security detail

When Kamala Harris was contemplating a run for California governor, one of her supposed considerations was the security detail that attends the state’s chief executive.

The services of a life-preserving, ego-boosting retinue of intimidating protectors — picture dark glasses, earpiece, stern visage — were cited by more than one Harris associate, past and present, as a factor in her deliberations. These were not Trumpers or Harris haters looking to impugn or embarrass the former vice president.

According to one of those associates, Harris has been accompanied nonstop by an official driver and person with a gun since 2003, when she was elected San Francisco district attorney. One could easily grow accustomed to that level of comfort and status, not to mention the pleasure of never having to personally navigate the 101 or 405 freeways at rush hour.

That is, of course, a perfectly terrible and selfish reason to run for governor, if ever it was a part of Harris’ thinking. To her credit, the reason she chose to not run was a very good one: Harris simply “didn’t feel called” to pursue the job, in the words of one political advisor.

Now, however, the matter of Harris’ personal protection has become a topic of heated discussion and debate, which is hardly surprising in an age when everything has become politicized, including “and” and “the.”

There is plenty of bad faith to go around.

Last month, President Trump abruptly revoked Harris’ Secret Service protection. The security arrangement for vice presidents typically lasts for six months after they leave office, allowing them to quietly fade into ever greater obscurity. But before vacating the White House, President Biden signed an executive order extending protection for Harris for an additional year. (Former presidents are guarded by Secret Service details for life.)

As the first female, first Black and first Asian American vice president, Harris faced, as they say in the protective-service business, an elevated threat level while serving in the post. In the 230-odd days since Harris left office, there is no reason to believe racism and misogyny, not to mention wild-eyed partisan hatred, have suddenly abated in this great land of ours.

And there remain no small number of people crazy enough to violently act on those impulses.

The president could have been gracious and extended Harris’ protection. But expecting grace out of Trump is like counting on a starving Doberman to show restraint when presented a bloody T-bone steak.

“This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass angrily declared.

True.

Though Bass omitted the bit about six months being standard operating procedure, which would have at least offered some context. It wasn’t as though Harris was being treated differently than past vice presidents.

Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly stepped into the breach, providing Harris protection by the California Highway Patrol. Soon after, The Times’ Richard Winton broke the news that Los Angeles Police Department officers meant to be fighting crime in hard-hit areas of the city were instead providing security for Harris as a supplement to the CHP.

Not a great look. Or the best use of police resources.

Thus followed news that officers had been pulled off Harris’ security detail after internal criticism; supposedly the LAPD’s involvement had always been intended as a stopgap measure.

All well and good, until the conservative-leaning Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file officers, saw fit to issue a gratuitously snarky statement condemning the hasty arrangement. Its board of directors described Harris as “a failed presidential candidate who also happens to be a multi-millionaire, with multiple homes … who can easily afford to pay for her own security.”

As if Harris’ 2024 defeat — she lost the popular vote to Trump by a scant 1.5%, it might be noted — was somehow relevant.

To be certain, Harris and her husband, attorney Doug Emhoff, won’t miss any hot meals as they shelter in their 3,500-square-foot Brentwood home. (The one house they own.) But they’re not stupid-rich either.

One person in the private-security business told Winton that a certain household name pays him $1,000 a day for a 12-hour shift. That can quickly add up and put a noticeable dent in your back account, assuming your name isn’t Elon or Taylor or Zuckerberg or Bezos.

Setting aside partisanship — if that’s still possible — and speaking bluntly, there’s something to be said for ensuring Harris doesn’t die a violent death at the hands of some crazed assailant.

The CHP’s Dignitary Protection Section is charged with protecting all eight of California’s constitutional officers — we’re talking folks such as the insurance commissioner and state controller — as well as the first lady and other elected officials, as warranted. The statutory authority also extends to former constitutional officers, which would include Harris, who served six years as state attorney general.

Surely there’s room in California’s $321-billion budget to make sure nothing terrible happens to one of the state’s most prominent and credentialed citizens. It doesn’t have to be an open-ended, lifetime commitment to Harris’ protection, but an arrangement that could be periodically reviewed, as time passes and potential danger wanes.

Serving in elected office can be rough, especially in these incendiary times. The price shouldn’t include having to spend the rest of your life looking nervously over your shoulder.

Or draining your life savings, so you don’t have to.

A day after federal agents forcibly restrained and handcuffed U.S. Sen Alex Padilla at a Los Angeles news conference, leaders of the country’s two political parties responded in what has become a predictable fashion — with diametrically opposed takes on the incident.

Padilla’s fellow Democrats called for an investigation and perhaps even the resignation of the senator’s nemesis, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, for what they described as the unprecedented manhandling of a U.S. senator who was merely attempting to ask a question of a fellow public official.

Noem and fellow Republicans continued to depict Padilla as a grandstander, whose unexpected appearance at Noem’s news conference seemed to her security detail to represent a threat, as she tried to speak to reporters at the Federal Building in Westwood.

Republicans continued Friday to chastise Padilla, using words like “launch,” “lunge” and “bum rush” to describe Padilla’s behavior as he began to try to pose a question to Noem at Thursday’s news conference.

The Trump administration official was just a few minutes into her meeting with reporters when Padilla moved assertively from the side of the room, pushing past a Times photographer as he moved to more directly address Noem. He did not lunge at Noem and was still paces away from her when her security detail grabbed the senator.

Padilla and his staff described how the veteran lawmaker went through security and was escorted by an FBI employee to the room where the press conference was held, saying it was absurd to suggest he presented a threat.

Padilla spoke out after the secretary asserted that her homeland security agents had come to L.A. to “liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that the governor and the mayor have placed on this country.”

The former South Dakota governor would have some reason to recognize Padilla, since he questioned her during her Senate confirmation hearing. A spokesperson at the Homeland Security Department did not respond to a question of whether Noem recognized Padilla when he arrived at her press conference.

As has become the norm in the nation’s political discourse, Republicans and Democrats spoke about the confrontation Friday as if they had observed two entirely separate incidents.

Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) said Noem “should step down,” adding: “This is ridiculous. And she continues to lie about this incident. This is wrong.”

Lujan urged his Republican colleagues to support Democrats in asking for “a full investigation.”

“This is bad. This is precedent-setting,” Lujan told MSNBC. “And I certainly hope that the leadership of the Senate, my Republican leaders, my friends, that they just look within. Pray on it. That’s what I told a couple of them last night. Pray on this and do the right thing.”

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus went to Speaker Mike Johnson’s office to protest Padilla’s treatment.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) spoke out on X and on the floor of the Senate. He said the episode fit into “a pattern of behavior by the Trump administration. There is simply no justification for this abuse of authority …. There can be no justification of seeing a senator forced to their knees.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) went on X to repeat the call for an investigation and to say that “Republican leadership is complicit in enabling the growing authoritarianism in this country.”

Speaking publicly only one Republican lawmaker sounded a note of distress about the episode.

“I’ve seen that one clip. It’s horrible,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). ”It is shocking at every level. It’s not the America I know.”

But most Republicans remained silent, or accused Padilla of being a provocateur.

“I think the senator’s actions, my view is, it was wildly inappropriate,” said Johnson, the House speaker. “You don’t charge a sitting Cabinet secretary.”

Johnson added that it was Padilla, who should face some sanction. “At a minimum … [it] rises to the level of a censure. … I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole that that is not what we are going to do, that’s not how we’re going to act.”

Rep. Tom McClintock, (R-Elk Grove) zinged Padilla on X, with some “helpful tips.” “1. Don’t disrupt other people’s press conferences. Hold your own instead. 2. Don’t bum-rush a podium with no visible identification. … 3. Don’t resist or assault the Secret Service. It won’t end well.”

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) also sought to reinforce the notion that agents protecting Noem sensed a real threat, having no way of knowing that Padilla was who he said he was.

The congressman said on Fox Business that Padilla had obtained “the outcome that they wanted. Now they have a talking point.”

None of the officials in the room, several of whom know Padilla, intervened to prevent the action by the agents, who eventually pushed the senator, face down, onto the ground, before handcuffing him.

Noem did not back off her earlier statement that Padilla had “burst” into the room.

“Senator Padilla chose disrespectful political theatre and interrupted a live press conference without identifying himself or having his Senate security pin on as he lunged toward Secretary Noem,” Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant Homeland Security secretary, said in a statement Friday.

McLaughlin also said that Padilla “was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers’ repeated commands,” though video made public by Friday did not show such warnings, in advance of Padilla’s first statement.

The senator’s staff members said he privately had received messages of concern from several Republican colleagues, including Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.)

Padilla told Tommy Vietor of the “Pod Save America” podcast that Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown is an attempt to distract from many other failures — continued instability with the economy, a lack of peace in Ukraine and Gaza and a federal budget plan that is proving unpopular with many Americans.

“He always finds a distraction,” Padilla said, “and, when all else fails, he goes back to demonizing and scapegoating immigrants. … He creates a crisis to get us all talking about something else.”

Padilla said repeatedly that Americans should be concerned about how everyday citizens will be treated, if forces working for the Trump administration are allowed to “tackle” a U.S. senator asking questions in a public building.

On Friday afternoon, he sent a mass email urging his constituents to sign up for the protests planned for Saturday, to counter the military parade Trump is holding in Washington. “PLEASE show up and speak out against what is happening,” Padilla wrote. “We cannot allow the Trump administration to intimidate us into silence.”

NEW YORK — Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has agreed to pay a $329,794 fine to settle an ethics board’s complaint that he misspent public funds on his security detail during his brief, failed run for U.S. president.

The deal, announced Wednesday by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board, is the costliest repayment order in the ethics board’s history. But it allows de Blasio to avoid an even steeper penalty of $475,000 that was previously imposed, a reduction the board said came in light of the former mayor’s “financial situation.”

In exchange, de Blasio agreed to drop his appeal of the board’s finding. And for the first time, he admitted that he received written warning that his out-of-state security expenses could not legally be covered by city taxpayers.

“In contradiction of the written guidance I received from the Board, I did not reimburse the City for these expenses,” de Blasio wrote in the settlement, adding: “I made a mistake and I deeply regret it.”

The payments concern the $319,794.20 in travel-related expenses — including airfare, lodging, meals — that de Blasio’s security detail incurred while accompanying him on trips across the country during his presidential campaign in 2019. He will also pay a $10,000 fine.

The campaign elicited a mix of mockery and grousing by city residents, who accused the Democrat of abandoning his duties as second-term mayor for the national spotlight. It was suspended within four months.

Under the agreement, de Blasio must pay $100,000 immediately, followed by quarterly installments of nearly $15,000 for the next four years. If he misses a payment, he will be deemed in default and ordered to pay the full $475,000.

The funds will eventually make their way back into the city treasury, according to a spokesperson for the Conflicts of Interest Board.

An attorney for de Blasio, Andrew G. Celli Jr., declined to comment on the settlement.

De Blasio had previously argued that forcing him to cover the cost of his security detail’s travel violated his 1st Amendment rights by creating an “unequal burden” between wealthy candidates and career public servants.

Since leaving office in 2021, de Blasio has worked as a lecturer at multiple universities, most recently the University of Michigan, and delivered paid speeches in Italy.

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.