admin
President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke Secret Service protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden has sparked debate about fiscal responsibility and political priorities. Trump announced the immediate termination of their taxpayer-funded security details via Truth Social, noting Hunter had 18 agents and Ashley had 13 assigned to them. Federal law typically ends protection for presidential children over age 16 when their parent leaves office, though both Trump and Biden previously extended these details temporarily.
The Gutfeld! panel framed this move as a long-overdue correction to what they characterized as wasteful spending on adults embroiled in controversy. Highlights of their remarks likely included:
– : Emphasis on the estimated to protect Hunter Biden during overseas trips like his luxury South Africa visit, with Hunter’s legal troubles – including pardoned tax fraud convictions – cited as unworthy of public subsidy.
– : Discussion of how Trump’s action aligns with longstanding Secret Service protocols, contrasting it with Biden’s extension of protections for his adult children. The panel may have noted the irony of Democrats previously criticizing Trump family security costs while supporting Biden’s exceptions.
– : Speculation that Hunter’s high-profile scandals – from foreign business dealings to firearm charges – created unnecessary risks requiring extensive protection. The revocation reportedly aligns with efforts to reallocate resources amid heightened global threats.
Fox News coverage underscored that the decision follows Trump’s broader push to streamline government expenditures, including recent cuts to foreign aid for South Africa over its land reform policies. Critics argue the move targets political rivals, while supporters call it a necessary curb on elite entitlements.
