House lawmakers are now getting $5,000 a month for personal security guards
The House Administration Committee announced on Tuesday that members of the House of Representatives can now spend $20,000 on home security improvements with public funds, up from $10,000 before.
They're also getting $5,000 a month to spend on personal security, including hired security guards, back in their home states. That's an increase from just $150 before, and it's set to last through September 30, the end of the fiscal year.
The change is coming days before the House heads home for the August recess, when many lawmakers will be back in their districts and interacting with constituents, including at town halls.
Politicians have been able to spend campaign funds on personal security, and many of them already do. Wealthier lawmakers may choose to hire security with their own money as well.
The changes come a month after two Minnesota state lawmakers were shot in their homes in what the Department of Justice has called "targeted political assassinations."
The speaker of the Minnesota House, Melissa Hortman, died of her injuries along with her husband Mark. State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife were also shot, but survived.
Other lawmakers have faced threats to their lives in recent months.
The most recent was Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, whose Bronx office was vandalized after she voted against an amendment to a defense spending bill that would have struck funding for Israel's "Iron Dome" defensive missile system.
A spokesman for the congresswoman, Oliver Hidalgo-Wohlleben, said on X on Monday that her office had "received multiple threats on the Congresswoman's life and we are treating this seriously with our security partners to make sure she, our staff, and volunteers are safe."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
Supreme Court lets Trump remove 3 Dems from Consumer Product Safety Commission
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who had been fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge. The justices acted on an emergency appeal from the Justice Department, which argued that the agency is under Trump's control and the president is free to remove commissioners without cause. The court provided a brief, unsigned explanation that the case is similar to earlier ones in which it allowed Trump to fire board members of other independent agencies, whom Congress protected from arbitrary dismissals. 3 Signage is seen outside of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in Rockville, Maryland, U.S., August 31, 2020. REUTERS The three liberal justices dissented. 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote for herself, as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump fired the three Democrats on the five-member commission in May. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission's role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward. A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump's control as the head of the executive branch. 3 President Donald Trump speaks during an AI summit at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in Washington. AP Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission's functions as purely executive. The fight over the president's power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. Kagan wrote that the court already has 'all but overturned Humphrey's Executor.' 3 Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who was the ship sponsor, speaks during the christening for the USNS Earl Warren (T-AO 207) in San Diego on Saturday, Jan. 21, 2023. AP Other removals are making their way to the high court, including the firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission, the very agency at issue in Humphrey's Executor. Last week, a federal judge ordered Rebecca Slaughter reinstated as a commissioner. Slaughter returned to work Friday. By Tuesday, she had been sidelined again after an appeals court temporarily blocked the judge's order. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence.
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Another Signal-gate headache for Hegseth
People familiar with the report told The Washington Post that the attack plans had initially been shared with more than a dozen defense officials via a classified email sent over a classified system by U.S. Central Command head Gen. Michael 'Erik' Kurilla. Hegseth then posted the details in the unclassified Signal group chat directly before Washington launched its attacks on March 15. He also shared the information in a separate chat that included his wife, brother and personal attorney. The military labels material 'SECRET' if unauthorized disclosure could potentially cause serious damage to national security, while 'NOFORN' means the email was not meant for anyone who is a foreign national. The findings from the Defense Department Inspector General's office seems to contradict the Trump administration's repeated, adamant claims that no classified information was shared in the Signal group chats, which were revealed after the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic was inadvertently added to one. The department's inspector general's office began to look into the incident in April after Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee requested it do so. The revelation also offers a new headache for Hegseth, who has faced mounting criticism over the leaked Signal chats, his management style, as well his reported decision to pause military aid to Ukraine without President Trump's approval. In a statement to The Hill on Wednesday, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell doubled down on the claim that no classified information was shared on Signal, calling the 'narrative' 'old and worn out.' 'The Department stands behind its previous statements: no classified information was shared via Signal. As we've said repeatedly, nobody was texting war plans and the success of the Department's recent operations–from Operation Rough Rider to Operation Midnight Hammer–are proof that our operational security and discipline are top notch,' Parnell said, touting the military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen and U.S. strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities last month. The Post reported that Kurilla sent his sensitive message over a classified system known as the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet). He included a rundown of strike plans for March 15, including when bombing was expected to begin and what kind of aircraft and weapons would be used. Two people told the Post that they were not aware of any discussions for Hegseth to declassify and downgrade the information Kurilla sent — as government regulations can allow — before he sent it to the Signal chats.
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Higgins moves to force vote on censuring McIver after ICE facility clash
Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) on Wednesday moved to force a vote on a resolution to censure Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), who faces charges resulting from a clash with officials at an immigrant detention center. The measure, which spans three pages, calls for McIver to be censured and removed from the House Homeland Security Committee. The move from Higgins came the same day the House broke for a weeks-long August recess, meaning the matter will not be dealt with until September. Under House rules, leadership must act on the resolution within two legislative days, either staging a vote on it, motioning to refer it to committee or motioning to table it. It remains unclear how Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will handle the matter. The House has censured 28 members in its history, with the most recent being Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) in March after he shouted and waved his cane in the air during President Trump's first joint address to Congress of his second term. McIver pushed back on Higgins's resolution, calling the Louisiana Republican 'a bigot who wants to be back in the news.' 'Rs just shut down the House floor early and left to avoid confronting their president's relationship with Epstein. Now they want us to believe they're doing something when they're really running home to hide,' McIver wrote in a thread on X. 'This resolution aims to kick me off the committee that presides over the Department of Homeland Security and shame me for doing the oversight work that is my job. Good luck, Clay.' she added. McIver stands accused of assaulting law enforcement with her forearms during a chaotic clash that ensued after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers began to arrest Newark, N.J., Mayor Ras Baraka (D) outside a New Jersey immigration detention facility in May. McIver was visiting the facility with a group of elected officials. McIver has disputed that she assaulted anyone, and footage of the scrum shows her raising her arms as she's jostled among the competing factions. The crime carries a significant penalty – as much as 16 years in prison if McIver is convicted. House Homeland Security Committee members like McIver, as well as other Democrats, have made a point of visiting detention facilities as the Trump administration seeks to increase immigration arrests after Trump promised the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history. The Department of Homeland Security has since tried to limit lawmaker visits, something Democratic members said was designed to block oversight. Prosecutors — then led by interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba — received significant scrutiny for bringing charges against Baraka that they later dropped. U.S. District Judge Andre Espinosa in a Wednesday hearing said the arrest suggested a 'worrisome misstep' by the New Jersey's U.S. attorney's office, noting the 'apparent rush' in bringing the case that culminated in the government's 'embarrassing' retraction of the charge.
