California Highway Patrol to Protect Kamala Harris After Secret Service Detail Ended by Trump, Sources Say

Administrator

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 20, 2025
986
219
43

California Highway Patrol to Protect Kamala Harris After Secret Service Detail Ended by Trump, Sources Say

68b2e8b87f6b2.jpg


Security Shifts for the Former Vice President

The former Vice President, who was also the first Black woman to hold the position, will now be safeguarded by the California Highway Patrol, following the termination of her Secret Service detail. This move was initiated by the former President, who was her political rival during the previous election period.

Changes in Long-standing Security Arrangements

Typically, ex-vice presidents are entitled to Secret Service protection for half a year post their term. However, this tenure can be extended, as was the case with the former Vice President. Her predecessor in office had approved an extension of her security detail until July 2026. Without this extension, her security coverage would have ceased last month.

The recent decision to revoke her Secret Service detail was taken by the former President who signed a memorandum to this effect. The California officials were quick to respond to this development by planning dignitary protection for her.

California Rallies Behind the Former Vice President

The Governor of California, who holds the authority to approve such a protection plan, declined to comment on the security arrangements. However, he did emphasize that the safety of public officials should never be compromised due to unpredictable political motivations.



Prior to the decision, talks were held with the Mayor of Los Angeles, where the former Vice President resides, to strategize the best approach towards this situation.

The Political Tug of War Over Security

The Mayor of Los Angeles expressed her concern over the development, labeling it as another act of political retribution. She vowed to collaborate with the governor to ensure the safety of the former Vice President while she is in Los Angeles.

It is important to note that the details pertaining to the dignitary protection, such as the deployment specifics and the duration of the coverage by the California Highway Patrol, are not disclosed publicly by either the California Highway Patrol or the Los Angeles Police Department.

Implications for Future Public Engagements

The security change comes at a time when the former Vice President is preparing for a book tour to promote her memoir, "107 Days." The tour will take her to several locations, including international cities like London and Toronto. The book's title is a reference to the duration of her presidential campaign.

Even though she was a subject of an elevated threat level during her presidential campaign, a recent threat intelligence assessment found no credible threat to her safety.

Past Precedents of Security Revocation

During his term, the former President had revoked Secret Service protection from several of his one-time allies who later became critics. This included his former national security adviser and former Secretary of State, who had been targeted by Iran. He also terminated the extended Secret Service protection for his predecessor's children.

Interestingly, the former Vice President's predecessor did not benefit from any extended Secret Service protection beyond the standard six months.

Future Political Aspirations

The former Vice President, who has previously served as a senator, state attorney general, and district attorney of San Francisco, has stated earlier this year that she will not be running for the position of California governor in 2026.

During the previous election campaign, the former President faced two assassination attempts, including one where a gunman was neutralized by a Secret Service countersniper. This incident led to the death of one attendee and injured two others.

 
It’s concerning to see security measures being used as political leverage. Removing Secret Service protection from a high-profile former VP, especially given recent threats faced by public figures, seems risky regardless of shifting threat assessments. Glad California stepped in, but it sets a strange precedent. Does anyone know if there are legal checks on how much a president can sway these security decisions for ex-officials?
 
Does seem like we’re getting into murky waters when security for former officials turns into a political chess piece. I’ve always thought the Secret Service detail wasn’t supposed to be something you gain or lose because of who’s in power, but rather based on real risk and precedent. If ex-presidents and vice presidents can have protection yanked so abruptly, we might see officials hesitating to speak out or act independently when they know their safety could
 
Completely agree, the idea that security can be revoked based on politics rather than genuine risk is unsettling. It almost feels like it could pressure former officials into silence or compliance, which is the last thing you want in a democracy. Security should be about safety
 
Using security details as a political tool just leaves a bad taste. If decisions like this keep happening, who's going to feel safe taking on those public roles? Seems to me, whatever party's in control could end up holding safety over people’s heads, and that’s not how a democracy should function. Curious if any past presidents ever faced serious backlash for making these kinds of moves, or if it usually just fades from the headlines.