News
Trump’s Ending of Hunter Biden’s Security Detail Raises Questions About Who Gets Protection
Former Vice President Kamala Harris has Secret Service protection, at least for a few more months.
Chelsea Clinton does not have a Secret Service detail anymore, though her father, former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary Clinton, do.
All of President Trump’s family members currently have protection, including his grandchildren.
And while former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his wife are by law allowed to have protection for the rest of their lives, their adult children had it only for a few months. After leaving office, Mr. Biden issued an executive order that extended the protection to them, but Mr. Trump revoked their detail in a pique on Monday.
The controversies and Mr. Trump’s announcement have thrust the subject of security for public figures into the headlines. But they also raise questions: Who gets Secret Service protection? For how long? Who makes those decisions? How much is it costing the taxpayers?
Here are the ins and outs of government protection.
Who is the Secret Service required to protect?
The Secret Service is statutorily required to protect certain people, including the sitting president, vice president and their families.
In the case of both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump, their family members made up a majority of people with Secret Service protection details during their respective administrations. Both men are grandfathers and have large families that have been under protection. Mr. Trump has five children and 10 grandchildren. Mr. Biden’s two children and seven grandchildren also had details while he was president.
The agency is required to protect former presidents and their spouses for life, and children of past presidents retain their Secret Service details until they turn 16.
In addition, visiting heads of states and their spouses receive protection details. So do major candidates for president and vice president and their spouses beginning 120 days before the general election.
How is protection assigned?
A president can also assign Secret Service protection through executive orders, meaning the president can add or remove the detail by fiat.
While president, Mr. Biden extended the protective detail for Mr. Trump’s youngest son, Barron, after he turned 16, according to an official familiar with the arrangement who was not authorized to speak about the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
And before he left office, Mr. Biden also extended the protective detail for his vice president, Kamala Harris, for at least six months, the official said. Because the law does not require protection for former vice presidents, Mr. Trump could choose to end the security detail for Ms. Harris.
Toward the end of his term, Mr. Biden issued an executive order extending security details for his children, Hunter and Ashley, for six months. Mr. Trump did the same for his five children at the end of his first term.
But Mr. Trump abruptly ended the protection for the Biden siblings on Monday, speeding up a process that was already set to happen.
On social media on Monday, Mr. Trump wrote that Hunter Biden had an 18-person protective detail providing security while he was on vacation in South Africa.
“Please be advised that, effective immediately, Hunter Biden will no longer receive Secret Service protection,” Mr. Trump wrote. “Likewise, Ashley Biden who has 13 agents will be taken off the list.”
For security reasons, the Secret Service would not say how agents are transitioning out of protecting former President Biden’s children. The agency does routine security assessments of the people it protects, but it would not discuss the threats facing Hunter and Ashley Biden.
Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said on Monday evening: “We are aware of the president’s decision to terminate protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden. The Secret Service will comply and is actively working with the protective details and the White House to ensure compliance as soon as possible.”
A representative for the Biden family declined to comment Monday.
How much does it cost taxpayers?
The number of people under Secret Service protection fluctuates, and the complete list of people is not made public for security reasons.
The list grew to 54 from around 26 after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a former official familiar with the protective details at that time. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss information that is not routinely publicized.
During the first Trump administration, 42 people had Secret Service protection. That number dropped to around 36 while Mr. Biden was in office. Currently, the Secret Service has protection details for 43 people.
Hunter Biden’s travels raised questions about the taxpayer cost and necessity of a large entourage when the Secret Service is struggling with staffing and retention, former agency officials said.
“During a time where resource constraints are difficult in the Service, this is something that he just deemed as no longer the extension of a courtesy,” Ronald Layton, a 26-year veteran of the Secret Service who led divisions with oversight of protection, said of the president’s decision. Mr. Layton said cutting the protection details short was “common sense.”
While the agency does not break down the cost of protective details for each person it is assigned, the Secret Service’s total budget in 2024 for its protection-specific mission was nearly $1.5 billion, according to data from the Congressional Research Service. In 2019, which was not a presidential election year, the budget for the protection-specific mission was nearly $970 million.
Resources at the agency have been stretched thin after years of staffing shortages and the grueling 2024 presidential campaign season, which called for more protection for candidates than in any previous campaign cycle, partly because of the number of candidates who received protection and threats against Mr. Trump.
This came into stark focus after the attempted assassination of Mr. Trump last summer. The Secret Service was broadly criticized for its security failures at an outdoor campaign rally in Butler, Pa., where a would-be assassin was able to climb onto a building and shoot Mr. Trump.
How has Trump used his Secret Service power?
Despite the legitimate questions of cost for protecting so many people, the sudden announcement of the cessation of protection for Hunter Biden, coupled with Mr. Trump’s fixation on the former president and his only living son, raised immediate questions about whether this move was the latest stop on the president’s revenge tour.
It prolonged Mr. Trump’s controversial pattern of using the power to assign or dismiss security details in ways that highlight his personal grievances and potentially expose his perceived enemies to peril — part of a retribution pledge that he has effectively carried out since his return to the Oval Office.
Within hours of taking office, Mr. Trump removed the security detail of John R. Bolton, one of his former national security advisers. Mr. Trump fired Mr. Bolton in 2019, and Mr. Bolton later wrote a book critical of Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump also pulled the protection for Mike Pompeo, one of his former secretaries of state, and a former aide, Brian Hook. Mr. Trump did this even though Mr. Bolton, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Hook remain under threat because of actions they took during Mr. Trump’s first term.
As president, Mr. Biden gave Secret Service protection to Mr. Bolton, and later Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Hook, because of Iranian threats. Mr. Bolton and other officials from Mr. Trump’s first term, including the president, have faced continued threats for their involvement in an airstrike that killed Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian general, in January 2020. In 2022, the Justice Department charged a man with plotting to assassinate Mr. Bolton.
When Mr. Trump pulled the protection details for Mr. Bolton and the other two former advisers, two Republican senators — Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — urged him to reconsider.
“Politics should not come into this in any way,” Jason Russell, a former Secret Service agent, said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday. “It’s an unfortunate reality.”
“In this case, it seems like a retribution or some kind of political gamesmanship to take protection away,” Mr. Russell said. “But the Secret Service really shouldn’t be used in this manner. It should be always a threat-based decision.”
Mr. Trump also stripped the government-funded security detail for Dr. Anthony S. Fauci days after his return to office. Dr. Fauci did not have a Secret Service detail, but he continued to have taxpayer-paid security after he left the government in 2022. Initially, federal marshals protected him, and later he had a private contractor whose fees were paid by the government. Conservatives widely criticized Dr. Fauci because of his role guiding the country through the coronavirus pandemic, and he had a contentious relationship with Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump’s announcement on Monday did more than eliminate Hunter Biden’s detail; it also told the public where he was, potentially putting him at risk.
The vacation was not exactly a state secret, however, as The New York Post had published an opinion essay on Saturday about his travels.
“We are in a very unstable security environment where there has been a lot of political violence,” said Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. “Decisions about the extension of Secret Service protection should be made with discretion so people are not exposed to any added risks.”
Minho Kim contributed reporting.
A federal judge has struck down a New Hampshire law that blocked new voters from using a sworn affidavit to prove their citizenship in the absence of official documents such as a birth certificate or passport.
The decision, filed late Thursday by Judge Samantha D. Elliott of the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, found that “eliminating the affidavits” as a means of proving citizenship “constitutes an unjustifiable burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and 14th Amendments.” The ruling immediately overturned the law, which was passed in 2024 and signed by the Republican governor at the time, Chris Sununu.
A spokesman for New Hampshire’s Justice Department said the state intended to appeal the decision.
The law “represents a common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections,” the spokesman, Michael Garrity, said in a statement on Friday.
The law, which created some of the strictest voter registration requirements in the country, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire on behalf of several groups, including the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire.
“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure and accurate,” Henry Klementowicz, the state A.C.L.U.’s deputy legal director, said in a statement. “This law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot.”
Reports of wrongful voting in the state did not decline after the law’s passage, Judge Elliott noted, with a similar number of reports filed with the state attorney general in the year before the law was passed, and the year after.
The push for proof of citizenship has been at the core of Republican-backed efforts to change voting rules, ever since President Trump and his allies began promoting baseless conspiracy theories over the past decade that there has been widespread voter fraud by noncitizens.
Mr. Trump put documentary proof of citizenship at the center of his effort to change the country’s voting laws last year. He first signed an executive order in March 2025 that partly sought to establish such a requirement for federal elections, but that provision of the order was rejected by federal courts.
Republicans in Congress then took up the charge, making documentary proof of citizenship central to their federal voting legislation, known as the SAVE America Act. But the measure has stalled in Congress, where Republicans do not have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster of the bill.
With the bill in limbo, Mr. Trump has threatened not to sign any other legislation until Republicans reform the filibuster to pass it, a procedural move known as the “nuclear option.” But his threats have not moved many Republicans to make the move.
There is no evidence of widespread voting by noncitizens, and the Trump administration’s efforts to prove these conspiracies are not succeeding: Out of 49.5 million voter registrations that have been checked by the beginning of 2026, the Department of Homeland Security referred around 0.02 percent of the names for further investigation. Any actual proven cases are likely to be a fraction of that fraction.
Even before the new law was passed, New Hampshire’s voting access had been more limited than most states’. It did not offer early in-person voting, or registration by mail for most voters. And it removed inactive voters after four years. More than 195,000 voters were removed in 2021 alone, according to a summary of evidence in the 100-page court decision.
New Hampshire does offer same-day registration on Election Day, an option that was used by voters some 350,000 times from 2016 to 2024, witnesses testified.
Under the law that was struck down, voters who showed up to register could present a birth certificate, a passport, naturalization papers “or any other reasonable documentation.” But they could no longer, as an alternative, sign an affidavit stating they were 18, a resident of the municipality they were voting in and a citizen of the United States.
“It may be tempting for some to describe the Qualified Voter Affidavit as an exception to the proof-of-citizenship requirement, but it is not,” Judge Elliott wrote in her decision. “A sworn affidavit capable of exposing an affiant to criminal prosecution is a method of proving citizenship.”
“Moreover,” she added, “the evidence shows that it is the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters.”
Experts testified in a trial this year that 5,000 to 30,000 residents in the state did not have documentary proof of citizenship. They said that 14,700 voters had used the affidavit option to register to vote from April to November of 2024.
From left: Jeff Bezos, Roland Garros, Jill Biden.
Marco Bertorello/AFP via Getty Images; Branger/Getty Images/Hulton Archive; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Marco Bertorello/AFP via Getty Images; Branger/Getty Images/Hulton Archive; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
This week, the pope took a stand on artificial intelligence in an encyclical Google Gemini called “historic and highly ambitious” and an “aggressive, uncompromising critique.” Thanks, Gemini! Enjoy the quiz, y’all.
News
Becerra leads governor’s race, with Hilton and Steyer in tight contest for second spot, poll finds
On the cusp of California’s gubernatorial June 2 primary, a poll shows voters are closely divided among three candidates vying to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom at a perilous moment in history for the state and the nation.
Among likely California voters, 25% support Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and former Biden Cabinet secretary, according to the survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and released Thursday. Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator and British political strategist, has the backing of 21%, while 19% backed billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental activist Tom Steyer, a Democrat.
California gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra takes a selfie while campaigning Tuesday at an event in San Francisco.
(Benjamin Fanjoy / Getty Images)
The survey provided the clearest indication yet that the three have separated themselves from the rest of the field. Support increased for Becerra, Hilton and Steyer since the last Berkeley IGS poll in March. Becerra leapfrogged everyone. In early March, he wallowed near the bottom of the pack at just 5% support among likely voters, and now is the front-runner.
The other candidates floundered. Support for Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, dropped 5%, and he now finds himself in a distant fourth place. Former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine dropped by almost half to 7%. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — all Democrats — remained mired in the single digits.
Poll director Mark DiCamillo cautioned that it remains unclear which candidates will finish in first and second place in the June 2 primary, a pivotal question since only the top two finishers will advance to the November general election regardless of party affiliation. The low voter turnout thus far makes predicting the outcome especially difficult.
Although every registered voter in California was sent a mail-in ballot, many have not returned them or dropped them off at voting locations — a telltale sign of the uncertain nature of this year’s governor’s race. The survey, which included all 61 of the gubernatorial candidates on the ballot, found that Democratic turnout thus far is noticeably lower compared with past primary elections, DiCamillo said.
Steve Hilton arrives for a news conference at the San Jose Diridon rail station on Tuesday.
(Jason Henry/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“We’re assuming that … the Democrats will in fact turn out in the final week after we had concluded our poll and begin to make up ground on what looks like an early lead for Hilton, and those voters favor Becerra,” DiCamillo said.
The survey, conducted between May 19 and 24, found that likely Democratic voters favored Becerra over Steyer by 11 percentage points. Voters registered as “no party preference” were evenly divided among Becerra, Steyer and Hilton. Among likely Republican voters, Hilton led Bianco by almost 2 to 1.
Becerra also had a notable edge over Steyer among women and Latino voters, while Steyer had an advantage among Black voters. Hilton was favored over the two Democrats among self-identified libertarians and among voters in Orange County, the Central Valley and northern coast and Sierra region.
The poll found that 7% of voters remained undecided.
For the first time in more than a quarter of a century, the contest to lead the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy has consistently lacked a front-runner despite a plethora of candidates.
Two of California’s best-known Democrats, former Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, both toyed with a run for governor before deciding not to run, which contributed to the sluggishness of the race. The 2026 campaign for governor also languished in the shadow of the mayhem stirred up by President Trump, including his immigration raids throughout Southern California, and the devastation wrought by the 2025 Pacific Palisades and Altadena wildfires.
But a whirlwind of recent developments has drawn attention to the race.
Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), once a front-runner in the contest, withdrew from the race and resigned from Congress in the aftermath of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and assault that he denies.
Tom Steyer takes part in a campaign event in Santa Rosa on Wednesday.
(David Paul Morris / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Additionally, record-breaking amounts of money have flowed into the race. Steyer has smashed state self-funding records by contributing $212 million to his campaign as of Tuesday, according to the California secretary of state’s office. Nearly $85 million has been donated to independent expenditure committees by corporations, labor unions, tech titans, Native American tribes and other special interests, most of which will have policy interests that will be in front of the next governor.
Although the 2026 California governor’s race lacks the allure of recent contests that featured candidates such as global movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, political scion Jerry Brown and former San Francisco mayor and likely 2028 presidential candidate Gavin Newsom, it is unfolding at a crucial time for Californians.
The state’s most vulnerable residents are facing severe reductions to medical care because of looming federal healthcare funding cuts, and California’s budget, already volatile because of its reliance on the state’s wealthiest residents, may grow more unpredictable. California’s highest-in-the-nation gas prices increased even more because of the U.S.-Iran war, adding to the state’s entrenched affordability crisis, which has driven many residents out of the state.
The cost of living, homelessness and public safety were among the top concerns expressed by voters, according to the poll. Protecting voting rights was also supported by most voters, though their underlying concerns could be starkly different based on their political views.
Democrats have been focused on the disenfranchisement of voters, a fear that has heightened in the aftermath of a recent Supreme Court decision that gutted a section of the Voting Rights Act that forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress. Republicans echo President Trump’s claims of elections being rigged.
Chad Bianco is interviewed May 6 after the gubernatorial debate at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
Voters split largely along party lines about issues such as Trump’s policies about climate change, immigration and taxes.
Voters’ uncertainty in the governor’s race is partly driven by California’s unique, voter-approved “jungle” primary system, in which the two candidates who win the most votes in the June 2 primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.
Although the state’s voters are largely registered Democrats, the party’s leaders feared earlier this year that they would splinter among the multiple Democrats on the ballot, leading to Hilton and Bianco advancing to the November general election and ensuring that a Republican would be elected governor. Bianco had the backing of 11% in the new Berkeley survey.
The Republicans were once roughly tied in polls, until Trump endorsed Hilton in April. More than one-third of likely Republican voters said Trump’s endorsement of Hilton made them more likely to support him. Among voters who identified with the “Make America Great Again” movement, nearly two-thirds supported Hilton while less than 3 in 10 backed Bianco.
Though Bianco’s followers seem to be more passionate, “Hilton has got the much broader base of support, and then he got Trump’s endorsement,” DiCamillo said.
He added that Hilton’s rise is unusual in California, where statewide candidates typically spend enormous sums of money to raise their visibility among the state’s 23.1 million registered voters.
“What’s interesting about Hilton is that he hasn’t really done much of his campaigning in the traditional way. He hasn’t run huge amounts of television advertising, you don’t see his name out there in the traditional media, other than in free media,” DiCamillo said. “You can see that in the data, because almost a third of voters still have no opinion of Hilton … about what it was back in March, which is startling for a candidate who is among the leaders.”
Democrats’ fear of being locked out of the November general election led party leaders and allies to effectively urge low-polling candidates to drop out of the race in remarkable public statements in March.
The tables have since turned — the prospect of two Republicans winning the top spots in the June primary appear nonexistent, while polling shows a small possibility of two Democrats advancing to the general election.
“I’m not saying it’s likely, but it’s possible that two Democrats could emerge, and that would have huge implications on turnout in the [November] election,” DiCamillo said, pointing to California congressional races that could shape control of the U.S. House of Representatives. “If you don’t have a Republican at the top of the ticket, it would be dismal for the Republicans’ chances.”
The poll of 8,578 registered California voters was conducted online in English and Spanish and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction.
-
Tennessee4 minutes agoAnswering Tennessee Football’s Burning Questions Less Than 100 Days Until Kickoff | Rocky Top Insider
-
Texas10 minutes agoWhy are Mississippi State softball fans wearing broccoli shirts vs Texas at WCWS?
-
Utah16 minutes agoVideo: Utah startup employs those right out of prison and celebrates new milestone – KSLTV.com
-
Vermont22 minutes agoWith two major vacancies, who will lead the Vermont House and Senate? – VTDigger
-
Virginia28 minutes agoNetflix casting Central Virginia singles for “Love on the Spectrum” after Danville man joins show
-
Washington34 minutes agoAs an AI tech-hub, Washington must lead with conscience
-
Wisconsin40 minutes ago
Wisconsin National Guard troops return after yearlong deployment in Middle East
-
West Virginia46 minutes agoWheeling launches West Virginia’s first recovery housing program for young adults
