Donald Trump has revoked the Secret Service protection for Kamala Harris, the former vice-president and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee.
The decision, confirmed by a senior White House official, instructs the Secret Service to “discontinue any security-related procedures beyond those required by law” effective September 1, 2025.
Under federal law, former vice-presidents are entitled to receive Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office. For Harris, that period ended on July 21.
However, her protection had been extended for an additional year under an undisclosed directive signed by then-president Joe Biden before leaving office. Trump’s new directive cancels that extension.
The letter, dated August 28, 2025, and titled “Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security,” reads, “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.”
Kirsten Allen, a senior adviser to Harris, expressed gratitude to the Secret Service for their professionalism and dedication to safety.
“Kamala Harris is grateful to the United States Secret Service for their professionalism, dedication, and unwavering commitment to safety,” she said.
The decision has sparked criticism from Democratic leaders. Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California, was briefed on the situation, and his spokesperson criticized the decision, saying, “the safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.”
The Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass, also expressed concern, stating, “This puts the former vice-president in danger, and I look forward to working with the Governor to make sure Vice-President Harris is safe in Los Angeles.”
As a resident of Los Angeles, Harris could receive protection from local law enforcement. The revocation comes as Harris prepares to launch a national book tour promoting her new memoir, “107 Days,” which details her presidential campaign. The book is scheduled for release on September 23.
The decision has raised concerns about the safety of public officials and the potential consequences of politicizing security measures.
The Secret Service has not commented on the decision, but the implications of this move are likely to be closely watched in the coming days.
The decision to revoke Secret Service protection for Kamala Harris raises significant security concerns. As a former presidential candidate and current public figure, Harris is still a potential target for threats and violence.
Without Secret Service protection, she may be more vulnerable to harm, which could have serious consequences not only for her personally but also for the broader political landscape. It is essential to prioritize the safety and security of public figures, especially those who have been subject to threats and violence in the past.
The revocation of Secret Service protection may also create a sense of unease among Harris’s supporters and constituents. If she is no longer protected by the Secret Service, it may be perceived that she is no longer considered a high-priority target for protection, which could undermine her ability to carry out her duties effectively.
Furthermore, this decision may set a precedent for future revocations of Secret Service protection for other public figures, potentially putting them at risk.
The decision to revoke Secret Service protection for Kamala Harris appears to be a highly politicized move.
It is possible that this decision is intended to undermine Harris’s influence and ability to carry out her duties, rather than being a genuine assessment of her security needs.
If security decisions are being made based on political considerations rather than genuine security concerns, it undermines the integrity of the system and puts public figures at risk.
Moreover, this decision may be seen as a reflection of the increasingly polarized nature of American politics.
In an era where security and protection are often politicized, it is essential to prioritize the safety and security of public figures based on genuine security assessments rather than political considerations.
The revocation of Secret Service protection for Harris may be perceived as a partisan move, which could further exacerbate tensions and undermine trust in institutions.
The decision to revoke Secret Service protection for Kamala Harris may be driven by a desire to allocate resources more efficiently.
The Secret Service has finite resources, and protecting public figures is a costly endeavor. By revoking protection for certain individuals, the Secret Service may be able to redirect resources to more pressing security concerns.
However, it is essential to consider the potential consequences of revoking protection for public figures. While resource allocation is an important consideration, it should not come at the expense of safety and security.
If Harris is no longer protected by the Secret Service, it may be necessary for her to seek alternative security arrangements, which could be costly and potentially less effective.
Ultimately, the decision to revoke Secret Service protection should be based on a thorough assessment of the security risks and needs, rather than solely on resource allocation considerations.