Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and
September 27, 2023
Judicial Security and Personal Protective
Shawn Reese
Details
Analyst in Emergency
Management and
In August 2023, a Chicago-area woman was charged with threatening former President Donald J.
Homeland Security Policy
Trump and his youngest son. Later that month, a Texas woman threatened a federal judge

presiding over former President Trump’s January 6th trial. These are two recent examples of the
plethora of threats against which federal law enforcement entities are to protect political leaders,

federal officials, and federal judges. Attacks against political figures and government officials
have been an ongoing security issue in the United States since the early 19th century, and, according to a University of
Nebraska study and a Princeton University project, threats to elected and federal officials are increasing.
One of the primary ways federal entities ensure the security of elected political leaders, federal officials, and federal judges is
through personal protective details (PPD). Even though Congress provides funding to federal entities to support federal
official and judicial security operations, limited information is known about the total number of officials and judges with
PPDs and which federal law enforcement entities provide these security services. Without this information, Congress may not
be able to provide appropriate appropriations or resources to the appropriate agencies to adequately ensure security for
elected and appointed federal officials and judges. Congressional oversight on these issues may be due; it appears no
government review (executive or legislative) has been done on federal official and judicial security in the past 20+ years.
This report discusses issues of congressional interest concerning federal official and judicial security, including threats
elected and appointed officials and judges may face as well as PPD authority, operations, and determination. It also explores
information that Congress may consider when evaluating PPD funding and implementation. Finally, this report includes an
Appendix on publicly documented assaults on Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Congressional Research Service

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

Introduction
On January 6, 2021 (referred to hereinafter as “January 6th”), while a joint session of Congress
was counting and certifying the 2020 presidential election’s electoral votes, an attack on the U.S.
Capitol occurred and several Members expressed their concerns about their personal safety both
inside and outside the Capitol building.1 Since January 6th, congressional interest in federal
official and judicial security and personal protective details (PPDs) has increased. Congress
provides funding to federal entities for such security operations; however, it has limited
information concerning the total number of federal official and judicial PPDs, the
identity/position of every federal official provided a PPD, which federal law enforcement entities
provide such security details, and the associated costs. Without this information, Congress may
not be able to provide the necessary oversight or security funding during periods of increased
political violence.
Personal Protective Details
Personal Protective Detail (PPD) operations typically consist of having law enforcement officers/agents within the
physical vicinity of a protected official and in locations where the official plans to travel. In addition, protection
involves planning, exercising, and implementing security operations with current threat and risk assessments.
As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated in its 2000 report, federal officials receive different levels
and frequency of protection, which generally includes protection while officials work at their offices, attend public
events, and travel on official business. Some officials are also protected during private and personal time, which is
typically determined by current and legitimate threat information.2
Attacks against political leaders and other public figures have been an ongoing security issue in
the United States since the early 19th century. For example, in 1868, Arkansas Representative
James Hinds was shot and killed by the Ku Klux Klan member George Clark, constituting the
first assassination of a Member of Congress.3 This assassination was part of the Ku Klux Klan’s
political intimidation campaign against the Republican Party during Reconstruction.4 The most
recent federal official to be assassinated was U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, killed in
2012 by members of Al-Qaeda during their attack on the U.S. diplomatic grounds in Benghazi,
Libya.5 While other examples of federal official assassination exist, today, much of the political
and public interest in the personal protection of government officials appears to focus on U.S.
Secret Service (USSS) protective operations of Presidents, the protection of other individuals
statutorily required to be protected under 18 U.S.C. §3056,6 and judicial security provided by the
U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).

1 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) periodically, as circumstances warrant, updates the nation’s
summary of terrorism-related threats to the United States, and identifies political violence as a significant security
issue. For more information, see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Summary of Terrorism-Related Threat to the
United States, Washington, DC, May 24, 2023, https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-
bulletin-may-24-2023.
2 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Security Protection: Standardization Issues Regarding Protection of
Executive Branch Officials, GAO/GGD/OSI-00-139, July 2000, p. 5, https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd/osi-00-139.pdf.
3 William B. Darrow, “The Killing of Congressman James Hinds,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly, vol. 74, no. 1
(Spring 2015), pp. 18-55.
4 Allen W. Trelease, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction, 2nd ed. (Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
5 Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow, “Screams, Explosions and Fire in Benghazi: Bodyguard Details Ambassador’s
Last Moments,” Washington Post, October 3, 2017.
6 18 U.S.C. §3056 establishes the powers, authorities, and duties of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS).
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 14 link to page 14 Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

Since the USSS started part-time presidential protective details in 1906, seven assaults or
assassination attempts on U.S. Presidents have occurred, with one resulting in death (President
John F. Kennedy).7 Prior to USSS protection, three sitting Presidents were assassinated (Abraham
Lincoln, James Garfield, and William McKinley). Additionally, certain presidential candidates
have also been targets of assassination (Theodore Roosevelt, Robert F. Kennedy,8 George C.
Wallace, and Edward Kennedy).9 One President-elect (Abraham Lincoln) was the target of
assassination threats prior to inauguration.10 However, Presidents and presidential candidates are
not the only federal officials targeted for assassination and assault. For example, official
congressional records and news accounts show that there have been at least 20 attacks on
Members of Congress since 1789.11 Additionally, recent media searches on threats to federal
officials showed that federal judges are being increasingly targeted.12
Only the USSS, the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), and USMS have
explicit statutory authority to provide PPDs, and this authority specifically details which roles and
positions should receive protection. Other federal agencies may provide PPDs under other legal
authorities such as PPDs protecting cabinet officials. Other than the list of protectees identified in
USSS and DSS authorities, there is no current and publicly available information on which
specific federal officials are receiving a PPD, and it is also unclear what process federal entities
use to determine who receives a PPD.
This report discusses federal official security, including past threats to officials and congressional
actions taken to fund the protection of such individuals. It also discusses PPD authority,
operations, and implementation (referring to how agencies make PPD determinations). A focus of
this report is exploring to whom federal protection is offered and how such PPD determinations
are made. Finally, this report includes an Appendix with more background information on
assaults on Presidents and Vice Presidents.
What Is Known
Elected officials, federal officials, and federal judges are increasingly being threatened with
assault and assassination. In May 2023, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated
in a summary of current terrorism-related threats:
The United States remains in a heightened threat environment. Lone offenders and small
groups motivated by a range [of] ideological beliefs and personal grievances continue to
pose a persistent and lethal threat to the Homeland. Both domestic violent extremists
(DVEs) and those associated with foreign terrorist organizations continue to attempt to

7 For information on assaults and assassination of Presidents receiving USSS protection, see this report’s Appendix.
8 Robert F. Kennedy was killed by his assassin; the other three targeted presidential candidates survived.
9 For further details concerning presidential candidate security, see CRS In Focus IF11555, Presidential Candidate and
Nominating Convention Security, by Shawn Reese.
10 Daniel Stashower, “The Unsuccessful Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln,” Smithsonian Magazine, February 2013.
11 For further details on violence against Members of Congress, see CRS Report R41609, Violence Against Members of
Congress and Their Staff: Selected Examples and Congressional Responses, by R. Eric Petersen and Jennifer E.
Manning.
12 U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Michigan, Lansing Man Convicted of Threatening Federal Judge, Sheriff,
and Court Clerk, Detroit, MI, July 21, 2023, https://www.justice.gov/usao-edmi/pr/lansing-man-convicted-threatening-
federal-judge-sheriff-and-court-clerk. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Missouri, New Mexico Man Indicted
for Threatening Federal Judge, Springfield, MO, July 6, 2023, https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/new-mexico-
man-indicted-threatening-federal-judge. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Florida, State Inmate Sentenced to
15 Additional Months in Prison for Threatening Federal Judge, Jacksonville, FL, June 28, 2023,
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/state-inmate-sentenced-15-additional-months-prison-threatening-federal-judge.
Congressional Research Service

2

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

motivate supporters to conduct attacks in the Homeland, including through violent
extremist messaging and online calls for violence. In the coming months, factors that could
mobilize individuals to commit violence include their perceptions of the 2024 general
election cycle and legislative or judicial decisions pertaining to sociopolitical issues. Likely
targets of potential violence include US critical infrastructure, faith-based institutions,
individuals or events associated with the LGBTQIA+ community, schools, racial and
ethnic minorities, and government facilities and personnel, including law enforcement.13
Each branch of the federal government addresses threats to its leaders through disparate
authorities.
Authority to Provide Personal Protective Detail
PPDs are authorized for certain identified individuals in all three branches of government.
Specifically, the USSS and DSS are authorized in the executive branch, the USMS is authorized
to provide judicial security, and the U.S. Capitol Police provide plainclothes officers as part of
legislative PPDs.
Executive Branch
The USSS and the DSS are the two agencies that have specific statutory authority to protect
executive branch officials. Specifically, the USSS protects the following individuals under 18
U.S.C. §3056(a):
• the President, the Vice President,14 the President-elect, and the Vice President-elect;
• the immediate families of those listed above;
• former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetime;15
• children of a former President who are under 16 years of age;
• visiting heads of foreign states or governments, and other distinguished foreign visitors to
the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special
missions abroad when the President directs that such protection be provided;
• major presidential and vice-presidential candidates and, within 120 days of the general
presidential election, the spouses of such candidates;16 and
• former Vice Presidents, their spouses, and their children who are under 16 years of age,
for a period of not more than six months after the date the former Vice President leaves
office.17

13 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Summary of Terrorism-Related Threat to the United States, Washington,
DC, May 24, 2023, https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-may-24-2023.
14 Or other officer next in the order of succession to the Office of the President.
15 Except the protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.
16 “Major presidential and vice-presidential candidates” means those individuals identified as such by the DHS
Secretary after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and one additional
member selected by the other members of the committee.
17 The DHS Secretary shall have the authority to direct the USSS to provide temporary protection for any of these
individuals at any time thereafter if the DHS Secretary or designee determines that information or conditions warrant
such protection.
Congressional Research Service

3

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

The State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) special agents protect the following
individuals under 22 U.S.C. §2709(3):
• heads of a foreign state, official representatives of a foreign government, and other
distinguished visitors to the United States;18
• the Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of State, and official representatives of the
United States government, in the United States or abroad;
• members of the immediate family of the individuals listed above;
• foreign missions19 and international organizations20 within the United States;
• a departing Secretary of State for a period of up to 180 days after the date of termination
of that individual’s incumbency as Secretary of State, on the basis of a threat assessment;
and
• an individual who has been designated by the President or President-elect to serve as the
Secretary of State.21
According to GAO’s 2000 report, other federal entities have identified various legal authorities to
provide a PPD to an executive branch official. These legal authorities include:
• the Inspector General Act of 1978;22
• the general authority of agency heads to issue regulations;23
• a 1970 memorandum from the White House Counsel to a Cabinet department;
• a 1972 letter from then-Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz to all Cabinet
Secretaries that offered to have the USSS provide training for all the
departments’ protective personnel;
• a specific deputation from the USMS, and, according to U.S. Marshals Service
policy directive 99-13 (February 5, 1999), Special Deputy Marshals are sworn
and appointed to perform specific law enforcement duties, such as carry firearms
for the protection of persons covered under the federal assault statutes; and
• a specific delegation of authority set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations24
that the Secretary of Agriculture delegated authority to protect the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary to the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General.
Legislative Branch
Congress provides the U.S. Capitol Police the authority to conduct PPD operations for Members
generally, and specifically for congressional leadership. This authority is typically provided
through annual appropriations for the U.S. Capitol Police.25 Further information on violence
against Members of Congress can be found in CRS Report R41609, Violence Against Members of

18 This protection is only provided while the protectee is in the United States.
19 As defined in 22 U.S.C. §4302(a)(4).
20 As defined in 22 U.S.C. §4309(b).
21 This protection would be provided prior to that individual’s appointment as Secretary of State.
22 5 U.S.C. App.3.
23 5 U.S.C. §301.
24 7 C.F.R. §2.33(a)(2).
25 For example, see P.L. 117-328, Div. I, Title 1, Section 121.
Congressional Research Service

4

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

Congress and Their Staff: Selected Examples and Congressional Responses, by R. Eric Petersen
and Jennifer E. Manning.
Judicial Branch
Protection of U.S. justices is provided by the U.S. Marshal’s Service (USMS). According to
statute, the USMS is authorized to
provide for the personal protection of Federal jurists, court officers, witnesses, and other
threatened persons in the interests of justice where criminal intimidation impedes on the
functioning of the judicial process or any other official proceeding.26
Detail about recent developments in federal judiciary security can be found in CRS Insight
IN12143, Security for the Federal Judiciary: Recent Developments, by Barry J. McMillion.
Government Research on Federal Official and Judicial Security
Current studies and research on federal official security are limited. In the past few years, the
GAO has issued a number of reports that address the USSS protection mission generally;27
however, it has not issued a specific report on the protection and security of federal officials since
2000.28 Similar to GAO, the USMS and USSS provide limited information concerning federal
official and judicial security.
In 1986, in what appears to be the first GAO report on PPDs, a Member of Congress requested
that GAO survey 13 federal entities29 and determine the annual costs and sources of funding for
PPDs. GAO specifically asked these entities:
• What organizational unit provided the protective services?
• What federal official was responsible for approving and canceling PPDs?
• What was the federal entity’s procedure for approving and canceling PPDs?
• What legislative authority authorized the PPDs?
• What was the total cost for these PPDs in FY1984-FY1986?
• What was the source of this PPD funding?
GAO was able to gain some of the information it requested; however, like today, most of the
federal entities provided limited information. GAO determined that these 13 federal entities
reported a total cost for PPDs of $1.6 million annually FY1984-FY1986.30

26 28 U.S.C. Ch. 37, §566(e)(1)(A).
27 See, for example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Secret Service: Further Progress Made
Implementing the Protective Mission Panel Recommendations, GAO-22-105100, January 26, 2022,
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105100.
28 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Security Protection: Standardization Issues Regarding Protection of
Executive Branch Officials, GGD/OSI-00-139, July 11, 2000, https://www.gao.gov/products/ggdosi-00-139.
29 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Bodyguard Services: Protective Services Provided Selected Federal
Officials, GAO/GGD-86-55FS, February 1986, https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-86-55fs.pdf. Federal agencies surveyed
included U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development,
Health and Human Services, and Transportation. Other federal agencies included U.S. Information Agency, U.S. Postal
Service, the Federal Reserve Board, Department of Justice’s headquarters and three of its components: the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Prisons.
30 Ibid., p. 2.
Congressional Research Service

5

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

Again in 1994, Members of Congress requested GAO “review matters relating to security
protection for selected cabinet department officials.”31 In the subsequent report, GAO determined
that PPDs were provided “on at least 1 occasion to each of the cabinet-level secretaries of the 10
departments” reviewed.32 GAO also determined that between October 1991 and June 1994 these
federal departments spent between $1.5 and $2 million on PPDs. These costs included salaries
and overtime of PPD personnel, travel, special executive protection training, and other expenses
such as equipment and residential security improvements.33 Finally, GAO determined that these
PPDs were staffed by departmental Office of Inspector General law enforcement agents and
departmental uniformed law enforcement personnel.34
The 1994 GAO report differed from its 1986 one in that it identified the various reasons why
cabinet officials needed PPDs. GAO stated that departments justified providing PPDs to the
cabinet secretaries primarily on the basis of potential threats from individuals who were either
aggrieved by the policies and issues handled by the department, or by individuals suffering from
mental illness. Departments, additionally, provided current (at the time) and specific death-threat
information.35
In 1998, the USMS produced a report concerning threats to federal judges. According to this
report, data on assassinations and assassination attempts indicated that elected federal officials
were more likely to be targeted than those holding senior appointed positions.36 The USMS
report, when referencing political violence, stated:
The more powerful and prestigious the office, the greater the likelihood that the occupant
of or aspirant to an elected office will be the victim of an assassination than will the
occupant of an appointed position, even though the position may be a powerful one, such
as Secretary of State, Justice of the Supreme Court, or Attorney General.37
In 2000, GAO again reported on federal official security. In the report, GAO stated that it was
only able to identify one instance when a cabinet secretary was physically harmed as part of an
assassination attempt, which occurred in 1865 when one of the Lincoln assassination conspirators
attacked then-Secretary of State William Seward in his home.38
In the 2000 report, GAO also reported that from FY1997 through FY1999, personal security
protection was provided to officials holding 42 executive branch positions at 31 executive branch
agencies. Personnel from 27 different agencies protected these 42 officials: personnel from their
own agencies or departments protected 36 officials and six officials were protected by personnel
from other agencies or departments, such as the USSS and the USMS.39 Additionally, GAO stated

31 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Security Protection: Costs of Services Provided for Selected Cabinet
Officials, GAO/GGD-95-50, December 1994, p. 2, https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-95-50.pdf.
32 Ibid., p. 1. Federal departments included in the review included Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health
and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. GAO
did not obtain data from the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury.
33 Ibid., p. 2.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid., p. 6.
36 Frederick Calhoun, Hunters and Howlers: Threats and Violence Against Federal Judicial Officials in the United
States, 1789-1993, U.S. Marshals Service, Washington, DC, February 1998, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=
uc1.31210012240543&seq=1.
37 Ibid.
38 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Security Protection: Standardization Issues Regarding Protection of
Executive Branch Officials, GAO/GGD/OSI-00-139, July 2000, p. 5, https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd/osi-00-139.pdf.
39 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

6

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

that reviewed agencies reported that these federal officials received different levels and
frequencies of protection and that this protection was needed to respond to actual threats.40
Similar to levels and frequency of PPDs, GAO reported that agencies had different and disparate
levels of access to threat intelligence, amount and types of security training, and qualified
personnel to conduct PPD operations.41 GAO’s 2000 report to Congress appears to be the last
significant research on protecting non-elected executive branch officials.
Since then, GAO has issued a number of reports related to the USSS, State Department security
operations more generally, and federal judicial security. Some examples of issues GAO addresses
in these reports include USSS protective mission panel recommendations,42 risk-based judicial
security,43 and diplomatic security challenges.44 These reports do not necessarily address PPDs
specifically; they address issues related to federal government security more strategically.
The USSS has issued three publicly available documents related to federal government security
and assassinations since 1998. These documents focus on threat assessment considerations related
to attacks on the federal government (2001-2013);45 an operational study of assassination in the
United States focusing on assassins, attackers, and “near-lethal approachers”;46 and protective
threat intelligence.47 None of these documents specifically focuses on PPD operations in the
federal government.
Personal Protective Detail Determination
In 2000, the last time GAO surveyed federal entities, it reported that security of federal officials
was determined by “a number of factors.” Some of these factors included the type of policy
handled by the agency or department, the public visibility of the federal official, travel needs,
availability of security personnel and assets, and the current threat environment.48 The current
threat environment was determined through the credibility of threat intelligence and a risk
assessment of the specific threat. GAO, in its 2000 report, stated that federal entities typically
determined that specific federal officials needed security when there was a potential or actual
threat from individuals or groups that met at least one of the following criteria:
• Opposition to the policies and issues being handled by the official’s federal
entity;
• Affected by mental health issues;

40 Ibid., p. 5.
41 Ibid., p. 6.
42 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Secret Service: Further Progress Made Implementing the Protective
Mission Panel Recommendations, GAO-22-105100, January 26, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105100.pdf.
43 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Judicial Security: Comprehensive Risk-Based Program Should Be
Fully Implemented, GAO/GGD-94-112, July 14, 1994, https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-94-112.pdf.
44 U.S. Government Accountability Office, State Department: Diplomatic Security Challenges, GAO-13-191T,
November 15, 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-191t.pdf.
45 National Threat Assessment Center, Attacks on Federal Government 2001-2013: Threat Assessment Considerations,
U.S. Secret Service, Washington, DC, December 2015, https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/
Attacks_on_Federal_Government_2001-2013.pdf.
46 Robert A. Fein and Bryan Vossekuil, “Assassination in the United States: An Operational Study of Recent Assassins,
Attackers, and Near-Lethal Approachers,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 44, no. 2 (March 1999), pp. 321-333.
47 Robert A. Fein and Bryan Vossekuil, Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment Investigations: A Guide for State
and Local Law Enforcement Officials, U.S. Department of Justice/U.S. Secret Service, Washington, DC, July 1998,
https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/ecsp2.pdf.
48 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

7

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

• Opposition to the official personally; and
• Committed acts of terrorism.49
Congressional Interest in PPDs
A number of recent congressional hearings, including those related to the January 6th attack on the
U.S. Capitol, have focused on threats to federal officials and PPDs. Congress also expressed
interest in Member security prior to the January 6th attack on the Capitol, specifically in 2018 and
2019.
In 2018, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing on Justice appropriations and
questions were raised concerning the U.S. Marshals Service’s protective details assigned to the
Secretary of Education.50 In 2019, the Committee on House Appropriations held a hearing
concerning House administration priorities, including threats against Members and their
families.51
In 2021, the House Homeland Security Committee conducted a hearing concerning the domestic
terrorism threat in the wake of the January 6th attack in which the committee stated:
Incessant threats to politicians and their families on social media, vandals attacking the
homes of Congressional leaders, armed protesters barging into State houses, extremists
plotting to kidnap, and most dramatically, the violent invasion of the Capitol on January 6
are having a profound effect on those in public office and their families.52
In addition to hearings concerning the January 6th attack, Congress has also attempted to address
federal official and judicial security, and PPDs through proposed and enacted appropriations.
For FY2023, Congress provided guidance concerning federal official security. The most recent
legislative action on protective details was the enactment of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2023. Specifically, Section 121 states:
[T]he United States Capitol Police shall perform a threat assessment for former Speakers
of the House of Representatives, and if warranted, any such former Speaker shall receive
a United States Capitol Police protective detail for a period of not more than one year
beginning on the date they leave such office, except that such former Speaker shall have
the option to decline such protective detail at any time: Provided, that at the conclusion of
the one year period, the United States Capitol Police shall perform a threat assessment to
determine whether extension of the protective details is warranted: Provided further, That,
the protective detail may be extended beyond the initial one year period, with the
concurrence of the relevant former Speaker, if the United States Capitol Police determines
that information or conditions, including but not limited to violent threats, warrant such
protection: Provided further, That the United States Capitol Police is authorized to enter
into Memoranda of Understanding with relevant state and local law enforcement agencies,
as needed, to carry out this section.53
In FY2021, enacted appropriations language included the following provision:

49 Ibid.
50 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., 2018.
51 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, House of Representative
Budget, 116th Cong., 1st sess., March 12, 2019.
52 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Examining the Domestic Terrorism Threat in the Wake of
the Attack on the U.S. Capitol, 117th Cong., February 4, 2021, p. 42.
53 P.L. 117-328, Div. I, Title 1, Section 121.
Congressional Research Service

8

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

[N]ot less than $5,000,000 shall be made available for reimbursable agreements with State
and local law enforcement agencies and not less than $4,800,000 shall be available for
protective details for Members of Congress, including Delegates and Resident
Commissioner of Congress.54
Finally, another bill introduced, but not enacted, in FY2021, S. 2311, the Emergency Security
Supplemental to Respond to January 6th Appropriations Act, proposed to address threats to federal
judges and their families by stating:
[T]he amount made available under this heading in this Act shall be available to address
judicial security vulnerabilities, including threat management capabilities, for the personal
safety and security of Federal judges and their immediate families: Provided further, That
up to $35,000,000 shall be transferred to the Federal Protective Service for the costs of
required upgrades and replacement of exterior perimeter security cameras at United States
courthouses and Federal facilities that house judicial activities.55
This bill additionally addressed Members’ protective details by proposing “not less than
$4,800,000 shall be available for protective details for Members of Congress, including Delegates
and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress.”56 Congress has enacted relatively few
provisions of legislation that address the federal law enforcement authority to conduct PPD
operations.
What Is Not Known
Currently, Congress is aware of which individuals are to be protected by the USSS (18 U.S.C.
§3056) and by DSS (22 U.S.C. §2709), and the USMS authority to provide judicial security.57
Congress is also provided information regarding what it appropriated to federal entities (which
may include funding for PPDs). There are numerous federal PPD factors that Congress may be
currently unaware of. They include:
• Which federal officials receive protective detail security provided by entities
other than USSS and DSS?
• What federal law enforcement entities conduct these PPD operations?
• What costs are associated with federal official PPD operations?
• Who determines what federal official receives PPD security?
• What process is used by federal entities in determining who receives PPD?
GAO has attempted to determine the answers to these questions on at least three occasions. The
most recent effort was in 2000, and the results of the survey did not provide in-depth information
about the limited number and type of federal entities surveyed.
To address these issues, Congress may wish to engage a survey (e.g., by GAO; by the National
Academy of Public Administration; by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine) of all federal agencies with PPDs or PPD authority with the above-listed questions.
Additionally, a more consistent approach to determining credible threats to federal elected and
appointed officials, and insight into current protectees may help better inform congressional

54 P.L. 117-31, Title III, Legislative Branch, General Expenses.
55 S. 2311, Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January 6th Appropriations Act, 2021, 117th Cong., 2nd
Sess., July 13, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2311.
56 Ibid.
57 28 U.S.C. Chapter 37, §566(e)(1)(A).
Congressional Research Service

9

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

decisionmakers appropriating funding for such purposes. Absent this information, Congress may
not be fully informed when making oversight and appropriation decisions, and this may affect
how well the federal government secures its elected representatives, federal employees, and
senior federal officials.
Congressional Research Service

10

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

Appendix. Threats to and Assaults on Presidents
and Vice Presidents
On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence was presiding over a joint session of Congress to
certify the November 2020 presidential election electoral votes when a violent mob breached the
U.S. Capitol’s security. Due to these events, some Members of Congress have expressed a
renewed interest in USSS protective detail operations.
USSS has two mandated missions: (1) criminal investigations, and (2) protection of persons and
facilities. Criminal investigations focus primarily on financial crimes, whereas protection focuses
on the safety and security of specific government officials and certain identified government
facilities. The criminal investigations mission is the USSS’s oldest mission; however, the
protection mission is the one that most often receives public and media attention.
USSS protects the President, Vice President, their families, former Presidents, and major
candidates for those offices, along with the White House and the Vice President’s official
residence. Protective activities also extend to foreign missions in the District of Columbia
(embassies, consulates, residences, and other buildings used by foreign governments) and to
designated individuals, such as the Secretary of Homeland Security and visiting dignitaries.
Separate from protecting these specific mandated individuals and facilities, USSS is responsible
for coordinating security activities for National Special Security Events (NSSE), including
inauguration ceremonies, major party quadrennial national conventions, and certain international
conferences and events held in the United States.58
USSS has been providing protection to Presidents from President Grover Cleveland in 1894 on a
part-time basis to the continuous, round-the-clock protection of the President today. Over the
years, the USSS protection mission has been determined by unofficial decisions (such as the one
to protect President Cleveland) to congressional mandates (such as the one to protect major
presidential candidates). USSS protection activities have generally expanded with an increase in
the number of protected individuals.
Over the past century, congressional action has focused primarily on the USSS’s protection
mission. The most recent changes were enacted by the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds
Improvement Act of 2011, which amended 18 U.S.C. §1752 and made it a crime for an
unauthorized person to enter a building secured by USSS.
Threats to Presidents and Vice Presidents
Presidential safety is and has been a concern throughout the nation’s history. For example, fears
of kidnapping and assassination threats towards Abraham Lincoln began with his journey to
Washington, DC, for the 1861 inauguration. The number of attempted and successful assaults
against Presidents legitimizes concern for presidential safety. Ten Presidents have been victims of
direct assaults by assassins, with four resulting in death (Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A.
Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy). President Woodrow Wilson’s Vice President,
Thomas R. Marshall, is the only known Vice President to have been targeted for assassination. In
1915, a German-American opposed to the United States selling weapons and material to the
Allies bombed the U.S. Senate Chamber’s reception room, which was next to the Vice President’s

58 For further information, see CRS In Focus IF11732, U.S. Secret Service: Threats to and Assaults on Presidents and
Vice Presidents, by Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service

11

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

office. Vice President Marshall had been receiving death threats from opponents to American
policy in World War I, in letters, for weeks.
Since USSS started officially protecting Presidents in 1906—in 1917, Congress enacted
legislation (39 Stat. 919) that made it a crime to threaten the President—seven assaults have
occurred, with one, President Kennedy, resulting in death. The USSS does not make publicly
available any threats to protectees or investigations related to threats made against protectees.
Thus, the full extent to which protectees have been threatened or targeted remains a matter of
conjecture.
The following table provides information on assaults against Presidents who were protected by
USSS; it does not include information on assaults against Presidents prior to the USSS assuming
responsibility for presidential safety.
Table A-1. Direct Assaults on Presidents Protected by the Secret Service
Date
President
Location
Assailants and Motive
11/01/1950
Harry S. Truman
Washington, DC
Oscar Col azo and Griseilio Torressola,
advocates for Puerto Rican independence
11/22/1963
John F. Kennedy
Dallas, TX
Lee Harvey Oswald, motive unknown
09/05/1975
Gerald R. Ford
Sacramento, CA
Lynette Alice “Squeaky” Fromme, member of
extremist “Manson Family” and mentally il
09/22/1975
Gerald R. Ford
San Francisco, CA
Sara Jane Moore, wanted to ignite a revolution
03/30/1981
Ronald W. Reagan Washington, DC
John W. Hinckley, Jr., mentally il
10/29/1994
Wil iam J. Clinton
Washington, DC
Francisco M. Duran, motive unknown
05/10/2005
George W. Bush
Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia
Vladimir Arutyunian, motive unknown
Source: Information provided to CRS by USSS congressional affairs.

Author Information

Shawn Reese

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy

Acknowledgments
Two Senior Research Librarians, Carol Wilson and Kathleen Marchsteiner, provided significant research
assistance.
Congressional Research Service

12

Who Protects Whom? Federal Official and Judicial Security and PPDs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47731 · VERSION 1 · NEW
13