Trump Revokes Secret Service Protection for Hunter & Ashley Biden: A Dangerous New Precedent in U.S. Politics

I. Introduction

On March 17, 2025, President Donald Trump made an unprecedented move: just 56 days into his second term, he revoked Secret Service protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden, the adult children of former President Joe Biden. In a blunt statement on Truth Social, Trump framed the decision as a necessary correction of government excess, calling the protection of Biden’s children a “ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.” Effective immediately, Hunter and Ashley Biden—who had been guarded by a reported 18 and 13 agents, respectively—were cut loose.

The announcement sent immediate shockwaves through Washington, raising serious questions about political retaliation, security risks, and the breakdown of presidential norms. Normally, former presidents' families receive a six-month Secret Service extension after leaving office, a courtesy that both Trump and Biden had previously granted to their own children. Yet Trump, in an act that seems either fiscally aggressive or deeply personal, slashed that timeline by more than four months.

This raises two fundamental questions:

1. Is this an act of political retribution?
   • Trump has never hidden his personal disdain for the Bidens, especially Hunter, whose legal troubles have made him a political punching bag for the right.
   • Given the heated nature of the 2024 election, this move could be seen as a way to publicly weaken Biden’s family as payback.

2. Or is it simply a cost-cutting measure?

• Secret Service protection isn’t cheap, and Trump has long positioned himself as an opponent of government waste and “deep state” excess.
• The optics of Biden’s children receiving extended taxpayer-funded security could play well with Trump’s base, especially given Hunter Biden’s history of financial scandals.

But the bigger issue isn’t just what Trump did—it’s what this means for the future of American democracy. If Secret Service protection is now a political weapon, where does this end? Will future presidents start stripping security from their opponents’ families as a routine power move? What happens if something actually happens to Hunter or Ashley Biden—would Trump be held responsible?

Most importantly, is this an unprecedented breakdown of presidential norms? No sitting president has ever cut off protection for an opponent’s children this quickly. If this is a sign of things to come, American democracy may be entering uncharted—and dangerous—territory.

This essay will break down the implications of Trump’s decision, examining its legal basis, historical precedent, potential political motivations, and long-term risks. Whether you see this as a justified correction or a dangerous escalation, one thing is clear: this is not politics as usual.

II. The History & Purpose of Secret Service Protection

The United States Secret Service exists primarily to protect national leaders and their families, ensuring continuity of government and preventing political violence. While its more well-known role involves safeguarding sitting presidents and vice presidents, it also extends protection to former presidents and their immediate families for a set period after they leave office. This protection is not an absolute right—it is extended or revoked based on both legal provisions and executive discretion.

What Does Secret Service Protection Cover?

Secret Service protection isn’t just about bodyguards—it’s a comprehensive security apparatus that includes:

• Personal protection teams (24/7 security details).
• Counter-surveillance operations to detect and prevent threats.
• Cybersecurity monitoring for communications and potential digital threats.
• Secure transportation and logistical coordination for high-risk individuals.

Under Title 18, Section 3056 of the U.S. Code, former presidents receive lifelong Secret Service protection, while their spouses and children are protected until they turn 16. However, adult children of former presidents typically receive an extension for up to six months after their parent leaves office—unless the sitting president decides otherwise.

Past Extensions: Trump, Biden, and Historical Precedents

Historically, presidential families have continued to receive protection for a brief period after leaving office due to security concerns. This is not automatic, but rather a courtesy extended by the incoming administration to ensure stability during a transitional period.

• Donald Trump (2021)
  • When Trump left office in January 2021, he authorized a six-month extension of Secret Service protection for his adult children and several close aides.
  • This meant that Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Tiffany Trump, and Jared Kushner all had government-funded security details until mid-2021.
  • The decision sparked some controversy due to its cost, but it wasn’t revoked by Biden early.
• Joe Biden (2025)
  • After Biden left office in January 2025, his adult children, Hunter and Ashley, were granted the same six-month extension that Trump had given his own kids.
  • This is where Trump’s decision stands out—instead of allowing the standard six-month period, he revoked it just 56 days in.

This appears to be unprecedented in modern history. No other sitting president has actively cut off an opponent’s family’s protection before the six-month extension expired.

Why Are These Extensions Typically Granted?

Even though adult children of former presidents don’t technically need government protection forever, there are several reasons why six-month extensions are standard practice:

1. Security Risks Don’t End Immediately
   • Presidential families remain high-profile targets for domestic and foreign threats.
   • In Hunter Biden’s case, his legal and financial troubles make him an even bigger target than most former presidents' children.
   • The transition period after a president leaves office is a time of heightened political tensions, meaning their families are at greater risk.

2. Political Norms & Institutional Stability

• Maintaining protection for a short time is a bipartisan tradition, meant to de-escalate political hostility after an election.
• It prevents political vendettas, ensuring that changes in power don’t jeopardize the safety of former presidential families.

3. Preserving the Legitimacy of the Secret Service

• The Secret Service is supposed to be above politics—decisions about protection should be based on security needs, not political feuds.
• If presidential security becomes a partisan issue, it risks undermining trust in these institutions.

Has Secret Service Protection Ever Been Revoked Early?

There is no known instance of a sitting president revoking Secret Service protection for a predecessor’s family this quickly. While past presidents have denied long-term requests for protection, they have not actively cut it off within two months of taking office.

The closest historical comparison would be Richard Nixon voluntarily declining Secret Service protection in 1985, a decade after leaving office. But that was his own decision—not one made by a successor.

Conclusion: A New Precedent in Presidential Security?

Trump’s move to terminate protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden just 56 days into his term is without clear precedent. While it’s technically legal, it deviates from bipartisan tradition and raises serious concerns about the politicization of the Secret Service.

The next section will explore whether this was a move of fiscal responsibility or political retribution.

III. Political Retaliation or Fiscal Responsibility?

At the core of Trump’s decision to cut Secret Service protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden is a fundamental question: was this about cutting government waste, or was it a deliberate act of political revenge? The answer depends on how you interpret Trump’s motivations—whether you see him as a fiscal hawk trying to curb unnecessary spending, or a president willing to weaponize government power against his enemies.

The Case for Retaliation: Personal and Political Grudges

There’s little doubt that Trump holds deep personal animosity toward Joe Biden and his family, particularly Hunter Biden. Throughout the 2024 campaign and even before that, Trump frequently attacked Hunter Biden, painting him as corrupt, incompetent, and a criminal shielded by his father’s influence. The Trump campaign’s messaging leaned heavily on Hunter’s legal troubles, including his tax evasion case, foreign business dealings, and substance abuse struggles.

Hunter’s issues made him a convenient political punching bag, and Trump wasted no time turning him into a symbol of what he called the “Biden crime family.” Given this history, cutting off Hunter Biden’s security detail just weeks into his term could easily be interpreted as a continuation of this feud.

Key evidence that this was political retaliation:

1. Timing: The abruptness of the decision
   • The standard six-month extension was set to expire in July 2025. Instead, Trump slashed it in March—more than four months early.
   • This wasn’t a quiet budget cut; it was publicly announced and framed as a necessary correction.

2. Targeting Biden’s family while protecting his own

• Trump previously extended Secret Service protection for his own adult children (Ivanka, Don Jr., Eric, and Tiffany) when he left office in 2021.
• Despite being out of government, Trump’s own children have continued to receive protection due to security concerns.
• No mention has been made of reducing his own family’s coverage, raising the question: is it only a waste of money when it’s Biden’s kids?

3. Trump’s history of using government power for personal grudges

• During his first term, Trump was notorious for targeting political enemies through executive action, including:
  • Pressuring the DOJ to investigate Hillary Clinton.
  • Threatening to revoke security clearances for intelligence officials critical of him.
  • Firing Inspectors General investigating his administration.
• Cutting Hunter and Ashley Biden’s protection fits this pattern—using presidential power to settle old scores.

4. The messaging: Trump’s base sees this as a win

• The MAGA movement thrives on “owning the libs”, and revoking Hunter Biden’s protection was an easy way to energize Trump’s supporters.
• Right-wing media immediately framed the move as “stopping the grift”—ending a perceived luxury for a politically toxic figure.
• If this were purely about cost-cutting, why wasn’t it handled quietly, instead of being turned into a political spectacle?

The Case for Fiscal Responsibility: A Justified Cost-Cutting Measure?

On the other hand, Trump’s decision isn’t completely without merit if viewed purely through a financial lens. Secret Service protection is expensive, and protecting former presidents’ adult children has been controversial in the past.

Arguments that this was just about cutting government waste:

1. Secret Service protection costs taxpayers millions
   • The Secret Service budget is already stretched thin, with agents working longer hours and higher stress loads than ever.
   • High-profile individuals like Hunter Biden require extensive resources, including multiple agents, armored vehicles, and advanced counter-surveillance measures.
   • Trump has long positioned himself as a fiscal conservative—this could simply be an effort to rein in unnecessary spending.

2. Hunter and Ashley Biden aren’t in government

• Unlike presidents and vice presidents, there’s no legal requirement to protect the adult children of former leaders indefinitely.
• Some critics argue that Hunter Biden’s lifestyle—including foreign travel and controversial business dealings—creates extra security risks that the government shouldn’t be covering.
• Ashley Biden, a social worker with no political role, is an even more unusual candidate for prolonged Secret Service protection.

3. Past controversies over Secret Service protection for presidential families

• When Trump left office in 2021, his six-month extension for his kids sparked backlash over the cost.
• Chelsea Clinton and the Bush daughters lost their protection soon after their fathers left office.
• If Trump’s decision was purely about aligning with historical precedent, he could argue that Biden’s kids don’t need protection anymore.

The Political Reality: A Decision That Serves Both Agendas

Even if budget concerns were a factor, it’s impossible to separate Trump’s financial reasoning from his longstanding personal animosity toward the Bidens. The timing, the messaging, and the selective nature of the decision all point to a move designed for political effect.

• If this were only about cutting costs, Trump could have made across-the-board reductions, including to his own family’s security.
• Instead, the targeted removal of protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden, combined with Trump’s history of political score-settling, makes it difficult to ignore the optics of revenge.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent Either Way

Regardless of whether this decision was purely financial or deeply personal, it sets a new precedent in American politics. If presidents can strip Secret Service protection from their opponents’ families, what comes next?

• Could a future Democratic president retaliate by cutting off protection for Trump’s kids?
• Could this be extended to former presidents themselves?
• What happens if something happens to Hunter or Ashley Biden? Would Trump bear responsibility for making them vulnerable?

IV. Security Risks & National Security Implications

Beyond the politics of Trump’s decision to revoke Secret Service protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden, there are serious security and national security concerns. While political feuds come and go, the physical safety of high-profile individuals—especially those tied to U.S. power structures—has long-term implications.

By cutting protection early, Trump may have exposed Hunter and Ashley Biden to unnecessary danger, created a troubling precedent for presidential security, and signaled to domestic and foreign actors that political figures in the U.S. are now fair game.

1. Hunter Biden: A High-Profile Target

Hunter Biden has been a controversial figure for years, but since 2019, his legal troubles, foreign business dealings, and status as a political lightning rod have significantly increased the threats against him.

Hunter’s Legal & Political Exposure

• Hunter Biden has been a central figure in Republican allegations of corruption, with accusations ranging from tax fraud to unethical dealings with China and Ukraine.
• He is one of the most recognizable political targets in the U.S., meaning extremist actors—both foreign and domestic—could see him as a high-value target.
• Even if Trump personally believes Hunter doesn’t deserve protection, this doesn’t change the reality that he is at high risk.

Hunter’s Past Security Threats

Hunter Biden’s Secret Service detail has already dealt with real security threats:

• 2017: Secret Service agents intervened when Hunter’s firearm was discarded near a school.
• 2020: Reports surfaced of multiple death threats linked to right-wing extremist groups.
• 2023–2024: Hunter’s legal battles put him under even greater scrutiny, with Trump-aligned groups calling for his prosecution.

Given this history, removing his protection prematurely means he no longer has round-the-clock security, intelligence analysis, or logistical safety measures in place.

What Happens If Something Happens to Hunter?

If Hunter Biden is harmed, kidnapped, or assassinated, the political fallout could be catastrophic:

1. Trump would be directly blamed for making him vulnerable.
2. It would deepen national polarization and fuel conspiracy theories.
3. Foreign adversaries could see this as an opportunity to exploit political instability.

Even if Trump views Hunter Biden as a political adversary, the risk of something happening outweighs the political benefits of cutting costs.

2. Ashley Biden: A Less Controversial, But Still High-Value Target

Unlike Hunter, Ashley Biden has stayed out of the political spotlight—yet Trump revoked her protection as well.

Why Would Ashley Be at Risk?

• While she is not politically active, she is still the daughter of a former U.S. president, making her a potential symbolic target.
• She was previously targeted in 2020 when her personal diary was stolen and published by right-wing operatives.
• Foreign intelligence agencies have a long history of targeting political families, even if the individuals themselves have no direct power.

Even if Trump’s move was primarily aimed at Hunter, revoking Ashley’s protection suggests that this is about broader political retaliation rather than a carefully measured security assessment.

3. Foreign Adversaries & The Bigger National Security Picture

By stripping Secret Service protection from Hunter and Ashley Biden, Trump isn’t just affecting two individuals—he is signaling to America’s enemies that political figures in the U.S. are now more vulnerable.

How Foreign Governments View This Decision

1. Russia & China
   • Both have a history of targeting the families of political leaders to exert pressure or gain leverage.
   • Hunter Biden was previously linked to Chinese business deals—if China perceives him as vulnerable, he could become a target for influence operations, surveillance, or worse.
   • Russia’s intelligence services frequently exploit political divisions in Western democracies—they could see this move as an opportunity to deepen tensions within the U.S.

2. Terrorist Organizations & Rogue Actors

• Groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda have historically sought high-profile Western targets for propaganda purposes.
• While Hunter and Ashley Biden are not policy-makers, they are symbols of U.S. political leadership.
• If an extremist group targeted them, it would send a chilling message about how U.S. political families are no longer safe.

3. The Message to America’s Allies

• Security for political figures is standard practice in most democracies—cutting it off this abruptly makes the U.S. look politically unstable.
• Allied nations may question whether future U.S. leaders will also be left vulnerable to political revenge tactics.

4. The Dangerous Precedent: What Happens Next?

Trump’s move isn’t just about Hunter and Ashley Biden—it’s about whether Secret Service protection becomes a political weapon.

If this stands, it raises serious long-term concerns:

A. Will Future Presidents Retaliate?

• If a Democratic president wins in 2028, could they strip protection from Trump’s children as payback?
• If so, this turns a neutral security institution into a tool for political revenge.
• What happens when protection for political families depends on who’s in power?

B. Could Former Presidents Lose Protection?

• Right now, former presidents receive lifetime protection.
• But if Secret Service protection is politicized, what stops a future president from stripping it from their predecessor?
• If Trump were to lose his own security detail after leaving office, his allies would likely see it as an act of political war.

C. Will This Lead to More Political Violence?

• The U.S. is already in one of the most politically volatile periods in modern history.
• Removing security from high-profile political figures—even those not in government—creates new opportunities for bad actors to strike.
• If political families are now open targets, it could further fuel political extremism and potential attacks.

Conclusion: A Reckless Gamble With Lasting Consequences

At best, Trump’s decision was short-sighted cost-cutting. At worst, it was a deliberate political move that undermines national security and invites future retaliation.

Regardless of the intent, the real-world consequences are undeniable:

1. Hunter and Ashley Biden are now more vulnerable to real threats.
2. Foreign and domestic actors may see this as an invitation to escalate.
3. The precedent of weaponizing Secret Service protection weakens American democracy.

If this move becomes the new norm, it could fundamentally change how political families are protected, how national security is managed, and how power is wielded in the United States.

V. The Breakdown of Norms in American Democracy

Trump’s decision to revoke Secret Service protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden is more than just an isolated policy shift—it is a symptom of a much larger breakdown in American democratic norms - including America's unprecedented threats to annex Canada. The U.S. political system has traditionally been built on unspoken rules of mutual respect, institutional stability, and a baseline level of decency between administrations—but those norms have been rapidly eroding, and this move is the latest, and perhaps most dangerous, example.

This section examines how Trump’s decision fits into a broader trend of institutional decay, the shift from presidential courtesy to open political warfare, and what this means for the future of American democracy.

1. The Shift from Presidential Courtesy to Political Vendettas

There was a time when presidents maintained a basic level of respect for their predecessors, even if they disagreed politically.

• Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter had completely opposite political philosophies but maintained a friendly relationship after leaving office.
• George W. Bush never publicly attacked Barack Obama, even when Obama dismantled key elements of Bush’s foreign policy.
• Even Richard Nixon, disgraced and forced to resign, was granted a dignified retirement.

But Trump’s approach to politics has obliterated these traditions.

Instead of viewing his predecessors as former leaders deserving of respect, Trump treats them as enemies to be crushed. Cutting off Secret Service protection for Biden’s children is just the latest in a series of moves that turn presidential transitions into battlegrounds.

• Trump has publicly called for Biden, Obama, and Clinton to be investigated and jailed.
• He spent years attacking the legitimacy of the 2020 election, undermining confidence in the electoral process.
• His second term is already shaping up to be about settling scores rather than governance.

By targeting the family of a political rival, Trump is breaking one of the final, unspoken rules of American politics: you don’t go after your predecessor’s children.

2. The Erosion of Political Neutrality in Government Services

The U.S. government has always struggled to maintain neutrality, but Secret Service protection has traditionally been above partisan politics.

By using security decisions as a tool of political punishment, Trump has set a dangerous precedent:

• If the Secret Service can be manipulated for political reasons, what stops future presidents from abusing other government agencies?
• Could the FBI, CIA, and IRS be turned into direct weapons against political opponents?
• Will every transition of power now include stripping protections and privileges from the previous administration?

This is the kind of banana republic-style governance that erodes institutional stability. If government services are no longer apolitical, then every new administration will have an incentive to weaponize them even further.

This doesn’t just affect Biden’s family—it affects every future president’s family.

3. The Escalation Cycle: What Happens Next?

Once a political norm is broken, it rarely stops with a single event. Trump’s move could trigger an ongoing cycle of retaliation that shapes how future presidents operate.

Scenario 1: Democrats Retaliate in 2028

If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028, they may feel justified in cutting off Secret Service protection for Trump’s family.

• If Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump receive extended protection, a Democratic president could pull it early, citing Trump’s precedent.
• Barron Trump, who is still a minor, could also face indirect retaliation through reduced security support once he turns 16.

Scenario 2: Future Presidents Take This Even Further

If Secret Service protection can be politicized, what stops future presidents from taking more extreme steps?

• Could a future president deny protection to a former president entirely, leaving them vulnerable?
• Could we see presidents ordering full-scale investigations into their predecessors as standard practice?
• What if a sitting president actively withholds security resources from political opponents, putting them at physical risk?

Once these norms are shattered, they don’t come back. The United States could be on the verge of a political era where every transition of power is a chance for revenge.

4. The Real Danger: Political Violence Becomes More Likely

In the current political climate, removing security from high-profile figures makes violence more likely, not less.

• Political assassinations and violent extremism are on the rise globally.
• Both left-wing and right-wing extremists have shown a willingness to target high-profile political figures.
• Foreign actors could see this as an opportunity to strike at vulnerable targets within U.S. politics.

The key danger is this: if major political figures start getting killed, the U.S. could descend into an era of revenge violence.

• If something happened to Hunter or Ashley Biden, Trump’s political enemies would blame him directly.
• This could trigger violent retaliation, escalating beyond the control of the government.
• The U.S. is already politically volatile—pushing things further in this direction could have deadly consequences.

The final line of protection in any democracy is stability. If political rivals are no longer safe, the system can’t function.

5. Conclusion: The Point of No Return?

Trump’s decision to revoke Secret Service protection for Biden’s children isn’t just about money or politics—it’s about the long-term consequences for democracy.

• It normalizes political revenge, making it harder for future administrations to function.
• It undermines government institutions, turning agencies like the Secret Service into partisan tools.
• It sets the stage for tit-for-tat retaliation, ensuring that future presidents will use the same tactics.
• It increases the risk of political violence, making the U.S. more unstable and dangerous.

This isn’t just about Hunter and Ashley Biden—it’s about whether the U.S. is moving toward a dysfunctional, unstable system where political fights are no longer just rhetorical—they are physical.

If this precedent holds, the next step isn’t just stripping protection—it’s open political warfare.

The next section will examine the possible future scenarios—whether this move backfires on Trump, gets ignored, or triggers a long-term shift in how America governs itself.

VI. What Comes Next? Future Scenarios

Trump’s decision to strip Hunter and Ashley Biden of Secret Service protection is now a reality. The question is: what happens next?

While it may seem like a routine bureaucratic move, the implications are far-reaching. There are a few possible paths forward, each with its own risks, consequences, and political fallout.

Scenario 1: Trump Faces Backlash and Reverses the Decision

One possibility—though unlikely—is that Trump reinstates Secret Service protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden due to public pressure, legal concerns, or even behind-the-scenes intervention from the intelligence community.

Why it could happen:

• Bipartisan security concerns – If intelligence agencies believe the move creates a legitimate security threat, they may quietly pressure Trump to reverse it.
• Legal challenges – While Trump has the authority to revoke protection, a lawsuit could be filed arguing that it was done with malicious intent, opening the door for judicial intervention.
• Political damage control – If there is public backlash or a significant security incident, Trump might be forced to reinstate protection to avoid blame.

Likelihood: Low. Trump thrives on doubling down, and reversing course would be seen as weakness among his base. Unless a major event forces his hand, he is unlikely to backtrack.

Scenario 2: This Becomes the New Normal

If this move goes unchallenged, it may set a precedent where Secret Service protection is no longer an automatic courtesy for former presidents' families.

What this means:

• Future presidents may feel emboldened to strip protection from political rivals' families as a routine power move.
• Presidential transitions could become even more hostile, with each new administration targeting the security of the previous one.
• The Secret Service itself could become more politicized, undermining its ability to function as a neutral security agency.

Likelihood: High. Trump has already shattered numerous political norms, and once a precedent is set, future leaders are less likely to restore old traditions.

Scenario 3: The 2028 Democratic President Retaliates

If a Democrat wins in 2028, they could use Trump’s own precedent against him by cutting off Secret Service protection for his family.

How this could play out:

• A new Democratic president may deny protection extensions for Trump’s adult children (Don Jr., Eric, Ivanka, Tiffany).
• If Trump himself loses power and faces legal trouble, his own security detail could become a political bargaining chip.
• This could escalate into a long-term cycle of political revenge, where each new president weakens their predecessor’s family protections.

Likelihood: Moderate to high. If Democrats view this as an attack, they may feel justified in responding in kind. This would further erode norms and make presidential security a partisan issue.

Scenario 4: A Major Security Incident Forces a Rethink

The most dangerous scenario is that Hunter or Ashley Biden is harmed due to the lack of Secret Service protection, triggering a national crisis.

Potential outcomes:

• If Hunter Biden is attacked, Trump would face direct blame for making him vulnerable.
• A security failure of this magnitude could force Congress to reconsider Secret Service policies, potentially limiting the president’s ability to revoke protection.
• It could fuel more extreme political violence, further destabilizing the U.S. political system.

Likelihood: Unpredictable. The risk is real, but whether an actual attack occurs depends on external actors, both domestic and foreign.

Scenario 5: The U.S. Political System Adapts and Moves On

In this scenario, the decision is controversial but ultimately fades into history—a footnote in the long list of political fights between Trump and Biden.

How this could happen:

• The media cycle moves on, and other controversies take over.
• Hunter and Ashley Biden adjust to private security arrangements, making the issue irrelevant.
• The next administration quietly restores the old six-month protection policy without making a political spectacle of it.

Likelihood: Moderate. While the move is unprecedented, political outrage is often short-lived—unless something dramatic happens, it may not fundamentally reshape American governance.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent Has Been Set

Regardless of which scenario plays out, the damage has been done:

• A sitting president has used Secret Service protection as a tool of political punishment.
• The rules of presidential security are no longer stable.
• Future administrations will now have an incentive to use this as a weapon.

The U.S. has entered uncharted waters, and if security decisions become a battleground, the risks to democracy will only grow.

VII. Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent with No Clear Reversal

Trump’s decision to strip Secret Service protection from Hunter and Ashley Biden just 56 days into his second term is not just an isolated event—it is a sign of how American politics has fundamentally changed.

For decades, even the most bitter political rivals maintained a baseline level of institutional respect—certain unspoken rules that kept the system from descending into pure retaliation. Presidents didn’t go after their predecessors’ families. They might attack each other politically, legally, even personally—but not physically, not in a way that directly compromised security.

That line has now been crossed.

This move is unprecedented, and its effects will ripple into the future:

1. It establishes a precedent for using security as a political weapon.
   • If Trump can revoke Secret Service protection from a rival’s family, future presidents can and will do the same.
   • This could escalate into a cycle of political revenge, where every new administration strips security from the previous one’s family out of spite.
2. It sends a message that U.S. political figures are fair game.
   • By removing protection from high-profile targets like Hunter Biden, Trump is signaling that the rules of political safety have changed.
   • Foreign intelligence agencies, extremists, and criminal organizations may view this as an opportunity.
3. It erodes trust in government neutrality.
   • The Secret Service is supposed to operate above politics—this move undermines its independence.
   • If protection is granted or revoked based on political calculations, then no government institution is safe from weaponization.
4. It weakens institutional norms beyond repair.
   • Once a precedent is set, it’s difficult to reverse.
   • Even if a future president restores six-month protection extensions, the damage is done—the expectation of neutral, stable security measures is gone.

Can This Damage Be Undone?

Realistically, there is no easy fix.

• The next administration could reinstate strict protections for former presidents’ families, but Trump’s precedent will always remain in the background.
• Congress could try to pass new laws regulating Secret Service protection, but this would likely be seen as partisan maneuvering.
• The only way to restore trust is for future presidents to voluntarily de-escalate, but given the state of American politics, that seems unlikely.

Final Thought: The U.S. Is Playing a Dangerous Game

This isn’t just about Hunter or Ashley Biden. This is about whether America is heading toward a system where political rivalries turn into actual security threats.

If this becomes the new normal, then the next logical step isn’t just removing security—it’s deliberately exposing enemies to harm. And if that happens, then the U.S. is no longer a functioning democracy—it’s just another arena for political warfare.