
In the wake of an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, House Democrats’ recent efforts to strip him of Secret Service protection have come under intense scrutiny. Trump was wounded at a rally in Pennsylvania, just months after legislation was introduced to remove his security detail if he were convicted of a felony.
On April 19, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) proposed the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable (DISGRACED) Former Protectees Act (HR 8081). Co-sponsored by several Democratic representatives, the bill aimed to terminate Secret Service protection for individuals convicted of federal or state felonies.
Thompson justified the bill by citing Trump’s numerous felony charges, stating, “The DISGRACED Former Protectees Act would terminate Secret Service protection for individuals who otherwise qualify for it upon sentencing following conviction for a Federal or State felony.” The bill is currently awaiting further action in the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Following the assassination attempt, Thompson expressed relief that Trump was safe and commended law enforcement for their swift response. However, his previous stance on removing Trump’s protection has raised questions about the timing and motivation behind the proposed legislation.
A source familiar with Trump’s security detail revealed that requests for increased protection had been repeatedly denied by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). These denials have sparked concerns about the adequacy of security measures provided to Trump, especially given the heightened threats he faces as a prominent political figure.
The DHS has also denied Secret Service protection to Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Despite multiple requests, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas stated that such protection was “not warranted at this time,” a decision criticized by Kennedy’s legal team as politically motivated.
Kennedy’s attorney, Aaron Siri, condemned the DHS’s refusal, labeling it as a “disregard for the safety” of his client.
The assassination attempt on Trump has intensified the debate over the role and responsibilities of the Secret Service and DHS. As the investigation continues, there is a growing demand for transparency and accountability regarding the security decisions that affect high-profile political figures.
The focus remains on ensuring robust protection for all presidential candidates, with a balanced approach that considers both security needs and the principles of justice.