The Trump administration has officially categorised the withdrawal of Hunter Biden's Secret Service protection as a top-tier accomplishment of its first year in power.
In a widely distributed document titled '365 Wins in 365 Days', the White House listed the removal of Secret Service protection of the son of Joe Biden alongside major border and economic policies as a defining success of the new term of President Donald Trump.
The item, listed as achievement #243, explicitly frames the decision to strip the younger Biden of his protection as the elimination of a taxpayer burden.
The inclusion of such a specific, personal targeting of a predecessor's family member in an official state document marks a stark departure from traditional presidential decorum, signalling that the administration views the politicisation of security protocols not as a controversy, but as a campaign promise kept.
At stake is a deeper question: where the line lies between lawful presidential discretion and the politicisation of personal protection.
White House Lists Security Removal As A Win
The White House document outlines a long list of accomplishments in areas ranging from border security to economic growth.
Among these items, the administration refers to Hunter Biden's use of disparaging language and frames the removal as the elimination of an alleged taxpayer burden.
Although the White House award list uses politically charged language, there is no corresponding standalone press release on the White House website that explains the rationale, legal basis, or specific supporting documentation for this item, beyond the phrasing on the '365 wins' list.
The White House article does not itself define operational or legal details of Secret Service procedures. It is drawn from an administration narrative that presents the action as part of Trump's broader promise to prioritise 'putting the American people first' in domestic policy.
How And When Protection Was Removed
The practical removal of Hunter Biden's Secret Service detail occurred in March 2025, shortly after President Trump's second inauguration. Official statements from that time, including reporting by PBS and other outlets, detail how Trump announced on social media that he was ending Secret Service protection for Hunter Biden and his sister, Ashley Biden 'effective immediately'.
The White House distributed a print-out to reporters in the briefing room listing out “365 wins” from President Trump’s year back in office. #243 stands out: “Stripped notorious crackhead and grifter Hunter Biden of his taxpayer-funded secret service detail.” pic.twitter.com/LtpAC1wPGY
— Elizabeth Landers (@ElizLanders) January 20, 2026
The president's post noted concerns about the number of agents assigned to Hunter Biden's security team at the time, especially during an overseas trip.
A US Secret Service spokesperson stated that the agency was aware of the president's decision and would comply as soon as possible, working with the protective details and the White House to implement the change.
Under existing federal law, specifically 18 USC § 3056, former presidents and their spouses receive lifetime Secret Service protection. Adult children are not automatically entitled to protection after the age of 16. However, outgoing presidents have historically chosen to extend protection to adult children for a limited period, typically up to six months, as outgoing President Joe Biden did before leaving office.
Trump has defended his decision as addressing what he characterised as an unnecessary and costly security arrangement. However, the legal basis and consistency of such decisions have drawn scrutiny from legal scholars and security experts.
Policy, Precedent And Contention
While presidents have discretion to extend protective details under law, abrupt removals raise questions about threat assessments and liability. The statute gives the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to direct protection beyond standard periods if threats justify it.
There is little publicly available documentation on any formal threat evaluation that preceded the termination decision for Hunter Biden's detail. The White House's focus on the action as a political 'win' rather than a security decision has been criticised by commentators who argue that protective details should be apolitical and evidence-based.
This broader debate intersects with other actions taken by the Trump administration that have affected the security and clearance status of former officials. For example, Trump revoked Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris late in 2025, a decision documented by senior White House and Department of Homeland Security sources. That action was formalised through an executive memorandum rescinding an earlier extension.
Similarly, at the start of his term, Trump issued executive orders revoking the security clearances of a group of former intelligence officials who had publicly commented on Hunter Biden's laptop, framing the move as accountability rather than politics. These precedents have intensified scrutiny of how executive power intersects with security protocols, especially when individuals' safety is implicated.
By celebrating the removal of Hunter Biden's protection as a political accomplishment, the White House has ensured the debate will persist. What might once have been a procedural footnote is now a symbol of how power, policy and politics increasingly collide in the open.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
