In a shocking move that reeks of political retaliation, former President Donald Trump has revoked the Secret Service protection for Vice President Kamala Harris, leaving her potentially vulnerable to security threats.

Normally, former vice presidents receive six months of Secret Service protection after leaving office. However, President Joe Biden had extended Harris’ protection for an additional year before leaving office - a directive that Trump has now abruptly canceled.

The timing of this decision is particularly concerning, as Harris is set to embark on a multi-city book tour for her upcoming memoir “107 Days” about her presidential campaign. As the first woman and first Black woman to serve as Vice President, Harris has historically faced heightened security risks.

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass are not taking this lightly. Newsom’s spokesperson Bob Salladay condemned the move, stating that “the safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses”.

The implications of this decision extend beyond just physical protection. Secret Service coverage includes comprehensive threat intelligence monitoring across digital and physical spaces - analyzing emails, texts, social media, and providing 24/7 personal security. Losing this protection could significantly increase Harris’ vulnerability.

Private security alternatives would be prohibitively expensive, potentially costing millions annually. While local law enforcement like the Los Angeles Police Department might provide some coverage, it cannot match the federal agency’s extensive resources and intelligence capabilities.

Harris’ senior adviser Kirsten Allen expressed gratitude to the Secret Service for their “professionalism, dedication, and unwavering commitment to safety” - a statement that subtly underscores the potential political motivations behind this unprecedented withdrawal of protection.

As the political landscape continues to be marked by escalating tensions, this move raises serious questions about the potential weaponization of security protocols for personal or political vendettas.