By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former President Donald Trump has revoked the Secret Service protection of former Vice President Kamala Harris, effective September 1, 2025, according to a letter. This decision cancels an extension of Harris’ protection that was put in place by then-President Joe Biden before leaving office. The move comes as Harris prepares for a book tour, putting her in the public eye and raising concerns about her safety. The ramifications of the cancellation include the loss of constant threat intelligence analysis and protection, as well as the potential high cost of private security.
Read the original article here
Trump cancels Kamala Harris’ Secret Service detail that was extended by undisclosed Biden order. It’s difficult to ignore the sheer pettiness of this situation. We’re talking about a former president, Donald Trump, making a move that feels less like a strategic decision and more like a personal jab. The core of it is this: Kamala Harris, the current Vice President, had her Secret Service protection extended beyond the typical six-month post-office period. This extension, we understand, was put in place by an undisclosed order from the Biden administration. And now, Trump has reversed that.
The act itself is concerning because it removes a layer of security for a high-profile individual who, by virtue of her position, is a potential target. This is a significant responsibility that should be above political gamesmanship. There’s a real worry that by withdrawing protection, you’re essentially setting the stage for something dangerous. It suggests an intent to make her vulnerable, and that’s a frightening thought. Think about it: those in positions of leadership should have a reasonable expectation of safety, regardless of political affiliation. Removing that protection feels deliberate.
The reactions to this decision have been quite strong, and it’s easy to see why. The accusation that Trump is behaving like a “sixth-grade bully” and a “cartoon villain” seem pretty accurate when you consider the context. It’s not just about a lack of security; it’s also a sign of contempt, a deliberate attempt to belittle a political opponent. The fact that the Secret Service protection was extended by an action from the previous administration makes the move even more pointed. It suggests a personal vendetta, a desire to undermine and weaken Harris in any way possible.
The comparison between Harris and Trump’s children receiving protection, and the hypocrisy that is, is particularly galling. The criticism of Trump’s actions, including the suggestion that he is motivated by spite and a desire for harm to befall his political rivals, is not surprising. Some people are even talking about the potential legal ramifications of this decision, asking if Trump could be held liable should something happen to Harris as a result of the reduced security. The overall impression is one of vindictiveness, of someone who prioritizes his ego over the safety and security of others.
The discussion also highlighted the importance of the role the president can play. There’s a significant question of whether such power should be held by one individual. The president’s power extends to a wide variety of situations, and it’s only right to consider what constraints and measures should be put in place to ensure they are used responsibly. The whole situation is a stark reminder of how much a president’s personal feelings can influence their actions, and it’s a dangerous trend.
It also raises the question of accountability. It is easy to imagine the hypothetical of Governor Newsom signing an order removing Secret Service protection for the Trump family. The idea is to use similar methods to what the former president is doing, and that would be petty and wrong. The hope is that the day will come when the negative trend is stopped. There are a lot of people who seem to agree that Trump’s actions in this instance are deeply troubling and that it should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The whole situation reveals a deeper problem within our political landscape: the erosion of civility and a willingness to exploit even the most fundamental responsibilities for personal gain.