The recent upheaval within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), marked by the dismissal of Secretary Kristi Noem, has sparked debate about the true nature of the department’s challenges. While the administration framed the change as a move to improve departmental performance, a seasoned Republican national security expert contends that the issues run far deeper than leadership personalities.
Paul Rosenzweig, who previously served as deputy assistant secretary for policy at DHS under President George W. Bush and now lectures on cybersecurity at George Washington University Law School, argues that the problem is systemic. “The switch is cosmetic,” Rosenzweig stated. “The problem with DHS isn’t Noem or [Trump’s nominee GOP Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne] Mullin or whoever else will run it. The problem is with the agency itself.”
Deep-Rooted Issues and Escalating Concerns
Rosenzweig acknowledges that some of the department’s struggles are long-standing, citing persistent difficulties with agencies like FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and the TSA (Transportation Security Administration). However, he asserts that the current administration has exacerbated these pre-existing problems.
“Under Donald Trump, ICE and Border Patrol have become rogue agencies, accused of unnecessary violence and disregard for the rule of law,” Rosenzweig explained. He pointed to a significant number of court order violations by ICE, noting that a federal judge in Minnesota reported that in January alone, ICE violated more court orders than most federal agencies do in their entire existence. Furthermore, ICE has reportedly adopted search policies that are “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The human cost of these alleged abuses is also a grave concern. “Meanwhile, more than 40 people have died in ICE custody since the start of Trump’s second term,” Rosenzweig added. His stark conclusion is that “the answer to such abuses is not reform; it is wholesale disassembly and restructuring.”
A Blueprint for Overhaul: Reimagining Homeland Security
Rosenzweig has put forth a series of radical policy suggestions aimed at fundamentally overhauling the Department of Homeland Security. His primary recommendation is to “return its focus to the original objective—foreign counterterrorism—which remains a serious concern.”
His proposed restructuring involves a strategic disaggregation of the department:
- Retain Counterterrorism Functions: Portions of DHS that directly serve a counterterrorism function should be preserved. This includes:
- CBP (Customs and Border Protection) officers at ports of entry.
- TSA screeners at airports.
- Border Patrol agents at the nation’s land borders.
- Reassign Other Components: The remaining components of DHS should be returned to more appropriate federal departments where their functions align more closely with existing mandates.
- Independent FEMA: Given the infrequency of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, FEMA, Rosenzweig argues, “can, and should, go back to being an independent agency.”
- Justice Department Oversight for Immigration: Immigration adjudication, currently managed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), could be returned to the Department of Justice.
- Case-by-Case Evaluation for Mixed-Function Agencies: For agencies with decidedly mixed functions, such as the Coast Guard, their placement should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Regardless of the outcome, the development of joint task forces to coordinate response activities is essential.
Preventing a Federalized Interior Police Force
Perhaps the most critical aspect of Rosenzweig’s proposed overhaul is the elimination of what he sees as the “possibility of the creation of a federalized interior police force.”
He suggests specific reorientations for key agencies:
- Border Patrol’s Scope: Border Patrol’s operations should be strictly limited to the border itself.
- Homeland Security Investigations (HSI): HSI should be retargeted towards its traditional role of investigating sophisticated transnational commercial crimes.
- ICE Restructuring: The “single gravest militarized threat—ICE—should be reined in and restructured under new leadership, so that it focuses on its core mission of genuine civil-process interior enforcement.”
Political Realities and Leadership Scrutiny
Rosenzweig’s critique highlights a disconnect between his systemic analysis and the political discourse surrounding DHS. He notes that the Senate has not seriously engaged with reforms of this magnitude, instead largely framing the department’s issues as a matter of Noem’s alleged poor leadership.
The circumstances surrounding Noem’s dismissal further illustrate this point. Her firing was reportedly linked to an inaccurate claim that President Trump had authorised a $220 million advertising campaign she initiated. Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) recounted a conversation with Trump where the President expressed strong displeasure with the situation, stating, “I was stunned when Noem answered categorically that the president approved every single bit of it… Later that day, I got a call from President Trump. He was mad as a mamma wasp. He said, ‘Kennedy, I hope you understand that I had nothing to do with this.’ I said, ‘I do believe you, Mr. President.’” Kennedy concluded, “It was clear to me after that conversation that the secretary’s time at the department was limited. To be blunt, she was dead as fried chicken.”
Beyond the administrative and policy issues, Noem also faced scrutiny regarding her personal conduct. She was questioned by House members about an alleged affair with Corey Lewandowski, a former lobbyist whom she hired as a special government employee. During a hearing, U.S. Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) directly asked Noem, “Secretary Noem, at any time during your tenure…have you had sexual relations with Corey Lewandowski?” Noem vehemently denied the accusation, calling it “garbage and it is offensive that you have brought that up.” Kamlager-Dove responded by stating, “It is about your judgment and decision-making.”
This confluence of systemic critiques and leadership controversies underscores the complex and multifaceted challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security.
