Has Homeland Security kept up with its mission?

The attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, exposed critical gaps in information-sharing among key security agencies. In response, the government brought together 22 federal entities to form the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to better anticipate and address the threat of terrorism from overseas and to strengthen coordination among various emergency-response agencies.

Now the third-largest Cabinet-level department, DHS has been in the spotlight recently primarily for the activities of two components: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). But the department, which employs more than 250,000, oversees a very broad portfolio that also includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Secret Service, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and other units.

In this edited conversation, the Gazette asked former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who served during the Biden administration and is currently a fall fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School, about how the Department has changed since 9/11 and how well it appears to be meeting the evolving threats facing the U.S. today.

---

Gazette: Would you say the U.S. is safer today than it was in 2001?

Alejandro Mayorkas: Yes, I would. The federal government has matured tremendously in its counterterrorism mission and how it performs it in terms of the tools it has at its disposal, the coordination among different agencies and departments, as well as between the federal government and state and local authorities, as well as foreign governments.

Terrorism from overseas was the main focus early on. How have the threats to the U.S. changed since 9/11?

The threats have remained and changed — it’s been additive. It’s not as though one threat has emerged and another has receded. Unfortunately, in this domain, the threats of 2001 and early on have remained, and new threats have emerged as well.

Back in 2001 and the years immediately following the tragedy of 9/11, the main threat was the threat of individuals with foreign terrorist ideologies entering the United States to do us harm. That threat has persisted.

What we saw, however, in 2010, 2012, and in the ensuing years, was the emergence of homegrown violent extremists — the individual, already resident in the United States, radicalized to violence by a foreign terrorist ideology. That threat, similarly, has persisted.

Yet another threat vector has emerged: the individual resident in the United States radicalized not necessarily by a foreign terrorist ideology, but by an ideology of hate, politically motivated violence, by false narratives, conspiracy theories, and other forces.

We also have had, of course, the advent of the cyber threat from criminals and adverse nation-states. We’ve had the tool of disinformation seeking to sow discord within the domestic population.

So, the threat landscape has become increasingly complex, and the government’s tools to address it have matured as well.

Has DHS kept pace with the changing nature of these threats?

I cannot overstate the dedication and talent of the people within the Department of Homeland Security who dedicate their careers to the fight against terrorism and the fight against violence, the mission of keeping the American public safe and secure.

It is an extraordinary challenge, given the pace at which technological advances equip people with bad intentions. It is very, very difficult.

The mission of Homeland Security is a mission of partnerships. The federal government cannot do it alone. We need to partner with our foreign allies, with other federal partners, with state and local law enforcement, and quite frankly, with the American public itself. In Secretary Janet Napolitano’s tenure, she created the “If you see something, say something” campaign that speaks of each citizen’s opportunity to contribute to the mission of security.

Is DHS still maintaining those partnerships with U.S. allies and states?

We are. I think that the security cooperation persists. We have our close allies in what we call “the five eyes” in addition to the U.S., including the U.K., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. We continue to collaborate despite perhaps tensions in other areas of our relationships.

What are some areas in which DHS could do better?

I think the cybersecurity of our nation’s critical infrastructure is something that is in dire need of strengthening. Our ability to share information on a reciprocal basis with other countries needs to be broadened. These are challenges that we faced in the prior administration and before.

And, of course, technology. AI presents an opportunity. We began operational use of artificial intelligence to advance our security architecture, but in the wrong hands, it presents a tremendous threat. And so, our ability to keep pace with technological change, both from an operational perspective, advantaging ourselves, as well as defending ourselves. That’s one area that needs to be, and I’m sure is, an area of constant focus.

Looking back, what were the most important lessons learned at DHS since 9/11?

One of the most important lessons is the need to coordinate amongst the different federal departments and agencies, both within DHS and among DHS and others. Because each of us has different capabilities and tools and authorities, and that coordination is key.

I take great pride in the fact that the coordination within DHS advanced considerably over the four years of the prior administration, and I am confident the current secretary, Markwayne Mullin, is focused on that, as well.

Critics say DHS has grown too large, and its portfolio too broad to be as effective or as nimble as the U.S. needs. With the array of threats and malign actors expanding, and the asymmetry of many of those threats, is the organization’s current structure still the best approach?

It is a very large department. It’s the third-largest in the federal government behind the Department of Defense and Veteran Affairs, which has considerable administrative responsibilities spread across the country to take care of the men and women who have served our country in uniform.

I felt very strongly as the secretary that the department was more fit for purpose during my tenure than ever before. We had matured in our coordination between and amongst the different capabilities resident in the department.

The structure is, and continues to be, effective in fighting the threat of terrorism and different brands of violence targeted at the American public. I do think certain changes need to be made within the department, but a wholesale restructuring of the department is not something I think is needed.

What kind of changes would you like to see?

I think that would get into the weeds of operations, but I certainly have some ideas with respect to, for example, equipping the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) with new authorities to drive the strengthening of critical infrastructure.

I think some of the department’s grant-making authorities need to be placed elsewhere; they’re all resident in FEMA right now. I think some of the counterterrorism grant programs would best belong elsewhere. There are a number of changes along those lines, and others that should at least be considered and studied.

Border security and immigration enforcement appear to be high priorities at DHS. In your view, are those elements receiving outsized attention at the department?

I think the secretary and the department continue to hold the counterterrorism mission, the reason why the department was created in the first place, as the top priority. It is not the subject of as considerable public discourse as some of the other issues grabbing the headlines, but I am confident that that remains the top priority of the department.

We yearn for more resources for the border security mission and other missions. The question is not whether the funding is called for, but perhaps more so, the question should be: How is that being spent? Now, I won’t engage in those discussions, but I am confident that the counterterrorism mission remains the highest priority of the department.