The Los Angeles Police Department has ended around-the-clock protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris after criticism from conservative commentators and pressure from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union for rank-and-file officers.
The change comes after President Donald Trump revoked Harris’s Secret Service protection earlier this year, cutting short an extension granted under former President Joe Biden that reportedly would have run through July 2026. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass had directed city police resources to continue safeguarding Harris, according to reporting by The Los Angeles Times, a decision that drew immediate backlash from the police union and conservative critics.
In a statement, the Los Angeles Police Protective League said it objected to diverting officers from crime-fighting duties to provide security for what the union described as "a wealthy political figure" who it said could afford private protection. The union’s board said, "Pulling police officers from protecting everyday Angelenos to protect a failed presidential candidate who also happens to be a multi-millionaire with multiple homes and who can easily afford to pay for her own security is nuts." The board also criticized California Governor Gavin Newsom in its remarks.
City officials did not issue a detailed public account of how the LAPD’s protective posture for Harris would be adjusted, but the reversal marks a shift from Mayor Bass’s earlier direction that had kept city officers assigned to Harris after the Secret Service change. The Los Angeles Police Protective League had argued that continuous, city-funded detail for a private citizen strained limited police resources and undermined officers’ ability to focus on crime suppression.
Secret Service protection for former national officials has been a subject of political debate in recent years, with protections and their duration sometimes altered between administrations. Harris, who served as vice president, had received an extension of protective services under the prior administration before the revocation by President Trump earlier this year.
The decision in Los Angeles follows a broader conversation about the use of municipal resources for personal security for high-profile individuals, particularly those with means to arrange private protection. Police unions and some elected officials have framed such assignments as a local resource issue, saying they can reduce street-level policing capacity in neighborhoods with elevated violence and crime concerns.
Harris has not publicly detailed her immediate security arrangements following the LAPD’s decision. The removal of a 24/7 city police detail does not affect any Secret Service protections that may be restored or reauthorized by federal authorities in the future; those decisions fall under federal jurisdiction and have been handled separately.
The episode underscores tensions that can arise when local governments take on protective duties for national political figures in the absence of federal security coverage, pitting municipal resource priorities and union concerns against the security needs and public profiles of former national officials. The LAPD’s change to Harris’s protection arrangement was prompted by internal union pressure and external political criticism, signaling how local dynamics can influence decisions about safety details for public figures.