え、マジ!?カマラ・ハリス元副大統領のシークレットサービスが打ち切られたってよ😱
衝撃ニュースが飛び込んできた! なんと、カマラ・ハリス元副大統領のシークレットサービスが打ち切られたらしいんです。え、なんで?危なくないの?政治的な理由? いろいろ気になる点を深掘りしてみました!
なんで今? 打ち切りの背景をチェック!
通常、副大統領のシークレットサービスは退任後6ヶ月間は継続されるんだけど、 ジョー・バイデン前大統領が、任期中に延長指示を出していたんだって。
それが今回、トランプによって覆されたみたい。一体何があったのか?
バイデンの延長指示、一体なぜ?
具体的な理由は公表されていないけど、CNNによると、バイデンは1年間の延長指示を密かに出していたらしい。
法的には問題ないものの、何らかの事情があったのかも?
法的にはOKだけど…
2008年に制定された法律では、国土安全保障長官が「情報や状況が保護を正当化する場合」に、一時的な保護を命じる権限を持ってるんだって。
つまり、バイデンには延長する権利があったってこと。
ハリス元副大統領、本当に危険なの?
シークレットサービスが打ち切られたってことは、ハリス元副大統領に危険はないってこと?
過去には脅迫事件もあったみたいだけど…。
脅迫事件の過去
- 2024年には、オンラインで脅迫した男たちが逮捕
- 2021年には、銃器を見せびらかしながら「50日以内にヒットが実行される」と発言した動画を、服役中の夫に送った女性が有罪に
シークレットサービスの判断は?
CBSによると、最近の脅威評価では、ハリス元副大統領の警護を延長するほどの異常は見当たらなかったとのこと。
でも、初の女性かつ有色人種の副大統領だった彼女は、常に一定のリスクに晒されていたのも事実。
セキュリティ打ち切りで何が変わる?
シークレットサービスの保護がなくなると、一体何が変わるんだろう?
具体的なセキュリティの変化
- 自宅のセキュリティシステムや警報装置の設置・監視
- 潜在的な脅威の特定・監視(SNSなどを含む)
警護にかかる費用は?
シークレットサービスの具体的な費用は公表されていないけど、有名人やVIPの警護には年間数百万ドルかかることも。
Metaのマーク・ザッカーバーグの個人警護には、2023年に2300万ドル以上が費やされたそうだよ!
トランプの報復? 政治的な思惑は?
今回の打ち切り、やっぱり政治的な報復って見方もあるみたい。
過去にもあった打ち切り事例
トランプは過去にも、敵対する人物や元同盟者の警護を打ち切ったことがあるんだって。
ボルトン元大統領補佐官とか、ポンペオ元国務長官とか…。
専門家の見解は?
専門家の中には、人員不足のシークレットサービスが、より差し迫った脅威に注力しているだけ、という意見も。
トランプ本人は面白がっているかもしれないけど、現実的な理由もあるのかもね。
元大統領との違いは?
ちなみに、元大統領は原則として生涯にわたってシークレットサービスの保護を受けることができるんだって。
ニクソン元大統領だけは、自ら辞退したらしいけど。
今回のカマラ・ハリス元副大統領のシークレットサービス打ち切り、いろんな憶測が飛び交っているけど、真相はどうなんだろうね?
今後の動向に注目していきたいね!
Bernd Debusmann JrBBC News, the White House

President Donald Trump has cancelled former Vice–President Kamala Harris’ Secret Service detail, seven months after she left office following her unsuccessful presidential campaign.
By law, the US Secret Service provides former vice-presidents and their families six months of protection after their terms end.
That term, however, can be extended, which former President Joe Biden reportedly did before leaving office.
The move already has caused controversy, with both California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass calling it politically motivated.
Here’s what we know.
Why did Biden extend her security?
So far, neither Biden nor Harris have commented on the reasons for extending her security past the mandated six months. CNN reported that Biden extended it for one year with a previously undisclosed directive before leaving office.
From a legal perspective, Biden was within his rights to do so.
According to a law enacted in 2008, the Secret Service can provide protection to former vice-presidents, their spouses and any children under the age of 16 after leaving office.
While the law states that the protection should not extend any more than six months, the secretary of homeland security has the authority to order “temporary protection” in situations where “information or conditions warrant such protection.”
Ronald Kessler, an author with expertise on the Secret Service, told the BBC that “if you set aside political implications, it’s just standard practice.”
Does Harris face enhanced risks?
Sources familiar with the current situation have told CBS, the BBC’s US news partner, that a recent threat assessment did not uncover anything alarming to warrant extending Harris’ security arrangements.
But some in Harris’ team reportedly worried that as the first woman and person of colour to serve as vice-president and as a candidate in a contentious, emotionally charged election, she faced additional threats.
A number of threats against Harris were made public during her time in office and as a presidential candidate in 2024.
Several men were arrested and charged with making online threats against her in 2024, for example, and in 2021, a Florida woman pleaded guilty to making threats against Harris and admitted she sent videos to her imprisoned husband in which she displayed firearms and said that a “hit” could be carried out within 50 days.
In March, after Harris left office, a Florida man also was arrested after allegedly threatening to kill her with a sniper rifle.
Mr Kessler, however, said that compared to other politicians Harris “hasn’t stirred up that much as far as I can tell.”
“I think it’s a sound judgement on the part of the Secret Service,” he added.
The removal of Harris’ detail comes just weeks before she is scheduled to begin a multi-city tour to promote her book, 107 Days, focused on her short-lived, unsuccessful presidential bid.
According to Mr Kessler, such an operation would further stretch an already overburdened and undermanned Secret Service. In September, the agency also is responsible for international dignitaries and VIPs at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
“That would require maybe a dozen Secret Service vehicles all over the country to follow on her big tour,” he added. “That’s a big drain on the service.”
What elements of security are being taken away?
Secret Service protection extends far beyond the agents that drive a protectee, and protect them and their immediate family.
Additionally, the Secret Service is tasked with securing homes, such as Harris’ Los Angeles residence, including installation of security systems and alarms. Agents pre-emptively identify and monitor potential threats, including those sent electronically or via social media.
It is unclear how much those protections cost, and the Secret Service has not published that figure.
Private security for well-known celebrities, VIPs and business leaders can easily reach millions of dollars per year, depending on the level of threats and protection required.
Meta, for example, reportedly paid over $23m (£17m) for Mark Zuckerberg’s personal security in 2023, including $9.4m in direct security costs.
Is this political retribution from Trump?
After the removal of Harris’ detail was announced, some of her allies and Trump’s political detractors immediately characterised the move as politically motivated by the president.
Trump already removed Secret Service protection for former allies and foes alike, including Hunter and Ashley Biden, children of the former president; and Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Several former Trump officials and allies also had their protections revoked, including ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, a former national security adviser who had become a vocal critic.
“The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses,” Bob Salladay, spokesman for California Governor Gavin Newsom, told CNN.
Mr Kessler said that the “severely undermanned” Secret Service likely is refocusing its efforts on more immediate threats, such as those faced by Trump and members of his administration.
“President Trump may have been gleeful to do this,” he said. “But there are real sound practical reasons”.
Only one other former vice-president, Dick Cheney, is believed to have Secret Service protections extended after leaving office, by then-President Barack Obama.
Are the rules different for former presidents?
Unlike past vice-presidents, those who served as president have security for life, unless they choose not to.
In 1994 – to save costs – Congress moved to limit protection for ex-presidents and their spouses to 10 years after they left office.
But in 2013, President Obama signed a law again mandating lifetime protection. Today, this applies to George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama and Biden.
Only one president, Richard Nixon, is known to have chosen to forego the security offered, in 1985.
At the time, members of his staff told the New York Times he did so to save the agency money.
コメント