Home » Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise by Chapter » Department of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security

Summary of Impacts

Project 2025 suggests reducing fossil fuel production regulations, which will accelerate climate change. Reduced regulations will reduce air quality and increase negative public health outcomes. Over-reliance on fossil fuels will jeopardize future energy security and stability, and increase American dependence on foreign oil sources.

Key Quotes

“Eliminate the Clean Energy Corps by revoking funding and eliminating all positions and personnel hired under the program.”
(McNamee 418)

“Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances.”
(McNamee 411)

“Make the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads a top priority.”
(McNamee 430)

Impacts on the Department of Homeland Security

Primary effects on the Department of Homeland Security include:

Cutting FEMA Funding: Stripping essential resources from disaster response agencies, leaving Americans vulnerable in the face of catastrophic events.
Privatizing the TSA: Handing over the critical task of air travel security to profit-driven corporations, risking the safety of millions of travelers.
Removing All Unions: Silencing the voices of dedicated DHS employees who ensure fair working conditions, undermining morale and operational effectiveness.
Closing DHS Offices for Immigrant Assistance: Shutting down lifelines for immigrants, turning our backs on vulnerable individuals seeking safety and a better life in America.

Critical Analysis

The document uses terms like “bloated,” “bureaucratic,” and “wokeness” to criticize DHS, suggesting reforms for smaller government and less overhead. However, this approach oversimplifies complex issues and could undermine DHS’s essential functions.

Proposing a complete overhaul of DHS might break it into pieces that can’t handle emergencies like terrorism or natural disasters effectively. This ignores how such changes could weaken national security by making it harder to protect borders, manage cyber threats, and respond to crises.

The appeal to conservative principles here hides the danger these reforms pose to public safety and national resilience. By focusing on ideology over practical needs, DHS’s critical role in homeland security is neglected, putting American lives at risk.

Detrimental Impacts

The proposed policies for the Department of the Homeland Security stands to affect the following:

MArginalized Groups

Immigrants and Refugees

Family Separations: The focus on detention and deportation will lead to more families being separated, causing emotional and psychological harm to children and parents.

Reduced Asylum Access: Raising the standard for credible fear of persecution and eliminating protections for victims of trafficking and crime will make it harder for vulnerable individuals to seek safety in the U.S.

Increased Detention: The expansion of detention facilities and the elimination of alternatives to detention will result in more immigrants being held in detention for longer periods, often in poor conditions.

Racial and Ethnic Minorities

Racial Profiling: The emphasis on border security and immigration enforcement will lead to increased racial profiling and discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities, particularly those of Latinx and African descent.

Discrimination: The consolidation of immigration functions and the focus on strict enforcement will disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities, leading to increased discrimination and marginalization.

People with Disabilities and Health Conditions

Reduced Disaster Support: The proposed cuts to FEMA’s grant programs and the National Flood Insurance Program will reduce support for disaster preparedness and response, disproportionately affecting people with disabilities and health conditions who rely on these services.

Survivors of Violence

The elimination of T and U visas will remove critical protections for survivors of trafficking and crime, leaving them vulnerable to further exploitation and harm.

Economically Disadvantaged Individuals

Increased Costs: The privatization of TSA and the reduction of FEMA’s role in disaster response will lead to increased costs and reduced access to essential services for economically disadvantaged individuals, making it harder for them to recover from disasters and access necessary services.

General Public

Environmental Impact

The Department of Homeland Security section calls for eliminating most of DHS’s grant programs, which include funding for local environmental resilience programs along with projects aimed at improving infrastructure to withstand natural disasters, promoting sustainable land use practices, and encouraging community strength against climate change undermining local efforts to combat climate change.

Moving CISA to the Department of Transportation might lead to overlooked vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure such as securing water systems, power grids, and chemical plants.

Public Health

As infrastructure grants are removed, programs to ensure clean water would receive less money to ensure healthy, safe water for all Americans.

If CISA is moved to the Department of Transportation, monitoring of chemical plants as critical infrastructure would not be as stringent and the possibility of chemical spills would increase.

As infrastructure degrades, people who reside near industrial areas would be subject to higher pollution outputs.

Future Consequences

Economic Disparities

Traditionally, those who have a lower income average often live in areas subject to higher rates of pollution in both the air and the soil do not always have access to clean water.

To eliminate critical funding and grants would further hurt our fellow Americans.

Ecosystem Damage

Border security infrastructure is often built without taking environmental impacts into consideration which affects ecosystems, protected National Parks like the Sonoran Desert, fragments habitats, and interferes with wildlife migration routes who are unable to cross through barriers. This leads to unnatural soil erosion and affects how rivers continue to travel.

By shifting responsibilities to states and localities, there would be inconsistencies in environmental regulation enforcement. States with fewer resources would struggle to maintain higher standards, leading to further environmental damage and an increase in pollution.

Conclusion

Project 2025’s radical plan for the Department of Homeland Security embodies a greater threat to our safety and democracy. The proposed dismantling of DHS and the redistribution of its responsibilities compromises national security and erodes the humane and just approach to immigration that is the bedrock of American values. This is a dangerous agenda shrouded in the rhetoric of fiscal conservatism and nationalist fervor.

Quotes from the Mandate

Page numbers refer to the Mandate for Leadership PDF

“End parole abuse by legislating specific parole standards.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 178)

USCIS currently has parole standards as outlined here. Additionally, contained within that link is information about how CBP and ICE work with USCIS in terms of granting parole and each agency’s jurisdiction over parole requests. The policy called for in the Mandate already exists and is superfluous.

“The Secretary should make it clear that he or she will not use the Secretary’s existing discretionary authority to increase the number of H-2B (seasonal non-agricultural) visas above the statutorily set cap[1]. (General Welfare, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 170)

The current cap for a fiscal year is set to issue 66,000 visas with 33,000 issued between January 1 and June 30 and the remaining 33,000 issued July 1 through December 31. The largest percentage of visas are issued to landscaping and groundskeeping with the second largest number issued in forestry[2]. Other industries such as meat and fish processing, construction and recreation would equally be affected. [2] Fact Sheet on H-2B Visas

“Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 177)

TPS is a form of humanitarian relief that is granted to eligible nationals of countries undergoing environmental disasters, armed conflicts, or extreme conditions that prevent their safe return. Beneficiaries are protected from deportation and can legally work in the United States. The current TPS designations shift frequently, but currently include countries like El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan. Repealing TPS would profoundly impact hundreds of thousands of lives in immigrant and ethnic minority communities. They would likely face job loss, family separation, and potentially deportation. It would force them into an uncertain status, directly increasing economic instability for them (and their communities). If they were forced to return to their home countries, they would be thrown back into the crisis they were trying to escape from, potentially leading to harm or even death.

“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 173)

T and U Visas protect victims of human trafficking, involuntary servitude, extortion, witness tampering, and other severe crimes. In all cases, victims must cooperate with law enforcement authorities to receive Visa benefits. Eliminating these options would mean that traumatized victims would lose critical protection pathways, likely subjecting them to deportation and retraumatization. It would also hinder law enforcement efforts since victims have no incentive to cooperate.

“Order ICE to stop closing out pending immigration cases and apply the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as written by Congress.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 173)

The policy they’re referring to here is known as administrative closure. Immigration is complex and there are often multiple time-consuming factors at play (adjustment of status, asylum, family-based petition) that may impact a person’s eligibility and court case. Due to the growing backlog of immigration cases (more than 2 million), administrative closure is used to help prioritize the most crucial cases that can be adjudicated quickly. Though administrative closure has been used effectively since 1983, the Trump Administration ended it in 2018. Since then, the efficiency of immigration proceedings has plummeted, increasing the backlog of cases by over 250,000 in just one year. The argument against administrative closure is that it doesn’t follow the Immigration and Nationality Act as written. This is true, however, administrative closure has been one of the only effective ways of making meaningful progress in immigration cases (per the National Association of Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals). Without it, our immigration caseload will continue to grow more unmanageable. Additionally, immigrants who are already struggling with complex legalese and major life upheavals will face delays and barriers accessing services to help them.

“The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum.” (Common Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, Page 180)

When someone feels forced to leave their home country due to dangerous conditions, they can apply for asylum in the U.S. “Credible fear” is an initial assessment by an asylum officer who determines whether an individual has a legitimate fear of persecution or torture. If they do, they can proceed to a full asylum hearing before an immigration judge. To be eligible for asylum, the individual must demonstrate “well-founded fear of persecution,” which is a higher standard than the “significant possibility” standard of the initial screening process. For more information about what the asylum application process looks like for immigrants, see this article. The credible fear screening is a crucial part of the asylum process that aims to balance efficient processing with due process rights. Eliminating this screening will lead to the deportation of genuine asylum seekers, causing them harm and possibly death. For more information about the credible fear assessment and why it’s necessary, see this fact sheet.