One of the striking things about President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from his reelection bid is how seamlessly the criticisms Republicans applied to him have been transitioned over to Vice President Kamala Harris.

In one sense, this is obvious: Harris is Biden’s vice president, and criticisms of the Biden administration are, however justifiably, easily presented as criticisms of the Biden-Harris — or, for more adventurous Republicans, Harris-Biden — administration. But then there are things like polling released this week by YouGov, showing that about 4 in 10 Americans think it’s fair to describe Harris as “corrupt,” including more than three-quarters of Republicans.

When Biden and Donald Trump were both being painted with that brush, it was easy to see why. Biden was given that descriptor as Republicans launched (ultimately fruitless) investigations aimed at proving his corruption. Trump was given it … well, for myriad other reasons. But then Biden moved out and Harris moved in and, in addition to being slapped with pejoratives rooted in the administration in general, she’s getting dinged for personal foibles as well.

It’s almost as though — and perish the thought! — views of political candidates are rooted more in perceptions of those candidates’ politics than in their actual histories and records.

We can see a similar effect at play after the introduction of both major-party candidates’ running mates. A month ago, Trump named Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his vice-presidential pick. Earlier this month, Harris tapped Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D). And in Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos polling released Friday, we see that neither of those picks gets particularly positive ratings.

Walz does better than Vance, certainly. Lots of Americans have no opinion of the candidates, but among those who do, Walz is more positively viewed than negatively. Vance is more negatively viewed than positively.

In fact, looking at polling since 2008 in a similar post-pick time frame, Vance is unusually negatively viewed. The Post has been conducting polling with ABC News for years, and our polls in 2008, 2012 and 2020 show recently named (or incumbent) vice-presidential picks with higher favorability ratings than Vance. We have a gap in 2016, filled with polling from Gallup. Those numbers are relatively low — but still better than Vance now.

When we break out the percentage of respondents who view the candidates strongly favorably (not included in Gallup’s 2016 poll), we see that here, too, Vance stands out. Only about a fifth of respondents view Walz strongly favorably, about where Biden was when Barack Obama was seeking reelection in 2012. Vance, though, is in the single digits.

It used to be that vice-presidential candidates got something of a honeymoon period, boosted by party conventions centered on presenting them and the presidential pick in as favorable a light as possible. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, now generally regarded as one of the less successful vice-presidential selections, received among the highest marks soon after she was picked.

Walz and Vance are still relatively unknown by more than a quarter of Americans, but their favorability numbers still aren’t near that level. Where they do fare well is within their own parties. As was the case in 2020, the two vice-presidential picks are viewed favorably by about three-quarters of their own party’s respondents. But again, Vance lags.

As was the case with YouGov polling we cited this week, Vance has lower levels of strong support within the Republican Party than does Walz in the Democratic Party. Part of the reason he’s relatively unpopular, in other words, is that Republicans themselves aren’t particularly thrilled with him.

Luckily for Trump, most people aren’t casting their vote in November based on the vice-presidential candidate. Palin was viewed quite positively at this point in 2008, and Biden quite poorly at this point in 2012. Though, in another shift since Biden dropped out, they may be paying more attention to Vance than they might otherwise have, given Trump’s age. It certainly isn’t useful that Vance’s numbers, a month after his introduction, are so soft.

What might serve as consolation is that a lot of the non-Republican indifference to Vance would probably apply to anyone Trump had picked. The Republican indifference, though, is not what his party might want to see.

Former president Donald Trump is continuing to make millions off his properties, book royalties and licensing deals while maintaining large liabilities stemming from costly court judgments, according to his latest financial disclosure.

The disclosure released Thursday provides the latest picture of the Republican presidential nominee’s extensive finances, detailing how Trump, the former president and real estate tycoon, has been making money since leaving office and launching a 2024 bid. However, because candidates are only required to report their assets and liabilities in broad ranges, the overview of Trump’s finances coming out of the disclosure is imprecise.

Trump reported income of at least $635 million from assets described as real estate, hotels, resorts and golf properties, according to the more than 250-page document released by the Federal Election Commission. He reported more than 20 assets as being worth over $50 million, the highest category.

The form’s list of liabilities shows that Trump paid off the mortgage on his Chicago property, financed through Deutsche Bank and valued between $25 million and $50 million, in October 2023. That was the same month Trump’s civil fraud trial kicked off. The judge in the case ultimately found that Trump inflated the value of his assets to attain more favorable loan rates, including from Deutsche Bank. The financial disclosure also states that a mortgage on Trump Plaza was paid off in April of this year.

The disclosure lists liabilities in excess of $50 million owed to both the New York attorney general and writer E. Jean Carroll.

In February, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay at least $454 million in a civil fraud case.

Separately, he faces an $83.3 million judgment in a federal defamation case brought by Carroll. Trump has posted bonds in both judgments, which he is appealing.

A large segment of Trump’s net worth is currently tied to his majority stake in shares — 114,750,000 shares in total — of Trump Media & Technology Group, the company behind Trump’s social media network, Truth Social. A lockup period, the disclosure notes, prevents Trump from selling the shares for six months following the company going public in March.

Trump also gained millions through recent deals leveraging his name and likeness on physical and digital products.

Earlier this year, Trump urged his supporters to buy $59.99 Bibles that included a handwritten chorus to “God Bless the USA” by singer and supporter Lee Greenwood. Trump made some $300,000 in royalties from “The Greenwood Bible,” according to the disclosure.

The former president also made millions in royalties from the sale of post-presidency books, with the form showing $4.4 million from “Letters to Trump” — which retails for $99 or $399 signed by Trump — and about half a million dollars from “A MAGA Journey.”

The publisher behind the books, Winning Team Publishing, was started by Trump ally Sergio Gor and Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. Along with books by Trump, other Trump allies, such as Charlie Kirk, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake all have books published through Winning Team. Campaign finance data shows that Republican political committees and campaigns have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for books and printing-related services from the publisher.

Although Trump was once a cryptocurrency critic going so far as to call bitcoin a scam in 2021, he owns between $1 million and $5 million in the cryptocurrency ethereum through CIC Digital LLC — which licenses Trump’s likeness for non-fungible tokens or NFTs.

Several versions of the NFTs have been released, including a “MugShot edition” in 2023. Those willing to buy 100 digital trading cards would receive “a piece of President Trump’s Suit from the Mugshot,” according to the website collecttrumpcards.com.

Along with the $1 million to $5 million in ethereum held in a cryptocurrency wallet, the form states that Trump received income of $7.1 million through a licensing agreement for the NFT project.

Former first lady Melania Trump also reported that her top source of income, around $330,000, came from a licensing agreement for the sale of collectible NFTs. Her second-highest source of income came from her appearance at an event hosted by Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBTQ+ Republican group, in Palm Beach, Fla., this past April, earning $237,500.

The Post previously reported that the former first lady hosted a fundraiser for the group at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach in April. It was one of her only public political appearances throughout her husband’s 2024 run.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and her husband, Doug Emhoff, reported a total income of $450,380 in 2023, according to 2023 tax returns released by the White House.

Amy B Wang and Marianne Levine contributed to this report.

Independent presidential candidate Cornel West will not appear on November’s ballot in the swing state of Michigan, state election officials said Friday.

West’s ballot access was denied over notary issues, according to a letter from the state’s director of elections. He also faced a separate lawsuit filed by a local activist who alleged that his petition didn’t have enough qualifying signatures.

West’s absence from the ballot in a state that is expected to see a tight race comes as Democrats have challenged his ballot access in other states amid concerns that he could take left-leaning voters away from the Democratic ticket.

After the news of the denial, West’s campaign said it would appeal the decision, although West cannot submit a revised petition, according to state law. The department told the campaign it has five days to rebut the disqualification after the campaign didn’t previously respond to the election officials’ notification of the challenge on July 26.

“The charges regarding procedural errors in our filings, such as notarization specifics, are trivial technicalities being weaponized to distract from substantive policy debates,” West adviser Edwin DeJesus said in a statement. “We are confident that these accusations will be seen for what they are — frivolous and unfounded attempts to stifle opposition and debate.”

The letter to the West campaign listed four issues with West’s affidavit of identity, which is one of the required documents. It said the issues include the notarization being incomplete and having it on the wrong page.

State law does not provide for a candidate to resubmit a corrected affidavit, and the secretary of state’s office has consistently rejected similarly flawed affidavits previously, a spokeswoman said.

Michigan law also lays out a specific deadline for candidate-filing petitions, which must include the identity affidavit, of 4 p.m. on the 110th day before the election. This year, that deadline fell on July 18.

West is on the ballot in Utah, Colorado, South Carolina and Alaska, and his newly founded political party, Justice for All, recently won access on North Carolina’s ballot.

West’s criticism of the Biden-Harris administration’s support of Israel during the war in Gaza has earned him support among left-leaning voters. In Michigan, home to the nation’s largest Arab American and Muslim population, the independent candidate could have found support.

However, West has not gained much ground in recent polling, as support has consolidated around the major two-party candidates, former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

No Michigan voters said they planned to vote for West in a New York Times and Siena College poll conducted from Aug. 5 to 9. The Green Party’s Jill Stein, who has had a similar stance on Israel to West’s, did slightly better, with 1 percent among registered voters. Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was at 5 percent.

Nicole Markus contributed to this report.

The charter plane carrying former president Donald Trump’s running mate Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) made an emergency landing in Milwaukee after a door seal malfunction, the campaign said Friday.

The plane, a Boeing 737, declared an emergency shortly after it had left the airport in Milwaukee and returned for repairs, campaign spokesperson Taylor Van Kirk said in a statement. The issue was resolved, and the plane continued to Cincinnati, where Vance lives. Vance was in Milwaukee for a campaign event at the city’s police association.

The emergency landing comes a week after Trump’s plane was diverted as he headed to Montana for a rally last Friday.

Boeing has faced greater scrutiny for its assembly process of the 737 Max — the updated version of the older 737 model used by Vance — after an Alaska Airlines flight in January experienced a midair blowout leaving a hole in the fuselage.

Vance was traveling with his wife, his dog, campaign staff members and a traveling pool of reporters.

Before Vice President Kamala Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the Democrats’ 2024 standard-bearer, there was legitimate talk about Donald Trump potentially stretching the presidential race into more states.

While everyone had focused like a laser on the six swing states Biden won in 2020 — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — Republicans played up polls showing Virginia surprisingly tight, for instance. They set their sights on Minnesota, a state that hasn’t gone red since 1972. New Hampshire looked like it might reclaim its past swing-state status. Trump even speculated (much less plausibly) about flipping quite-blue New Jersey.

Today, each of those states has drifted away from Trump, and it’s the ascendant Harris who can credibly claim the power to expand the map.

But by how much?

Harris’s momentum in the presidential race has surely placed a newfound emphasis on North Carolina, a second-tier swing state that Biden lost by 1.3 points in 2020. But beyond that, finding other 2020 red states to put in play could be difficult, with the next likeliest candidate seeming to be Florida.

North Carolina

The signs for Democrats in North Carolina — where both Trump and Harris are campaigning this week — are increasingly encouraging.

A Cook Political Report poll this week showed Harris asserting a one-point advantage, 48 percent to 47 percent, which is well within the margin of error. But notably outside the margin of error was Democrats’ overall advantage. Cook also asked North Carolina voters to choose between a generic Democrat and a generic Republican, and they chose the Democrat by eight points, 48-40.

Both findings marked big shifts from May, when the same poll favored Trump over Biden by seven points and the generic Republican by one. None of the other six states that Cook surveyed shifted toward Democrats as much.

We regrettably don’t have much other high-quality data in North Carolina since Harris’s entry. But there are other reasons to think Democrats could put the state in play.

One is that the previous Democratic pessimism about it probably stemmed from having been stung before. Barack Obama’s 2008 win was the party’s first since 1976, and Democrats have been stymied in their efforts to repeat the feat. Obama lost it by two points in 2012, Hillary Clinton lost it by 3.7 points in 2016, and Biden lost it by 1.3 in 2020.

But those were close races, meaning it’s not as if Democrats need to move the needle that much. And despite Democrats’ frustrations, North Carolina actually trended away from Trump in 2020 more than Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada did.

Democrats also have to feel good about the other statewide race on the ballot there: the governor’s race. Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R) carries all kinds of baggage into that race by virtue of his incendiary and extreme comments — the kind of baggage that has hurt Republicans consistently in recent Senate and governor’s races.

Whether that would actually have an impact on the top of that ticket is an open question, but Democrats could surely tie Trump and Robinson together given their shared history of extreme comments.

Florida

Florida is about the only other red state that appears to be a plausible pickup for Democrats at this point. But it’s likely to be significantly more difficult to flip.

While the most recent high-quality polling suggests it’s in the realm of possibility, Florida isn’t any closer than it was in 2020, when Trump won the state by 3.4 points. A University of Northern Florida poll in late July showed Trump leading Harris by seven, while a Suffolk University poll this week showed Trump up five in a crowded field.

Florida was also the only competitive state in 2020 that actually shifted toward Trump from four years prior; Trump’s margin increased by more than two points. (Among all states, only Hawaii and Utah shifted more toward Trump.)

And the Suffolk poll suggests that, even as the race is within the mid-single digits, it might be difficult for Harris to make up the gap. While just 40 percent said they approved of her performance as vice president, for instance, 56 percent said they approved of Trump’s time as president. And Harris did no better than Biden in 2020 among independent and Hispanic voters.

If there’s an argument for Harris potentially putting the state in play right now, it’s in that potential down-ballot effect — specifically, a constitutional amendment that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

The Suffolk poll showed voters favored the measure 58-35, while the UNF poll showed they favored it 69-23. They’re merely the latest polls to suggest Florida’s abortion measure could rack up a bigger margin than similar measures in other politically competitive states did in recent years. Republicans have struggled to account for this, with Trump (a Florida resident) declining thus far to even take a position.

The Suffolk poll also showed Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who faces reelection, is quite unpopular — 35 percent favorable and 49 percent unfavorable — in ways that could affect the appeal of the GOP side of the ballot. But so far he leads by a similar margin to Trump.

It’s also worth emphasizing that if Florida is in play, Harris will probably already be well on track to win the presidency. It’s plausible that North Carolina could prove crucial to Harris’s electoral-college-majority math, but Florida would probably signal a much bigger shift across the country.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) has ended his independent campaign for reelection as he prepares to resign after his conviction on federal bribery and corruption charges.

Menendez filed to run as an independent in June while his trial was underway, looking to keep his options open pending the outcome. He was convicted six weeks later and announced he would resign effective Tuesday.

Still, his continued candidacy as an independent raised the possibility that he could complicate the race between the major-party nominees, Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) and Republican businessman Curtis Bashaw. Friday was the deadline for Menendez to withdraw as an independent candidate.

The New Jersey Division of Elections received an email Friday afternoon from Menendez asking to be removed from the ballot.

“By means of this email please be advised that as an Independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in November’s election I am advising you that I wish to have my name withdrawn from the ballot,” Menendez wrote to the division’s acting director.

Menendez’s email came the same day that New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) appointed his former chief of staff, George Helmy, to temporarily fill the Senate seat after Menendez steps down next week. Helmy will not run for the full term that starts in January, allowing Kim and Bashaw to face off in the November election.

Democrats are expected to retain the Senate seat in solidly blue New Jersey.

Menendez was convicted in July of taking bribes from three businessmen who provided gifts to him and his wife, including a luxury car and gold bars. A jury in Manhattan federal court found him of all 16 felony counts he was facing.

“Bob Menendez’s corruption has been a distraction in New Jersey government and politics for years,” Bashaw said in a statement Friday. “It’s time to move on with this election and make it a clean, straightforward race focusing on the issues facing our state.”

House Republicans on Friday launched an investigation into Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s connections to China, turning their scrutiny from President Joe Biden to Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate after the sudden change in the 2024 Democratic ticket last month.

In a letter to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) wrote that Walz (D) had “concerning ties” to China, citing the governor’s dozens of trips to the country, and requested a trove of documents and information related to Chinese entities that Walz has engaged with.

“Americans should be deeply concerned that Governor Walz, Kamala Harris’s vice-presidential running mate, has a long-standing and cozy relationship with China,” Comer said in a statement. “Mr. Walz has visited China dozens of times, served as a fellow at a Chinese institution that maintains a devotion to the CCP, and spoke alongside the President of a Chinese organization the State Department exposed as a CCP effort to influence and co-opt local leaders.”

Walz first went to China in 1989 as part of a teach-abroad program run by Harvard University, and he taught English and American history for one year. Later on with his wife, Gwen, Walz established Educational Travel Adventures, which coordinated trips to China.

In the years since, during his time in elected office, Walz has served on the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, and spearheaded legislation that censured the country’s human rights record. He has been critical of the Chinese government’s actions for most of his time in public office.

But since Walz’s selection as Harris’s running mate this month, Republicans and Trump allies have taken up Walz’s relationship with China as a line of attack, alongside questioning his military service and criticizing his legislative efforts as Minnesota’s governor.

Comer’s pivot to the new Democratic ticket comes after a 19-month GOP-led investigation into Biden alleging that members of the Biden family capitalized financially on their father’s name. But the investigation quietly sputtered out after no evidence or testimony obtained by congressional Republicans showed that the president was a direct participant in or beneficiary of his family’s business dealings. House Republicans’ report on the findings of their failed bid to impeach Biden has yet to be released. Comer himself also promised multiple criminal referrals against Biden that never materialized.

With less than three months until the election, Comer and House Republicans are now scrambling to refocus the majority’s investigative powers on Harris and Walz.

Last week, Comer announced an investigation into Harris’s work on immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, misrepresenting her as Biden’s “border czar” as Republicans seek to tie her to the surge in migrants at the border. Harris, however, was never tasked with border enforcement; in 2021, Biden tapped her to address the “root causes” of migration from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to the United States.

Now, Republicans have put a magnifying glass over Walz’s work-related engagements history with China, suggesting that he will be soft on Beijing.

Teddy Tschann, a spokesperson for Walz, said in a statement Friday that Walz, along with Harris, would “ensure we win the competition with China, and will always stand up for our values and interests in the face of China’s threats.”

“Republicans are twisting basic facts and desperately lying to distract from the Trump-Vance agenda: praising dictators, and sending American jobs to China,” Tschann said.

In interviews with The Washington Post this month, analysts were ambivalent about whether Walz would help stabilize U.S.-China relations if he were elected vice president. But, they added that his previous relationship with the country is unlikely to further spoil the connection between the two governments, noting that he is one of multiple American officials who have been critical in the same manner.

Rebecca Tan and Vic Chiang contributed to this report.

A divided Supreme Court refused to require some states to enforce new rules on how schools should handle complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination, leaving in place a ban on the provisions while lower-court battles continue.

The Department of Education had asked the court to lift the preliminary injunctions on enforcing the rules, arguing that the decisions by federal courts in Louisiana and Kentucky to block the entirety of Title IX regulations in a number of states were overly broad. States requested the injunctions based on objections to provisions within the regulations that deal with discrimination based on gender identity.

Friday’s 5-4 ruling leaves in place a messy status quo, where the regulations are in effect in about half of U.S. states. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in dissenting from the majority opinion.

The regulations, issued in April, represent the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX, a half-century-old law that bars sex-based discrimination in schools and applies to K-12 schools, colleges and universities that accept federal funding.

They took effect Aug. 1 in the states not covered by the injunctions. For the first time, the regulations say that discrimination based on sex includes conduct related to a person’s gender identity. The rules could require, for instance, schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity and to use trans students’ pronouns.

But the bulk of the regulation deals with other matters, notably how schools must handle complaints of sexual assault and harassment on campus.

A Department of Education spokeswoman decried the court’s decision, as did Shiwali Patel, senior director of Safe and Inclusive Schools at the National Women’s Law Center. “We are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision that creates significant harm to students across the country who are in need of the critical protections the new Title IX rule offers and clarifies,” Patel said in a statement.

In issuing the rules, Biden administration officials pointed to a 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex discrimination in employment includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The same logic applies to Title IX, they said.

Gender identity has become a major political flash point in recent years, particularly in education. At least a dozen states across the country have rules limiting transgender access to the bathrooms and facilities that match their gender identity, according to tracking by the Movement Advancement Project. Some school boards bar students from changing their names or pronouns without parental permission or prohibit teachers from using pronouns that don’t match the sex assigned to the student at birth.

Twenty-six states, working in groups, filed seven separate lawsuits seeking to block the new Title IX regulations from going into effect. Six of the suits were successful at the district court level and the seventh group won at the appellate court. As a result, the regulation took effect as scheduled in 24 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, but is on hold in the 26 states that are party to the challenges.

The challengers argued that the Biden administration exceeded its authority in crafting the rules and said the regulations violate state laws that limit the rights of transgender students.

The requests denied by the Supreme Court only dealt with two of the lawsuits and therefore only affect the 10 states that are party to those suits. Jonathan Scruggs of Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal group involved in one of the lawsuits, applauded the court’s decision.

“The Biden-Harris administration’s radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women, undermines fairness, and threatens student safety and privacy,” Scruggs said in a statement. “This administration is ignoring biological reality, science, and common sense.”

Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho challenged the Title IX regulations in May. In June, a federal district court judge in Louisiana granted the states a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of the entire set of regulations, not just those related to gender identity.

Six states — Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia — won a similar stay from a federal district court judge in Kentucky.

Courts of appeal in both circuits denied requests by the Biden administration to temporarily enforce the Title IX regulations while legal challenges continue.

In her filings with the Supreme Court seeking to lift the injunctions, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar said Title IX was an omnibus rule and most of its provisions did not deal with transgender issues. She also wrote that the rules were intended to stand alone, so there was no reason to block Title IX in its entirety.

“Respondents have not challenged the vast majority of those changes,” Prelogar wrote. “Instead, they object to three discrete provisions.”

Twelve other states also won injunctions against the Title IX rules in four other separate cases, but they are not part of the current litigation before the Supreme Court.

In a separate action, the Supreme Court has agreed to review during the coming term a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for people younger than 18. It will be the first time the court has explored the issue. More than 20 states have passed similar bans since 2021.

The U.S. Secret Service has dispatched some members of President Joe Biden’s protective detail to assist former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in advance planning for campaign rallies and other events, officials said Friday.

Officials said the agents from the Presidential Protective Division are working to coordinate and enhance security for the candidates in the run-up to the November election.

For Trump, the Republican nominee, officials said the increased assistance followed the July 13 assassination attempt against him at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa.

Harris, the Democratic nominee, has heightened security as vice president but is also benefiting from additional expertise from Biden’s security team, officials said.

As president, Biden receives the highest level of Secret Service protection in the United States on a daily basis, officials said. The agents assisting the candidates are not among those assigned to shield Biden. But Biden is traveling less since he dropped out of the presidential race, freeing up some security personnel to assist the candidates as they campaign.

The Presidential Protective Division includes several hundred highly trained special agents, as well as technical experts and other personnel, said agency spokeswoman Alexi Worley.

“On a case-by-case basis for complex and large-scale events, experienced Presidential Protective Division personnel may assist in advance planning for former President Donald Trump and other high-level protectees,” Worley said in a statement, adding that the others included Harris. “This support is separate from Presidential Protective Division operational demands.”

Harris announced her candidacy for president after Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed her last month.

Secret Service officials said adjusting resources is common when needs arise, such as when world leaders visit the United States or for major gatherings such as the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

The agency, which protects more than 30 people, is also intensely busy in an election year. In Trump’s case, the agency’s top officials testified before Congress that they immediately expanded his security after the shooting at the rally.

The Secret Service came under intense scrutiny after the shooting — considered the worst attack on a U.S. leader under the agency’s protection in four decades. Multiple investigations are examining why law enforcement officers failed to intercept a gunman who climbed atop an unsecured roof and fired multiple shots from an AR-style rifle, wounding Trump, killing a rallygoer and seriously injuring two others.

The Secret Service this week confirmed that it had approved a new security plan that would use ballistic glass and other measures to increase Trump’s security at outdoor campaign events and to protect him onstage.

Sheets of ballistic glass are typically reserved for presidents and vice presidents, and are considered a major enhancement for a presidential candidate, according to a Secret Service official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security measures. The Defense Department coordinates the provision of ballistic glass.

Harris would be given the same protection if needed, officials said.

Other measures, such as the increased use of drones, are also expected, though officials declined to provide details to avoid jeopardizing security.

Kimberly Cheatle resigned as the Secret Service director days after the July attack, after lawmakers from both parties urged her to step down.

Carol D. Leonnig and Josh Dawsey contributed to this report.