person interactions for potential risks—a layer of security that private firms cannot easily replicate. “The Vice President is grateful to the United States Secret Service for their professionalism, dedication and unwavering commitment to safety,” Kirsten Allen, a senior adviser to Harris, said in a statement. However, the abrupt withdrawal of these services has left her team scrambling to assess vulnerabilities. Harris’ upcoming book tour, set to begin in September, will place her in high-visibility public settings, increasing exposure to potential threats. Her memoir, "107 Days", recounts her 107-day presidential campaign after Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race—a period marked by intense political polarization. Security experts note that former vice presidents, particularly those who have run for higher office, often face elevated risks long after leaving government. The Biden administration’s decision to extend Harris’ protection had reportedly been influenced by her historic role as the first female, Black and South Asian vice president—factors that heightened security concerns during and after her campaign. “She was still at a high [threat] level into January following the campaign, with feelings about the election still raw,” a source familiar with her security operations told CNN.

Executive power and the politicization of security

Trump’s revocation of Harris’ protection is not without precedent. Presidents have long held discretion over security details for former officials, but the frequency and targeting of such decisions under Trump have sparked accusations of politicization. In 2023, he revoked security clearances for several former intelligence officials, including James Clapper and John Brennan, citing “inappropriate” behavior—a move widely seen as retaliatory. The Secret Service, traditionally insulated from partisan influence, now faces scrutiny over its role in enforcing politically charged directives. “Leadership within the agency did not flag any security concerns or push back from the White House’s order,” a Secret Service official told CNN, suggesting the decision was driven by the administration rather than operational necessities. Legal experts debate whether such actions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of laws designed to protect former officials from politically motivated exposure. “There’s a fine line between executive discretion and abuse of power,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. “When security decisions appear to target political rivals, they erode public trust in the impartiality of these protections.”

Democracy, safety and the 2026 landscape

The controversy arrives at a fraught moment in American politics. With the 2026 midterms looming, Trump’s administration faces accusations of using executive authority to sideline opponents—a tactic his critics argue undermines democratic norms. “This is another dangerous reminder that there’s no agenda more important to Donald Trump than retribution,” said Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), a vocal Trump critic. For Harris, the loss of Secret Service protection adds another layer of uncertainty to her post-vice-presidential life. Having ruled out a 2026 gubernatorial run in California, she remains a prominent figure in Democratic circles, though her political future is unclear. The book tour, her most significant public engagement since leaving office, will now proceed under heightened security concerns. Meanwhile, the incident has reignited debates about the boundaries of executive power. “If a president can unilaterally strip security from a former vice president without a threat assessment, what’s to stop them from doing the same to judges, whistleblowers, or journalists?” asked Rachel Bitecofer, a political scientist at Christopher Newport University. “It sets a dangerous precedent.”

A nation watching and waiting

As Harris prepares for her book tour, the focus shifts to how she—and the nation—will navigate this new reality. Local authorities in Los Angeles are reportedly exploring options to fill the security void, but the loss of federal protection introduces unforeseen risks. For Trump’s critics, the move is further evidence of a presidency defined by retribution. For his supporters, it may be seen as a long-overdue correction to what they perceive as unjustified privileges for political elites. One thing is certain: The decision has ensured that Kamala Harris’ reentry into the public eye will be shadowed by questions of safety, executive overreach and the fragile state of America’s democratic institutions. In an era where political divisions run deep, the weaponization of security—real or perceived—only deepens the fault lines. Sources for this article include: JustTheNews.com Reuters.com CNN.com
Copy