In April 2024, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson introduced the "Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act," or the DISGRACED Former Protectees Act for short. This bill proposes a significant change to how we handle security for former high-ranking government officials, particularly ex-presidents.
The core of the DISGRACED Act is simple yet controversial. As Thompson's press release states, it would "reform the U.S. Secret Service's protective mission by automatically terminating Secret Service protection for those who have been sentenced to prison following conviction for a Federal or State felony." While the law would apply to anyone protected by the Secret Service, it is clearly intended to address what happens if former President Trump is sentenced to prison following his conviction on 34 felony charges to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor, or in fact any of the other charges he faces.
Read the IssueVoter analysis here.
The bill's supporters argue that it addresses an unforeseen scenario in current law. As Thompson explains, "Unfortunately, current law doesn't anticipate how Secret Service protection would impact the felony prison sentence of a protectee—even a former President." He adds, "It is regrettable that it has come to this, but this previously unthought-of scenario could become our reality."
Why Protect Politicians Who Have Left Office?
To understand the implications of this bill, let's first look at the current state of affairs. As of 2024, the Secret Service operates on an annual budget of approximately $3 billion, with about $1.4 billion dedicated to protection services. These figures have seen steady increases over the years due to rising security threats and expanding protection duties.
The rationale behind lifetime protection for former presidents is clear - they remain potential targets long after leaving office. The Secret Service currently maintains full-time protective details for 36 people, as well as protecting visiting heads of state, their spouses, and certain VIPs visiting the United States. Each year, the Secret Service deals with an unspecified number of threats against its protectees, and that number has been on the increase.
What Happens in Other Countries?
But how does the U.S. stack up against other countries when it comes to protecting former leaders? Well, it's a mixed bag.
In the UK, former Prime Ministers get round-the-clock protection for a while after leaving office, but it's not necessarily for life. The Metropolitan Police review the security needs periodically. For instance, Tony Blair still had protection years after leaving office due to his controversial role in the Iraq War, but other former PMs have seen their security details scaled back.
Over in France, former presidents are entitled to security protection, but it's not as extensive as in the U.S. They typically get a couple of police officers and a car, but nothing like the full Secret Service treatment.
In Germany, former Chancellors and Presidents get some protection, but it's more low-key. They might have a couple of bodyguards, but you won't see anything like the motorcades we're used to in the States.
But What Happens If a Protectee is Convicted of a Crime?
Proponents of the bill argue that it's a matter of principle and fiscal responsibility. They contend that taxpayers shouldn't bear the burden of protecting individuals who have betrayed the public trust through criminal actions. As Thompson puts it, the bill ensures "that protective status does not translate into special treatment—and that those who are sentenced to prison will indeed serve the time required of them."
On the other hand, critics of the bill highlight several potential issues. U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul expressed concern about the potential consequences of removing Secret Service protection following the assassination attempt against former President Trump, stating in an article, "I can only imagine what could have happened had House Democrats been successful in their attempts to terminate his Secret Service detail. This should be a sobering reminder to them and others on the Left that their rhetoric and actions matter."
It should be noted that this bill would only affect those convicted of a felony and sentenced to at least a year in prison, which does not currently apply to Trump.
The bill also raises complex legal questions. A fact sheet accompanying the bill addresses concerns about whether it could be considered an 'ex post facto' law (applying a law retrospectively to an action that occured before the law was enacted), which is prohibited by the Constitution. It cites the Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor, suggesting that "there could be situations where the termination of a benefit may raise ex post facto concerns. However, such a law would have to be shown to have an unlawful, punitive purpose." The fact sheet argues that the DISGRACED Act "raises no punitive concern" as its purpose is to transfer inmate protection to prison authorities rather than involve the Secret Service.
Protection vs Punishment
Perhaps the most challenging issue that the DISGRACED Act seeks to resolve is how to reconcile Secret Service protection with incarceration. As noted in a Washington Post article cited in the fact sheet, current law "may serve as an impediment to the equal administration of justice and present logistical difficulties for both the Secret Service and prison authorities at the Federal and State levels."
Would the protected inmate be kept separate from other inmates? Would their food and drink be screened? Would Secret Service agents be effectively serving time alongside them? It's possible they could hand off some of their duties to prison officers, analogous with the way the Secret Service turned over at least some of the work of protecting Hilary Clinton to the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security after she joined President Barack Obama’s Cabinet in 2009.
Understandably, the Secret Service is not commenting publicly on any of the practicalities ahead of sentencing in Trump's hush money case but it's likely that contingency plans have been drawn up.
Will The Bill Pass?
Following its introduction in April, the bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary where it has sat ever since. It's unlikely to even get a hearing on the floor given the current political makeup of the House. But it touches on fundamental questions about how we as a society balance security, justice, and fiscal responsibility. Moreover, it challenges us to consider the long-term implications of laws that may be inspired by current events but will set precedents for generations to come.
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, the DISGRACED Former Protectees Act seeks to remind us that in a democracy, no one is above the law, but also that with great power comes great responsibility - and perhaps, great risk.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.
IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of their service, they summarize important bills passing through Congress and set out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues. BillTrack50 is delighted to partner with IssueVoter and we link to their analysis from relevant bills. Look for the IssueVoter link at the top of the page:
