Former Vice President Kamala Harris just got her Secret Service protection yanked by President Donald Trump, leaving many to wonder if this is a security oversight or a political power play.
According to Daily Mail, in a stunning turn of events, Harris has lost her federal security detail effective Monday, with Trump signing the order on Thursday, only to be replaced by the California Highway Patrol after state officials stepped in to fill the gap.
Let’s rewind a bit to understand how we got here. Typically, vice presidents get six months of Secret Service protection after leaving office, while presidents enjoy lifelong coverage. Harris, however, had her protection extended by President Joe Biden until July 2026, a move Trump swiftly overturned with his recent order.
Now, with Biden’s directive canceled, Harris is stripped of 24/7 in-person protection and access to critical threat detection intelligence. This isn’t just a paperwork shuffle—former White House officials often face real security threats from across the globe.
California officials, sensing the urgency, didn’t waste time. Discussions between Governor Gavin Newsom’s office and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass led to the decision to provide Harris with protection through the California Highway Patrol, though Newsom must still give final approval.
Speaking of Newsom, his office played the silent card, stating, "Our office does not comment on security arrangements." Fair enough, but one has to wonder if this reticence masks frustration over what looks like a politically charged decision from the White House.
Mayor Bass, on the other hand, didn’t hold back, declaring, "This is another act of revenge." While it’s easy to see why she’d frame Trump’s move as retaliation, given the timing, let’s not ignore that extending Secret Service protection beyond the standard six months isn’t exactly the norm—only Dick Cheney got such an exception under President Barack Obama in 2009.
Historically, former vice presidents like Mike Pence and Joe Biden have shelled out for private security once their federal protection expired. So, is Trump just sticking to tradition, or is this a calculated jab at Harris? The optics, frankly, lean toward the latter.
The timing couldn’t be worse for Harris, who’s gearing up for a nationwide book tour next month to promote her memoir, “107 Days,” which chronicles her brief presidential campaign. Starting September 24 in New York City, with stops mostly in progressive strongholds, she’ll be hitting the road without the safety net of federal agents. That’s a bold move—or a risky one, depending on your perspective.
Losing Secret Service protection isn’t just about missing a few bodyguards; it’s about the immediate ramifications for someone still in the public eye. Harris’ book tour, kicking off the day after her memoir’s release, will thrust her into crowded venues where security is no small concern.
Critics might argue that Trump’s decision is less about fiscal responsibility and more about settling scores. After all, revoking protection for a high-profile figure like Harris right before a major public engagement raises eyebrows, even among those of us who cheer for smaller government.
Let’s not forget the broader context—security for former officials isn’t a luxury; it’s often a necessity. With global threats always lurking, the idea of leaving Harris exposed feels like rolling the dice, especially when state resources must now pick up the slack.
California’s offer to step in with Highway Patrol protection is commendable, but it’s a Band-Aid on a bigger issue. Should states have to shoulder the burden when federal decisions seem driven by politics rather than principle? That’s a question worth chewing on.
For now, Harris must navigate this new reality, balancing her public appearances with a scaled-back security framework. While some might smirk at the thought of progressive California bailing out one of its own, there’s no denying the seriousness of ensuring her safety.
At the end of the day, Trump’s move to strip Harris of Secret Service protection may align with a strict interpretation of policy, but it risks looking like a petty swipe at a political rival. Whether you see this as a triumph of fiscal conservatism or a dangerous precedent, one thing is clear: Harris’ safety shouldn’t be a pawn in Washington’s endless chess game.
