President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke former Vice President Kamala Harris’s Secret Service protection, effective September 1, 2025, has sparked debate, with some arguing it reflects a belief that Harris has faded from public consciousness to the point of irrelevance. The memorandum, issued on August 28, 2025, directed the Department of Homeland Security to discontinue security measures beyond those required by law, ending an 18-month extension signed by President Joe Biden that would have protected Harris until July 2026. Critics suggest Trump’s move is less about security assessments and more a calculated jab at Harris’s diminished public profile since her 2024 presidential election loss, implying that her lack of visibility reduces any credible threat. This aligns with Trump’s pattern of targeting political adversaries, as seen in his revocation of security for figures like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, suggesting a broader effort to erase the legacy of opponents who no longer command significant public attention.
Harris, the first woman and first Black vice president, faced heightened threats during her tenure, particularly after becoming the Democratic nominee in 2024, yet her low profile since leaving office—marked by limited public appearances and a decision not to run for California governor in 2026—may have fueled perceptions of her as a forgotten figure. Her upcoming book tour for “107 Days,” a memoir about her brief presidential campaign, was expected to raise her visibility, but a recent Secret Service threat assessment reportedly found no credible risks, supporting the argument that her faded relevance negates the need for continued protection. California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, have expressed outrage, calling the move retaliatory and dangerous, yet the narrative that “no one remembers” Harris underscores a perception that her political star has dimmed, potentially justifying Trump’s decision in the eyes of his supporters.
However, this revocation raises broader concerns about the politicization of security decisions, particularly as Harris remains a potential 2028 presidential contender despite her current low profile. The decision to strip her protection, framed by some as a dismissal of her relevance, overlooks documented threats against her during and after the 2024 campaign, including a 2021 incident involving a Florida woman and a 2024 case of a Virginia man charged with targeting Harris. By prioritizing a narrative of obscurity over evidence of risk, Trump’s action risks setting a precedent where security is weaponized against political foes, potentially endangering figures like Harris who, despite a quieter public presence, remain significant in American politics. Local leaders have vowed to provide alternative protection, but the move highlights a deeper intent to marginalize Harris’s legacy as a historic figure.
