- Trump revoked protection via Truth Social post after reporter inquiry
- Follows precedent of removing security from Bolton, Pompeo, and Fauci
- Federal law limits child protection to age 16 without extensions
- Hunter Biden faces mounting legal/financial challenges post-presidential pardon
The abrupt termination of Secret Service details for President Joe Biden's children marks the latest escalation in political security battles. Trump's Monday evening announcement via Truth Social came hours after being questioned about Hunter Biden's South Africa vacation security during a Kennedy Center visit. This pattern mirrors Trump's 2021 removal of protection for officials like pandemic advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, despite documented death threats.
Legal experts highlight that 18 U.S.C. § 3056 only mandates protection for presidential children until age 16. While former presidents retain lifetime security, their adult children typically lose details unless facing exceptional threats. Hunter Biden (55) and Ashley Biden (43) far exceed the age threshold, unlike Trump's children who received six months post-presidency protection in 2021.
Security analysts note this decision could set dangerous precedents. When you politicize protective details, you create vulnerabilities in national security infrastructure,says former Secret Service agent Thomas O'Connor. A 2023 Congressional Research Service report shows 68% of former administration officials facing credible threats within two years of leaving office.
The move coincides with Hunter Biden's ongoing legal/financial struggles. Court filings reveal the president's son owes $2.8 million in back taxes and legal fees while lacking permanent housing. Republican leaders including VP nominee JD Vance continue targeting Hunter's business dealings, with Trump calling the security removal fiscal responsibility.
Comparatively, the UK's Royal and VIP Executive Committee maintains non-political protection protocols. Former PM Boris Johnson's adult children never received Metropolitan Police protection, unlike U.S. practices. This transatlantic contrast highlights ongoing debates about appropriate security spending for political families.