The ex-leader of the now-defunct Jan. 6 committee proposed a law on Friday that would eliminate Secret Service protection for any former leader found guilty of a serious crime — an attempt to prevent the difficulties of imprisoning former President Trump if he is instructed to go to jail.
Dubbed the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable (DISGRACED) Former Protectees Act,” the legislation from Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) would revoke the lifelong protection given to former presidents if they are convicted and sentenced for a serious crime carrying a year or more in prison.
“Regrettably, current law doesn’t account for how Secret Service protection would impact the prison sentence of a protectee — even a former President,” Thompson said in a statement.
“It is regrettable that it has come to this, but this previously unthought-of scenario could become our reality. Therefore, it is necessary for us to be prepared and update the law so the American people can be assured 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.”
The move takes aim at Secret Service protections that have left some legal observers suggesting that any eventual conviction of Trump would likely spur some form of home confinement rather than prison time, given his round-the-clock protection.
“This bill would remove the potential for conflicting lines of authority within prisons and allow judges to weigh the sentencing of individuals without having to factor in the logistical concerns of convicts with Secret Service protection,” Thompson’s team wrote on a one-pager on the bill.
Secret Service protections are not just afforded to current and former presidents but also other high ranking officials and immediate family members of protectees.
But Trump is the only protectee facing felony charges — 91 various felony charges across four different state and federal cases.
Trump is currently in court in New York in his hush money trial and is facing charges related to Jan. 6 in federal court in Washington and in Georgia. His federal documents case is being overseen in Florida.
Thompson also claims the bill does not raise ex post facto concerns — those raised when a law is applied retroactively — citing case law finding the government can strip benefits as long as the change was not found to have an “unlawful, punitive purpose.”
