Trump is ending Secret Service protection for Biden's adult children
Advertisement
The Republican president on social media objected to what he said were 18 agents assigned to Hunter Biden's protective detail while in South Africa this week. He said Ashley Biden has 13 agents assigned to her detail and that she too 'will be taken off the list'.
There was no immediate reaction from the former president's office.
Former presidents and their spouses receive lifelong Secret Service protection under federal law, but the protection afforded to their immediate families over the age of 16 ends when they leave office, though both
Trump and
Biden extended the details for their children for six months before leaving office.
While touring the John F. Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts in Washington earlier on Monday, a reporter asked Trump if he would revoke the protection for the former president's son.
Advertisement
'Well, we have done that with many. I would say if there are 18 with Hunter Biden, that will be something I'll look at this afternoon,' Trump said, who added this was the first time he heard about the matter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
25 minutes ago
- AllAfrica
Donald Trump now a serious Nobel Peace Prize bet
When Rwandan and Congolese leaders signed a peace treaty at the White House on June 27, it addressed one of the bloodiest conflicts of the last half-century—a war whose death toll numbers in the millions. This alone exemplifies why Donald Trump deserves serious consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize. By Alfred Nobel's original intent, the Peace Prize should go to those who actually end wars, not those who merely talk about it. In 2025, Trump has brokered real agreements between sworn enemies and stepped directly into the world's most dangerous conflicts. The Congo-Rwanda agreement commits Rwanda to withdraw troops within 90 days, mandates rebel militia disarmament and establishes regional economic integration backed by US and Gulf investment. This isn't a photo-op—it's a framework for ending decades of bloodshed. In the South Caucasus, Trump hosted Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders to sign an accord ending their Nagorno-Karabakh fighting while opening a new transit corridor linking their economies. For the first time in decades, genuine coexistence could exist in this diplomatic graveyard. In the Middle East, Trump brokered a cease-fire between Israel and Iran—nations that until recently treated each other's destruction as non-negotiable. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has formally nominated Trump for the Nobel, calling his role 'extraordinary and historic.' In Southeast Asia, Trump mediated a Cambodia-Thailand border settlement, ending a years-long standoff. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet submitted his nomination soon after. This geographic breadth spanning four continents is unprecedented for a single year. Trump has simultaneously engaged in conflicts where 'established' diplomacy failed for decades. This represents exactly the 'fraternity between nations' Nobel's will sought to honor. Now Trump faces his ultimate test: Ukraine and Russia. Unlike Western leaders who have relied on intermediaries, he has met directly with both Zelensky and Putin, following last week's Alaska summit. Could this open the door to an unprecedented trilateral summit? With Zelensky set to meet Trump in Washington soon, the stakes are rising. By stepping into the arena rather than offering distant aspirations, Trump signals a bold, Nobel-level ambition. Critics note Trump's polarizing record makes him an unlikely laureate. Some claim his diplomacy serves US strategic interests or is 'transactional.' But the Nobel Prize was never reserved for saints. Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat—all polarizing figures who nonetheless reduced bloodshed—were all recipients of the prize. The committee judges outcomes, not personal purity. The contrast with 2009 is instructive. US President Barack Obama received the prize nine months into his presidency for 'hope' and vision, with few concrete results. Years later, Nobel officials admitted the award was premature. Trump's case, on the other hand, rests on signed agreements, troop withdrawals and altered geopolitical realities. Trump's unconventional approach—bypassing diplomatic choreography, dealing directly with heads of state—unsettles the foreign-policy establishment. But where established diplomacy has failed for decades, his tack has produced results. The Nobel Committee's credibility depends on rewarding peace that survives press conferences. If the prize is to retain moral weight, it should go to whoever has most reduced armed conflict in a given year. By that standard, Trump's 2025 record is formidable: A peace treaty in Central Africa A corridor agreement in the Caucasus A ceasefire between Israel and Iran A ceasefire between India and Pakistan A ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia in Southeast Asia Direct engagement in the Ukraine–Russia war If the Nobel committee believes in rewarding real peace over poetic aspiration, Trump should be on the shortlist. By year's end, he could easily be the winner. Kurt Davis Jr is a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He advises private, public, and state-owned companies and creditors globally on cross-border transactions. Contact him on LinkedIn
AllAfrica
5 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Why US upgraded Balochistan Liberation Army's terror designation
US systemic rivalry with China over the contours of the emerging world order has made many assume that it backs all opponents of the People's Republic, from neighboring states with whom Beijing has territorial disputes to terrorist groups, yet a recent move just shattered this perception. The US State Department abruptly raised the Balochistan Liberation Army's (BLA) 2019 'Specially Designated Global Terrorist' designation to a 'Foreign Terrorist Organization' amid the US-Pakistani rapprochement. The BLA is veritably a terrorist group whose last well-known attack was its deadly hijacking of the Jaffar Express earlier this spring, which followed an upsurge of other terrorist attacks over the past three years, including against projects connected to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). CPEC is a flagship project of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and was envisaged as giving China direct access to the Indian Ocean for preemptively mitigating the effects of any future US blockade of the Malacca Strait. This series of megaprojects has stalled in recent years for a variety of reasons, ranging from corruption to Pakistan's political dysfunction since April 2022's post-modern coup and especially the BLA's spree of terrorist attacks afterwards, which exploited the state's and security apparatus's new focus on crushing the opposition. Given the outsized role that the BLA has played in subverting the CPEC, which the US hitherto turned a blind eye to for reasons of strategic convenience despite its existing terrorist designation, it should be a de facto US ally. Instead, its US terrorist designation was just raised, thus naturally prompting the question of why. The rapidly evolving regional and global contexts help answer that. Not only has the US entered into a rapprochement with Pakistan, but it's also seeking one with China, as seen in Trump's eagerness to reach a trade deal and his recent muted criticism of Beijing. This could respectively reshape the region and the world alike if these dual rapprochements successfully derail India's rise as a great power. By raising the BLA's terrorist designation, the US is signaling that it will stop opposing CPEC as part of what might be a grand compromise with China, with this concession aimed at helping to revive one of the BRI's flagship projects so as to further strengthen the Sino-Pakistan alliance against India. Getting CPEC back on track could also offset the incipient Sino-Indo rapprochement since it was CPEC's announcement a decade ago that sparked the latest phase of their rivalry due to it transiting through Indian-claimed but Pakistani-controlled territory. The grand strategic goal that the US is pursuing is the 'G2'/'Chimerica' scenario of dividing the world with China after it failed to restore unipolarity, which requires containing, subordinating and possibly even 'Balkanizing' India since its rise as a great power would scupper the plan. Indian analyst Surya Kanegaonkar suspects that the BLA's new designation could precede a US-Pakistani attempt to place India on the Financial Action Task Force on the pretext that it backs the group, which may be correct but has never been proven. All told, the importance of the BLA's new terrorist designation is that it corroborates claims that the US is using its new rapprochement with Pakistan to advance a more globally significant one with China, both of which are driven in large part by their now apparently shared interest in derailing India's rise as a great power. Whether or not the US-Pakistani rapprochement holds, a US-Chinese one seems increasingly secured amid ongoing trade talks, and/or India is contained, the fact is that the US is attempting another power play follows its latest against Russia. This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.
South China Morning Post
6 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
European leaders to join Zelensky, Trump for talks
Read more on this story : European leaders will join Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his visit to Washington on August 18, 2025, seeking an end to Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. The talks follow President Donald Trump's decision to drop his push for a ceasefire during his Alaska summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Trump has now called for a permanent peace deal instead. Securing a ceasefire in Ukraine, more than three years after the Kremlin ordered the invasion, had been one of Trump's core demands before the summit. But after a meeting that yielded no clear breakthroughs, Trump ruled out an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, a move that would appear to favour Putin, who has long argued for negotiations on a final peace deal.
