Fact check: What are presidents adult children with Secret Service protection entitled two on travel

1. Summary of the results

The analyses provided shed light on the Secret Service protection afforded to presidents' adult children, particularly during travel ^[1]. Federal law provides lifelong Secret Service protection to former presidents and their spouses, but the protection for their immediate families over 16 ends when they leave office ^[1]. However, extensions are commonly granted to adult children, as seen in the cases of Trump and Biden, who extended protection for their children for six months before leaving office ^[1]. The analyses also highlight that protection can be revoked by the current president, as in the case of Hunter and Ashley Biden, whose protection was ended by Trump ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}. Regarding travel, there is no explicit information on what adult children are entitled to, but it is mentioned that Trump ended Secret Service protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden ^[1]. Some sources suggest that adult children may receive protection for up to six months after the president leaves office, at the discretion of the outgoing president ^[3], while others note that this protection is not guaranteed and can be terminated ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

A key missing context is the specific details of what adult children are entitled to during travel, which is not explicitly stated in any of the analyses ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}. Alternative viewpoints include the cost of extended Secret Service protection, which was reported to be $1.7 million for the Trump family's adult children and staff ^[7], and the discretionary nature of protection, which can be granted or revoked by the sitting president ^{[1] [3] [5] [6]}. Additionally, some sources highlight the removal of Secret Service protection for other individuals, such as Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Anthony Fauci ^[2], which may provide context for the decision-making process behind protection revocation. The legislative framework governing Secret Service protection is also an important context, as it authorizes protection for former presidents' children until age 16 ^[6], but the specifics of adult children's protection during travel remain unclear.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be misleading in its implication that adult children of presidents are entitled to specific protections during travel, as the analyses suggest that protection is not guaranteed and can be revoked ^[5]. The statement may also lack context, as it does not account for the discretionary nature of protection ^{[1] [3] [5] [6]} or the cost of extended protection ^[7]. Furthermore, the statement may benefit those who seek to criticize the current president's decisions regarding Secret Service protection, as it highlights the revocation of protection for Hunter and Ashley Biden ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}, while downplaying the complexities of the legislative framework governing protection ^[6]. Overall, the original statement may reflect a biased perspective, emphasizing certain aspects of Secret Service protection while omitting important context and nuances ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.