Trump Revokes Harris’ Secret Service Extension
Former VPs get only six months of protection?!
WaPo (“Trump revokes Secret Service detail for Harris that Biden had extended“):
President Donald Trump has revoked the Secret Service detail for former vice president Kamala Harris that President Joe Biden had previously extended, according to multiple people familiar with the decision and a copy of a letter terminating the detail.
The decision comes about a month before Harris, Trump’s Democratic opponent in the 2024 election, is scheduled to embark on a national book tour that will be her first extended public exposure since leaving office.
Federal law gives vice presidents six months of Secret Service protection after they leave office, though Biden, before his presidency ended, had extended her detail for another year, according to a person familiar with the decision, who spoke about it on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
Given that Harris was Trump’s opponent in the last election, this certainly seems petty. More importantly, in our hyper-partisan age, it seems downright dangerous.
It’s odd to me that former VPs are only entitled to six months of protection. By contrast, former First Ladies are entitled to lifetime protection, unless they remarry after their husband’s passing. That seems out of balance.
That Harris is going on a book tour, though, does not strike me as an extenuating factor. We’re not generally in the business of providing security at taxpayer expense for controversial authors hawking tell-all books.
That’s an oddly reductive way to refer to a former Senator / Vice President / Presidential candidate, given the topic at hand directly relates to one or more of those roles.
@Jon: I’m commenting on the emphasis WaPo put on the book tour. She should get protection because she was VP and it’s a dangerous environment, not because she’s promoting a book about it.
(Welcome back tool bar!)
I hadn’t realized there was such a large discrepancy between the VP and first lady. Anyway, in today’s hyper polarized politics seems odd the VP would get only 6 months.
Steve
@James Joyner: I think the book tour angle is relevant. The point of a book tour is publicity, so the locations and dates are published well in advance. That provides bad actors plenty of time to plan. While a former VP does have scheduled events, those are typically tightly held and are planned in areas that can be secured. (I’ve noticed that the invites I get for fundraising are now for the date and town, and “you will receive the exact time/location closer to the event and after you purchase your ticket” for example.)
This seems like a petty and dangerous move.
Is that the most sexist federal law still on the books?
I wonder if the rationale there is that unfaithful sluts who remarry don’t deserve protection, or that protecting her is the responsibility of her big stwong husband… or both.
@DrDaveT: You’re right, but my brain went to “huh, more xenophobia.” I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that this particular gem comes from Jackie Kennedy’s marriage to Aristotle Onassis, and that it was geared towards not having the taxpayers pay for her protection after marrying a hugely wealthy Greek.
@DrDaveT: It may just be a reflection of the belief that First Ladies are uncontroversial little things that decorate the White House for Christmas, reassigned the Rose Garden, and maybe tell people to just say “no” to drugs.
Predating the modern Republican hatred of Democratic President’s wives.
Indeed, “petty” seems the key word here. Trump did everything he could to excite his well armed MAGA base against her. Had he left her protection in place, nobody would have known or cared. The money involved is small. Pulling her detail is pretty much just performative nastiness, a dominance display by a weak man. Petty is exactly the word for it. In fact “petty” is pretty much a synonym for “Trump”.
This could be tit-for-tat on Biden’s canceling protection on former Trump Administration officials that had Iranian death threats (more like bounties). I don’t agree with either (and the current Administration is petty, vice doing what is right and moral).
BTW I was on JBLM Ft Lewis ~2012 a few days before former President Clinton was going to visit hawking his book at the Exchange (AAFES). Secret Service required the gun sales section to be closed down, so the sign said the sporting goods section (guns and ammo) would be closed and that there would be no sales of hunting and fishing licenses. Hilarious (what is the limit on ex-Presidents?).
James Joyner: It’s odd to me that former VPs are only entitled to six months of protection.
Not so odd in that Vice Presidents have usually been afterthoughts and have quickly disappeared from public notice. Who was Vice President under Gerald Ford or Harry Truman? Of course, nowadays, Vice Presidents are much more in the public consciousness, meaning a higher likelihood of being targeted.