President Donald Trump just pulled the plug on former Vice President Kamala Harris’ Secret Service protection, a move that’s got tongues wagging and security experts scratching their heads.
According to CNN, on Thursday, August 28, 2025, Trump issued a letter effectively ending Harris’ security detail as of September 1, 2025, reversing an undisclosed extension granted by former President Joe Biden before he left office.
Let’s rewind a bit to set the stage. Harris, as a former vice president, was entitled to six months of protection after leaving office, which ended on July 21, 2025. Biden quietly tacked on an extra year, a decision kept under wraps until this revocation brought it to light.
The letter from Trump, titled “Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security,” didn’t mince words, stating, “You are hereby authorized to discontinue” Harris’s extra protection. Well, talk about a swift policy U-turn. One has to wonder if this is less about security and more about sending a message.
This order came straight from the White House, as confirmed by a Secret Service official, with no new threat assessment or security review prompting the change. It’s curious timing, especially since Harris hasn’t been a frequent public figure since leaving office, attending only a handful of events.
Yet, her upcoming book tour for “107 Days,” launching on September 23, 2025, promises to thrust her back into the spotlight with multi-city appearances. With increased visibility comes increased risk, and now, she’ll face it without federal agents by her side. Call it a plot twist worthy of a political thriller.
Harris’ security detail, which varied from a dozen to several dozen agents depending on her schedule, provided round-the-clock protection and constant threat analysis. Losing access to this—covering everything from in-person risks to social media chatter—has her aides understandably on edge.
Her Los Angeles home will also go unguarded by federal agents, and let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: privately funding a comparable security setup could cost millions annually. For a former VP who faced unique threats as the first woman and first Black woman in her role, this feels like a risky roll of the dice.
“The Vice President is grateful to the United States Secret Service for their professionalism, dedication, and unwavering commitment to safety,” said Kirsten Allen, a senior Harris adviser. Grateful or not, that statement sidesteps the glaring issue: safety isn’t just a courtesy; it’s a necessity. One might argue this revocation borders on reckless.
The decision has sparked sharp criticism from California officials like Governor Gavin Newsom’s spokesperson, Bob Salladay, who declared, “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.” Strong words, but let’s be real—politics often plays harder than policy, and this move reeks of settling scores rather than sound reasoning.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass echoed similar concerns, stating, “This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation.” While her frustration is palpable, it’s worth asking if local resources can step up, as discussions between Bass and Newsom on August 28, 2025, hint at potential city police involvement for Harris’ protection.
Newsom was briefed late that same day on the revocation, though his office remained tight-lipped on alternative security plans. With Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, already without a detail since July 21, 2025, the family’s security footprint is shrinking fast.
Presidents and candidates like Trump, who faced two assassination attempts last year, remind us that public life comes with real dangers. Harris, too, dealt with heightened threats during and after her campaign, a reality now compounded by this decision.
Losing threat intelligence could leave her vulnerable at a critical juncture. While some might cheer Trump’s move as a stand against perceived overreach in extending Harris’ protection, others see it as a dangerous precedent.
After all, safety shouldn’t be a political bargaining chip—it’s a baseline for anyone who’s served at such a level. This one might carry a heavier price than anticipated.
