Los Angeles police have pulled around‑the‑clock protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris after an outcry from conservative commentators and pressure from the city's police union, officials and union representatives said.
The change follows a decision earlier this year by President Donald Trump to revoke Harris's Secret Service protection, ending an extension that former President Joe Biden had granted and that would have lasted until July 2026. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass had directed LAPD resources to continue safeguarding Harris after that federal change, according to The Los Angeles Times.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank‑and‑file officers, said in a statement that officers were being diverted from crime‑suppression duties to provide security for a wealthy political figure who could afford private protection. "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 union's board wrote.
The union also criticized state leaders, including Governor Gavin Newsom, in its statement. The union argued the allocation of uniformed officers to a private individual's protection diminished resources available for routine policing tasks across the city.
City officials and LAPD spokespeople have not released a detailed public timeline explaining how long the enhanced detail had been in place or what security arrangements, if any, will replace the withdrawn round‑the‑clock coverage. The mayor's office previously told local media that the directive to the LAPD was meant to ensure continuity of security after the federal change to Harris's protection status.
The dispute highlights tensions that can arise between federal protective decisions, local resource allocation and political reactions. Secret Service protection for former presidents and former vice presidents has varied in recent years as administrations set policies on the duration and eligibility of such protections. Localities sometimes supplement or substitute local law enforcement details, a practice that can draw scrutiny when those officers are reassigned from other public safety duties.
Conservative commentators and some local critics had called for the LAPD to end the 24‑hour detail, arguing that the use of city police for a private individual's protection was inappropriate. Supporters of continued protection had said the safety needs of a high‑profile former vice president can present unique risks that warrant sustained security measures.
The decision to rescind the around‑the‑clock protection adds to a series of post‑2024 election disputes over the scope of protective details for national political figures. It also underscores the overlapping responsibilities of federal and local authorities in addressing threats and allocating security resources.
Neither the union's statement nor public reporting immediately detailed whether Harris's team had made private security arrangements following the LAPD change or whether the Secret Service had altered any complementary protections. The LAPD and the mayor's office have previously shifted security assignments in response to evolving assessments of threat and public safety priorities, and officials said such determinations balance individual protection needs with broader community policing responsibilities.
As the matter drew public attention, city leaders and law enforcement stakeholders faced questions about how to reconcile political pressures, union concerns and public safety imperatives while determining security for a prominent former national official.