Trump Revokes Extended Secret Service Protection for Former VP Kamala Harris Amid Political Backlash
Washington, D.C. – August 29, 2025 – In a move sparking widespread condemnation from Democrats and security experts, President Donald Trump has directed the U.S. Secret Service to terminate former Vice President Kamala Harris’s extended security detail, effective September 1, 2025. The decision, outlined in a White House memorandum dated August 28, reverses a one-year extension quietly granted by outgoing President Joe Biden in January 2025, just before leaving office. The revocation comes as Harris prepares for a high-profile 15-city book tour promoting her memoir, 107 Days, set for release on September 23, which chronicles her unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign. Critics, including California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, have decried the action as “vindictive retaliation,” warning it endangers Harris, who faced heightened threats as the first woman and first person of color to serve as vice president. This is the latest in a series of revocations targeting perceived political adversaries, raising concerns about the politicization of federal security resources.
Legal Framework and the Extension
Under the Former Vice Presidents Protection Act of 2008, former vice presidents, their spouses, and minor children are entitled to Secret Service protection for up to six months after leaving office. For Harris, this period expired on July 21, 2025. However, Biden issued an undisclosed executive memorandum extending her protection for an additional year, until July 2026, based on security concerns stemming from threats she encountered during her tenure and 2024 campaign. The extension, which was not publicly announced, covered 24/7 agent details, property security at her Los Angeles residence, and proactive threat intelligence monitoring, including analysis of emails, texts, and social media.
Trump’s memorandum, addressed to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, states: “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.” A senior White House official confirmed the order was not prompted by a new threat assessment, which found “nothing alarming” warranting continuation beyond the legal minimum. Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, lost his protection on July 1, 2025, at the end of the standard period. The affected detail, typically 12 to dozens of agents depending on her schedule, will be reassigned, possibly to the United Nations General Assembly preparations in New York.
Private security alternatives could cost millions annually, a burden now potentially falling to Harris or state resources. Harris spokesperson Kirsten Allen issued a statement: “The Vice President is grateful to the United States Secret Service for their professionalism, dedication, and unwavering commitment to safety.” Aides expressed concern over the loss of federal threat intelligence, which had been crucial given Harris’s elevated risk profile.
Political and Security Backlash
The decision has ignited bipartisan criticism, though primarily from Democrats, who frame it as part of Trump’s pattern of targeting opponents. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called it “another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more,” vowing to collaborate with Newsom to ensure Harris’s safety in California. Newsom’s spokesperson echoed: “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.” Bass and Newsom were briefed late Thursday and have discussed local law enforcement options, such as LAPD protection for Harris’s Los Angeles home.
Former Secret Service officials highlighted Harris’s unique vulnerabilities, noting threats compounded by her historic role. Incidents include a 2021 Florida woman pleading guilty to threats involving weapons and a “hit” within 50 days, and a 2024 Virginia man charged with online threats to kill or kidnap Harris and former President Barack Obama. Threats to public officials have intensified overall, with the Secret Service credited for thwarting two assassination attempts on Trump during his 2024 campaign.
Republicans have largely defended the move, with a White House official emphasizing adherence to the six-month legal standard. Posts on X reflect polarized views: Supporters like @bennyjohnson hailed it as ending an “undisclosed arrangement,” while critics such as @VikingFBR decried it as “retribution outranks risk.” @xray_media called it turning the Secret Service into a “loyalty punch card.”
Pattern of Revocations Under Trump
This action fits a broader trend since Trump’s January 2025 inauguration. Within hours of taking office, he revoked protections for critics like former National Security Adviser John Bolton and ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, despite Iranian threats. In March, he ended details for Biden’s adult children, Hunter and Ashley, overriding Biden’s extension. Other targets include Anthony Fauci, former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and even some Trump allies who turned critical. These moves have drawn accusations of weaponizing security for political ends, with calls from figures like Sen. Adam Schiff for congressional codification of impartial protections.
The Harris revocation occurs amid Trump’s other high-profile actions, such as hinting at a federal crime crackdown in Chicago and imposing tariffs contributing to July’s 2.9% core PCE inflation rise. Security experts warn that such politicization could erode trust in federal agencies, especially as Harris eyes a potential 2028 presidential run, having ruled out a 2026 California gubernatorial bid.
Implications for Harris and National Security
Without federal protection, Harris loses not only agents but also advanced threat monitoring, potentially complicating her book tour and future political activities. California officials are stepping in, but local resources may not match federal capabilities. The decision raises questions about equity in protections, particularly for trailblazing figures like Harris, whose threats were exacerbated by racism and sexism, per former agents.
As the 2026 midterms approach, this episode underscores deepening partisan divides on security and governance. While the White House insists the move aligns with law, opponents argue it prioritizes revenge over safety in a polarized era.