White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has been assigned a U.S. Secret Service protective detail in recent days, a move that has drawn attention to the safety of high-profile government officials amid a tense political climate. Multiple sources familiar with the matter confirmed the assignment, which comes in the immediate aftermath of the fatal shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, an event that has reignited national conversations about the risks faced by public figures.
According to CBS News, the decision to provide Leavitt with a security detail was made quietly, with both the White House and the Secret Service declining to comment publicly. Leavitt herself declined to address the matter when contacted by reporters. The timing, however, is notable: it coincides with the Trump administration's renewed push for Congress to approve a $58 million increase in security funding for members of the executive and judicial branches—a proposal that gained momentum following Kirk's shooting. As of September 18, 2025, Congress was actively considering the funding boost, reflecting growing concern over the vulnerability of officials in an increasingly polarized atmosphere.
While it is uncommon for White House press secretaries to receive Secret Service protection, it is not without precedent. The last notable instance occurred in 2018, when Sarah Huckabee Sanders, then President Trump's spokesperson and now governor of Arkansas, was temporarily granted a Secret Service detail at her home. That decision followed a widely publicized incident in which Sanders was refused service at a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Sanders later tweeted about the episode, sparking a social media uproar and prompting the protective measure. As reported by CBS News and echoed in several outlets, these exceptions underscore the evolving nature of security threats against high-profile government communicators.
The urgency surrounding Leavitt's new security arrangement was heightened not just by the tragedy involving Kirk, but also by a security scare earlier in the week. Anti-Trump protesters from the activist group Code Pink managed to get within close proximity of President Trump and top Cabinet members—including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—inside a Washington, D.C. restaurant. According to the Daily Beast, the protestors, who had made reservations, shouted slogans such as "Free D.C.! Free Palestine!" and compared Trump to Hitler as the officials sat down to eat. The incident rattled some on the political right, who questioned how the protestors were able to get so close to the president and whether there had been a security lapse or even a leak within the Secret Service.
Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna voiced her concern publicly, posting on X: "How are they allowed that close to him? Where was Secret Service and was there someone in Secret Service that leaked his location? This needs to be looked into." In response, a Secret Service spokesperson told the Daily Beast that "all restaurant guests were screened prior to the president's arrival, including the protestors who had made a reservation to gain access." The spokesperson added, "The situation inside the restaurant was quickly resolved by Secret Service personnel who were actively engaged in ensuring the president’s safety and the dinner continued without further incident. The safety and security of the president remains our highest priority."
Despite these reassurances, President Trump admitted feeling uneasy about the episode. Speaking aboard Air Force One on his return from the United Kingdom, he told reporters on September 18, 2025, "Yeah, I think they were a threat." His candid admission only added fuel to the ongoing debate about the adequacy of security measures for top officials, especially as political tensions continue to escalate nationwide.
The Secret Service, as of the previous year, was responsible for protecting 36 individuals, a number that fluctuates based on perceived threats and presidential directives. In recent months, President Trump has exercised his authority to both grant and revoke protective details for various officials. Notably, he stripped former Vice President Kamala Harris of her Secret Service protection late last month, just ahead of her national book tour for "107 Days," which chronicles her 2024 campaign. The revocation came after the extended protection that former President Joe Biden had granted her expired. Trump also removed security details for two of his first-term Cabinet members, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, as well as for Ashley and Hunter Biden, the adult children of President Biden.
These decisions have not gone unnoticed in Washington, where the allocation of security resources is often seen as both a practical and political matter. The recent events—the shooting of a prominent conservative figure, the restaurant protest incident, and the shifting landscape of Secret Service assignments—have brought the issue to the forefront of congressional debate. Lawmakers are now weighing not just the immediate need for increased funding, but also the broader implications for how protection is prioritized and distributed among public officials.
For Leavitt, the new security detail marks a significant shift in her day-to-day life. While the White House press secretary is a highly visible role, it has historically not been considered as high-risk as positions such as president, vice president, or Cabinet-level officials. However, as the political climate has grown more volatile, the boundaries of who warrants protection have become less clear. The precedent set by Sanders in 2018, and now reinforced by Leavitt's situation, suggests that the government is willing to adapt its security protocols in response to evolving threats.
The debate over security for high-profile officials is not just a matter of policy, but also of public perception. Each new incident—be it a violent attack, a public protest, or a controversial revocation of protection—shapes how Americans view the safety of their leaders and the institutions tasked with guarding them. As Congress deliberates the proposed $58 million funding increase, the conversation is likely to intensify, with advocates on all sides weighing the balance between openness, accountability, and safety in the nation's capital.
Amid these developments, the Secret Service remains tight-lipped, refusing to comment on specific assignments or the criteria used to determine who receives protection. For now, the agency's actions speak louder than words, signaling a heightened awareness of the risks facing those at the center of American political life. As the story continues to unfold, the question of how best to protect public servants—without compromising the democratic values they represent—will remain a pressing concern for both policymakers and the public alike.
