Donald Trump
By Abayomi Grace
President Donald Trump has revoked the Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris, effective September 1, 2025. This decision reverses a directive signed by outgoing President Joe Biden, which extended Harris’s security detail beyond the standard six months provided by law.
The revocation of Harris’s Secret Service protection has sparked criticism from Democrats and security experts, who view continuity of protection as essential in a polarized climate. Without federal protection, Harris will lose access to advanced threat monitoring and security services, potentially complicating her upcoming book tour and future political activities.
Harris’s memoir, “107 Days,” is set to be released on September 23, and she’ll be embarking on a multi-city book tour. The decision to strip Harris of her protection comes amid heightened security concerns, given the recent assassination attempts on Trump during his presidential campaign. Harris, as the first woman and first Black woman in the role of Vice President, faced particular security concerns that increased after she became the nominee.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have expressed outrage and concern, vowing to work together to ensure Harris’s safety in California. Newsom’s spokesperson stated that “the safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.” Bass described the move as “another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation.”
The decision is part of a broader trend of Trump revoking security protections for perceived adversaries, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton and members of Biden’s family, such as Hunter and Ashley Biden. Critics argue that this move prioritizes revenge over safety and could erode trust in federal agencies.
Harris may need to arrange private security, which could cost millions annually. Local law enforcement options, such as LAPD protection, 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.
