President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris has ignited a political firestorm, raising questions about security, precedent, and the motivations behind the move. The abrupt shift, effective September 1, 2025, comes as Harris prepares for a high-profile, 15-city book tour to promote her memoir, "107 Days," chronicling her brief 2024 presidential campaign following President Joe Biden’s exit from the race. The book is set for release on September 23, 2025, and will see Harris making public appearances across the United States and internationally—including stops in London and Toronto—at a time when political risks and public scrutiny are at an all-time high.
According to CNN and IBTimes, the protection Harris had enjoyed was not the standard six months typically allotted to former vice presidents under a 2008 federal law. Instead, then-President Joe Biden quietly extended her detail for an additional year through an executive memorandum in January 2025, at the request of Harris’s aides who cited ongoing safety concerns. This extension, which would have run until July 2026, was not publicly disclosed at the time and only came to light after Trump’s recent revocation.
The official notice from the Trump administration, addressed to the Department of Homeland Security, was clear and unequivocal: “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.” A Secret Service source confirmed to IBTimes that the directive came straight from the White House and was not prompted by any new security review or threat analysis.
Harris’s security team and supporters have voiced deep concerns about the implications of the move. The loss of Secret Service protection means not only the withdrawal of armed agents but also the end of sophisticated threat intelligence, risk assessments, and surveillance of potential dangers—including those emerging from online activity. As Los Angeles Times and CNN report, securing private protection of a similar caliber would likely cost Harris millions of dollars annually, a burden that few private citizens can shoulder, especially when facing a packed public schedule.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass were both briefed on the decision and have not minced words about their concerns. Newsom’s spokesperson told CNN, “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.” Mayor Bass went further, stating, “This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances, and more. 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.”
In the wake of the federal withdrawal, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has stepped in to provide interim protection for Harris while she remains in Los Angeles. The specifics of this arrangement remain under wraps, but the move underscores the urgency and seriousness with which state and local officials are treating the situation. Discussions are ongoing about longer-term measures, with Harris’s team, state authorities, and local law enforcement exploring how best to safeguard her during her national and international appearances.
The revocation of Harris’s protection is not occurring in a vacuum. Trump’s administration has taken similar actions against other officials from the Biden era and even some from his own ranks. As NBC News details, Trump previously stripped security details from former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton, and former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, among others. Earlier this year, he also terminated Secret Service protection for Biden’s adult children, Hunter and Ashley Biden. These moves, seen by many as part of a broader pattern of political retribution, have fueled accusations that Trump is using his authority to settle scores with rivals and critics.
Harris, for her part, has maintained a measured public response. Kirsten Allen, a senior advisor and former White House spokesperson, conveyed Harris’s appreciation for the Secret Service, saying, “The Vice President is grateful to the United States Secret Service for their professionalism, dedication, and unwavering commitment to safety.” Harris herself has not commented further, choosing instead to focus on her upcoming book tour and public engagements.
As the first Black person and first woman to serve as vice president—and the first Black woman to become a major party presidential nominee—Harris has faced heightened threats throughout her career. CNN and IBTimes both note that these risks are not merely theoretical; the political climate has grown increasingly polarized, with public officials facing a surge in threats, both online and offline. The loss of federal protection at such a critical juncture has prompted many to question whether the current system is adequate to address the evolving security needs of high-profile political figures, particularly those who break new ground in American history.
Trump’s supporters, for their part, argue that the move simply restores adherence to longstanding federal law, which limits post-tenure protection for vice presidents to six months. They point out that former presidents receive Secret Service coverage for life, but vice presidents have never been afforded the same courtesy—unless a sitting president intervenes. From this perspective, Biden’s secret extension for Harris was an unusual departure from precedent, and Trump’s revocation is a return to business as usual.
Critics, however, see the timing and context as unmistakably political. Harris’s profile is set to rise dramatically with her book tour, and her status as a potential 2028 presidential candidate—though still speculative—adds another layer of intrigue. The revocation, they say, strips away critical protections just as Harris steps back into the national spotlight, exposing her to avoidable risks and sending a chilling message to other public officials who may find themselves out of favor with the current administration.
Meanwhile, the Secret Service detail previously assigned to Harris will be redeployed to preparations for the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where security demands are always high. As for Harris, her immediate future will be shaped by a patchwork of state and local resources, private arrangements, and the vigilance of her supporters.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the security of America’s political leaders remains as much a matter of politics as of protocol, with decisions reverberating far beyond the individuals directly involved. The story of Kamala Harris’s protection—or lack thereof—will continue to unfold as she embarks on her next chapter, watched closely by allies and adversaries alike.
