Security Considerations for Kamala Harris Amidst Political Controversies

As Kamala Harris contemplated a run for governor in California, her thoughts included the implications of security details that accompany the state’s top official. Several individuals close to Harris, both past and present, noted how these protective services—characterized by dark glasses, earpieces, and serious expressions—played a role in her decision-making process. This wasn’t necessarily about their thoughts on Trump, but rather a reflection on the realities of such a prestigious position.

One associate pointed out that Harris has been accustomed to a level of security since her election as San Francisco District Attorney in 2003. That kind of lifestyle, filled with protection and logistical aid, can be hard to give up—especially when it means avoiding the hassle of navigating California’s busy highways.

Of course, it might seem somewhat selfish to consider these factors in her decision to run for governor, but according to one political advisor, Harris simply “didn’t feel called” to take that step earlier on.

Now, the discussion around her personal security has sparked a significant amount of debate. Given how everything seems so heavily politicized these days, it’s not really surprising. There’s certainly a lot of hostility out there.

Last month, President Trump revoked Harris’ Secret Service protections unexpectedly. Typically, these security measures last six months after a vice president leaves office, allowing them to transition out of the public eye. However, President Biden signed an executive order to extend these protections for another year before leaving office.

As the first woman, first Black vice president, and first Asian American vice president, Harris faced increased threat levels during her time in office, reflecting persistent issues of racism and misogyny. Sadly, there are still individuals willing to act on these harmful impulses.

The president may have temporarily restored Harris’ protection, but expecting kindness from Trump is akin to trusting a starving dog to resist a tempting steak. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass criticized this move as yet another act of political revenge, following a trend of retaliatory actions including security clearances.

Bass acknowledged the standard procedure that Harris was subject to, but pointed out that the context matters. It didn’t seem like Harris was being treated disproportionately compared to past vice presidents.

In response to this situation, Governor Gavin Newsom intervened, providing Harris with protection through the California Highway Patrol. Shortly thereafter, it was reported that the Los Angeles Police Department was planning to shift resources to address crime in harder-hit areas of the city.

This approach raised eyebrows regarding efficient use of police resources. News surfaced indicating that Harris had been stripped of some security details, suggesting that the LAPD’s involvement might have been more of an interim solution.

The Los Angeles Police Protection Federation, representing rank-and-file officers, issued a scathing statement criticizing the expedited arrangement. They referred to Harris as a “failed presidential candidate” who, given her wealth, could easily afford her own security.

Reflecting on her 2024 loss to Trump, where she garnered only 1.5% of the popularity vote, that comment seemed particularly relevant. Certainly, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, reside in a spacious Brentwood home, so they likely won’t be struggling to find meals. Nevertheless, they aren’t without financial constraints.

One private security firm indicated that the cost of a security detail could reach nearly $1,000 for a 12-hour shift. Unless your name is amongst the likes of Elon Musk or Taylor Swift, those expenses add up pretty quickly.

In the midst of partisan tensions, there’s an undeniable need for Harris to ensure her safety against potential threats. The California Highway Patrol’s unit dedicated to protecting constitutional officers is responsible for the safety of not just Harris but also other state officials, including former constitutional officers like her.

With a budget as large as California’s $32.1 billion, there should absolutely be space allocated to guarantee that one of the state’s highest-profile leaders is safe. While it doesn’t have to be an open-ended commitment to her security, a regular review based on evolving risks seems reasonable.

Serving in elected office has always been challenging, and in today’s charged environment, constant anxiety should not be part of the deal. Politicians shouldn’t have to live their lives looking over their shoulders or lose their savings on personal security measures.