Assessing the Department of Homeland Security

yousuf Aboutaam
HM 101 Homeland Security
December 9, 2014
Schoolcraft Community College

Running Head: Homeland Security

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in America changed the scope of the
entire global world. The atrocious and devastating attack on America left deeply
engrained emotions and feelings in all Americans. Furthermore, this event also deeply
influenced domestic and foreign political, economic, and social practices. One of the
most notable changes that the US worked towards following this day is the creation and
development of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The creation of this
powerful and extensive department is unprecedented in US history and represents the
new face of American law enforcement and security. While the basic objective of the
DHS is to protect and secure the country and its population, there are varying opinions
and perspectives in relation to its practices and even its very existence. Definitely a
controversial part of the American government, the DHS has its fair share of proponents
and opponents. Nevertheless, regardless of ones personal opinions of the DHS, it is
important to closely examine and assess the role, influence, and nature of the department
in an objective manner. This will allow one to conceive a clear image of the departments
purpose and existence in the US.
This research report will examine various aspects of the DHS and provide
knowledge discussion relating to different areas of interest as it relates to the department.
First, a brief historical background will discuss basic facts and overview the DHS for
those not familiar with the federal agency. This will be followed by a list and brief
description of the sub-departments and agencies that are part of the DHS followed by an
assessment of whether some of these sub-departments are justified in belonging to the
DHS and whether other agencies would make a good fit and inclusion. Secondly, a
discussion on the role of the DHS will follow that includes its evolution and subsequent

Running Head: Homeland Security

changes made following recommendations based in the 9/11 Commission Report and
assessing the preparedness of the DHS in protecting American territory and integrity.
Finally, this report will discuss some of the controversies surrounding the DHS especially
the debate on whether the department infringes on the personal rights of Americans as
well as its value as a liability or an asset. This final discussion will also pertain to the role
of the States in relation to their influence over the reigning federal power of the DHS. Of
course this report will also include a conclusion that ponders the future role of the DHS in
America.
One of the most interesting aspects about the history of the DHS is that it was
created and developed as a direct response to the 9/11 attacks compelling US leaders and
lawmakers to take a gigantic leap in national security and law enforcement. The
Department of Homeland Security (2014) claims that its beginnings started with
Congress passing of the Homeland Security Act in 2002. Furthermore, Governor Tom
Ridge from Pennsylvania became the appointed Director of the Office of Homeland
Security only eleven days following the terrorist attacks. This fact illustrates the swiftness
of the changes that were beginning to unfold quickly in America. Also, two months
following the attacks President George W. Bush, through an executive order he
exercised, passed Executive Order (E.O.) 13228 which established the Homeland
Security Council comprised of the advisory team of trusted officials to Bush. This council
is comprised of the President, Vice President, and leaders from the White House Cabinet
(Houston, 2003, p.9). As is clear to anyone, the Office of Homeland Council and the
subsequent DHS that was created a function of the Executive Branch of the US
government.

Running Head: Homeland Security

DHS was established do be on the same level as the White House Cabinets. The
department went into effect and began its role officially on March 1, 2003. The DHS
owes its existence to the active efforts of then President George W. Bush who led the
nation during the 9/11 attacks and subsequent years to follow. According to Knight
(2004), the DHS is the result of the amalgamation of previously existing and newly
created agencies, twenty-two of them, coalescing together to form a large conglomeration
headed under one banner agency. Knight continues by claiming the DHS visionary
framework are to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, to reduce America's
vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the danger from potential attacks and natural
disasters. The agencies effectiveness could only be established through a large scale
restructuring of departments, infrastructure, and other resources and the budget for this
large-scale renovation was estimated at $40 billion. This brief background examination of
the DHS evidently conveys the large nature of the US governments response to the 9/11
attacks. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the large military responses but the DHS
represents a large internal restructuring of American government, law enforcement, and
society as a whole as it effects the public sector in immense ways as well, ways which
will be discussed at a later point.
While many Americans are familiar with some of the more popular agencies
within the DHS and some of the more commonly experienced encounters with DHS
officials, such as customs officers on the American-Canadian border for example, the
department is comprised of twenty-two agencies in total. Many of these agencies the
common American perhaps is not even aware is part of the DHS or may not have even
heard of them to begin with since many are newly created agencies having not existed

Running Head: Homeland Security

before 2001. Nevertheless, it is important for Americans to be knowledgeable not only of

which agencies belong to the DHS but also their role and ways they can influence and
assist private American citizens in times of uncertainty such as the twenty-first century.
At the very least, it is important to be familiar with some of the very important agencies
and divisions of the DHS as well as the role and function. The following is a list of the
twenty-two agencies that comprise the DHS organized in alphabetical order and also
includes which original agency that belonged to prior to the creation of the DHS, unless
they did not exist prior. (Hughes 2002)
1.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) (originally part of the

Department of Agriculture).
2.

CBRN Countermeasures Program (CBRN) (originally part of the Department of

Energy).
3.

Domestic Emergency Support Teams (DEST) (originally part of the Department

of Justice).
4.

Energy Security and Assurance Program (ESAP) (originally part of the

Department of Energy).
5.

Environmental Measures Laboratory (EML) (originally part of the Department

of Energy).
6.

Federal Computer Incident Response Center (FCIR) (originally part of the

General Services Administration).

7.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (newly created).

8.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) (originally part of the

Department of Treasury).

Running Head: Homeland Security

9.

Federal Protective Service (FPS) (originally part of the General Services

Administration).
10. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (originally part of the Department
of Justice).
11. National Biological Warfare Defense Analysis Center (NBWDAC) (originally
part of the Department of Defense).
12. National Communication System (NCS) (originally part of the Department of
Defense
13. National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO) (originally part of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation or FBI).
14. National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) (originally part of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation or FBI).
15. Nuclear Incident Response Team (NIRT) (originally part of the Department of
Energy).
16. Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) (originally part of the Department of
Justice).
17. Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) (originally part of the Department
of Agriculture).
18. Strategic National Stockpile National Disaster Medical Center (SNSNDMC)
(originally part of the Department of Health and Human Services).
19. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (originally part of the Department
of Transportation).
20. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) (originally part of the Department of Transportation).

Running Head: Homeland Security

21. U.S. Customs Service (USCS) (originally part of the Department of the
Treasury).
22. U.S. Secret Service (USSS) (originally part of the Department of the Treasury).
Furthermore, these twenty-two agencies are further classified into a structure of seven
main banner agencies and nine main banner divisions (Sniffen, 2007, n.p.).The banner
agencies of the DHS include:
AGENCIES
1.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

2.

U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS)

3.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

4.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

5.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

6.

U.S. Secret Service (USSS)

7.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

DIVISIONS
1.

Department of Homeland Security Management Directorate

2.

Department of Homeland Security National Programs and Protection Directorate

3.

Department of Homeland Security Office of Health Affairs

4.

Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis

5.

Department of Homeland Security Office of Operations Coordination

6.

Department of Homeland Security Office of Policy

7.

Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate

8.

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

Running Head: Homeland Security

9.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

The individual agencies of the DHS are all tasked with their own unique role and
tackle issues related to various parts of American society. Nevertheless they all share the
common goal and vision of protecting American society, territory, and integrity in one
form or another. While the term "homeland security" only became in use following the
terrorist attacks of September 11, the United States government as been engaged in
logistical antiterrorism operations throughout the world from the mid 1990s on onwards.
These operations are of course funded by the federal government and while the agencies
that are currently being funded for these same initiatives are part of the collective
Department of Homeland Security, they were once recognized as their own individual
agencies not part of a grand department as was observed following the development of
the DHS (Knight, 2004). One of the biggest controversies that is associated with the DHS
is whether the department, its initiatives, its funding, and all the resources and personal
that are dedicated to this department and its objectives, are an actual asset to the United
States, its government, population, and territorial integrity. Some opponents or generally
critical individuals of the DHS believe that the department is actually a liability to the
US (Bailey, 2009). This is an interesting focal point to examine because it has a lot to do
with balancing the costs and benefits of funding and allowing the DHS to exist. Liability
was definitely a greater issue before the DHS was created in the sense that funding for the
antiterrorism operations that are now currently headed by the DHS were once funded by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as issued by the National Security Council
without the necessary label of antiterrorism on the funding (Department of Homeland

Running Head: Homeland Security

Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 2007). Therefore, in this sense the DHS
is currently a asset in that that government at least recognizes and conveys certain
funding is going towards antiterrorism initiatives and makes this clear to the American
population. Nevertheless there are still numerous reasons why the DHS would be
considered a liability to the American public as well as to the government, Private
Corporation and businesses, and the general country as a whole. One of the main
agencies that is commonly known today is the TSA because Americans and nonAmericans alike must now deal with this agency and its tight-grip security at the airports,
a obviously vulnerable place in the US following the 9/11 attacks which hijacked
commercial airlines.
Anyone who has been to an airport and flew to another location, especially those
who have traveled internationally as opposed to domestic flights, whether flying into the
US from a foreign country or flying from the US to a foreign country. There are much
more stringent security protocols, more personal from the TSA, and much more advanced
technology, such as x-ray scanning, as well as increased number of checkpoints that
travelers must successfully pass through (Houston, 2003, p.9). This all equates to a
dramatic increase in federal funding, which is one of the biggest liability issues with the
DHS and especially with a subagenecy such as the TSA which operates at all airports
throughout the United States. In the beginning years of the DHS the federal government
estimated that the total costs of the entire homeland security measures in 2003 alone were
a whopping seventy-two billion dollars. This monetary amount is more than half a
percent of the total Gross Domestic Product for the US in 2003. In addition to funding
proving to be a liability issue for the US in relation to funding and maintaining the DHS,

Running Head: Homeland Security

productivity of resources and employees at airports is another issue. This is the case
because all the advanced security measures means that more commercial airline
employees, whether pilots or even airport custodians, must now also deal with the
stringent security measures, have increased background checks of all the employees
working for the airline commercial companies, and so on. This type of liability presents
itself in the form of lost productivity, which eventually equates to a certain amount of
money being lost for the commercial airliners. It is estimated that the DHS and its
homeland security protocols cost a reduction of productivity in the private labor force of
over one percent (Hughes, 2002). On the other hand, proponents of the DHS and
homeland security due recognize this is a legitimate liability that the American private
business class as well as the private labor force are facing, they do proceed to proclaim
that these reductions in labor productivity and increased funding relative to the GDP do
not have a noteworthy, detrimental, or damaging effect on the national economy and it is
a cost that does not outweigh the benefits of heightened security for the nation.
Yet once again there is also another side of this counterargument by the opponents of
the DHS funding who do in fact consider the departments existence and increased
national activities a liability indeed. For example, while the federal government spent
seventy-two billion dollars on homeland security measures and expenditures, the
Congressional Budget Office claimed that the 2003 budge intended for the DHS
homeland security measures to be thirty-eight billion dollars, basically half of what was
eventually spent. Therefore, it is evident to observe that while the federal government
sets aside a certain amount of money for homeland security on an annual basis, and even
if the American public was in grievance with this set amount, there is always the likely

Running Head: Homeland Security

10

chance, and this has been observed as a reality many years in a row, that the federal
government eventually dramatically increases the annual spending amount on homeland
security. Furthermore, an increased concern about the liability of the DHS is that the total
expenditures and funding annually prescribed to homeland security is not part of the
same budget allotted to national defense therefore even though the DHS and homeland
security efforts are part of defending and protecting the nation, they have there own
budget and therefore only dramatically increase federal spending resulting most likely in
increased taxes for the working class. For example, while seventy-two billion dollars is
what was spend on homeland security measures in 2003, the defense budget during
the Bush II Administration was a whopping three-hundred and eight billion dollars and
this is almost four percent of the total GDP for that year (The New York Times, 2001). At
the same time, all these overly inflated budgets and spending expenditures on homeland
security and defense are not the only issues and the American population and public has a
reason to perceive the DHS as a liability in another sense as well. Generally and basically
speaking, as there is increased spending on such things as law enforcement, military,
weapons, and all other resources and personal involved in homeland security, there is a
decrease in the political and legal initiatives towards such things as non-violent peace
initiatives that do not involve such things as covert operations, law enforcement, and
military muscle.
Many Americans are concerned, and have a legitimate reason to be, that the DHS
and homeland security efforts could inadvertently lead to a American culture of overly
powerful and influential law enforcement throughout the country. A prime example of
this type of development is the Military Commission Act that was signed in as law by the

Running Head: Homeland Security

11

Bush II Administration, which basically allows any law enforcement official, whether
local, state, or federal, to arrest and detain an American that is viewed as being a
suspicious and/or potentially violent individual who threatens the safety of the American
public and society, as well as possibly affiliated with terrorist initiatives or groups
(Altheide, 2006). Many people consider this face of homeland security and the DHS to be
abusive towards the legal and inalienable rights of human beings as well as Americans as
well as outlined by the nation's constitution. Many people further fear that the US is
turning into a military nation and that martial law could one day be placed in order and
people would have to fear for their freedom from persecution, especially unwarranted
persecution (Sniffen, 2007). The type of nightmare outlined in George Orwell's "1984"
novel, in which a totalitarian government controls every facet of light, is considered by
many Americans as becoming a possibly reality here in the US one day. While this
statement is an exaggeration of the true realities that are developing in the US, there is
genuine concern that there is an increased military and law enforcement culture here in
the US as a result of the response by the federal government to the 9/11 attacks and the
fear of terrorism in general. To continue assessing the situation, it is equally important to
discuss the assists and valuable aspects that arise from the existence of the DHS and the
homeland security measures that are enacted throughout the country for the last decade
and more. The 9/11 attacks in 2001 revealed a genuine and scary reality to the American
public and to the world as well. Terrorist organizations exist and they are being largely
funded and have operations and bases throughout the world. Furthermore, there are
numerous and various independent terrorist organizations active in many states

Running Head: Homeland Security

12

throughout the world and some are even supported by certain governments in the world
(Ridge, 2009, p.237).
In addition, the US government has a legitimate case to fear the rise of "sleeper
cells" in the US in which terrorist operations by actual American citizens are being
planned and developed. There have in fact been smaller scale terrorist attacks in the US
since 9/11 as well as all over the world. However, the amount of terrorist attacks that
have occurred on American soil or against American citizens abroad since 2001 would
most likely be a much larger number of incidents if it had not been for the protective
measures and intelligence work being conducted on a daily basis by the DHS. A great
example of this would be the work completed by the Border and Customs patrol officers.
This agency and its personal are tasked with protecting the borders of the American
territory and this includes the large borders shared by both Mexico and Canada as well as
commerce coming in and out of the country such as the large port activities and cargo
boxes that come in daily. One method that terrorist activities are funded here in the US
and abroad are through the production and distribution of illicit drugs and terrorist groups
and networks take advantage of drug cartels as a method to raise and appropriate funds
for their terrorist activities (Alden, 2008, p.98). A grand method of combatting this issue
is through border patrol and customs officers where all people, Americans and nonAmericans, must check through when entering the US through a shared border such as
from Mexico or Canada. In this case, drugs, illegal street guns, and even potential
terrorists, can be stopped and apprehended at the border by customs officials. In this
sense, the homeland security efforts are a invaluable asset to the people and the country
because they are genuinely preventing many potential terrorist activities and even though

Running Head: Homeland Security

13

they may not be actual attacks they prevented, by preventing the allocation of drugs and
money they interfere with the financing and therefore indirectly prevent the funding of
the attacks. These initiatives by the numerous agencies of the DHS are all based on
initiatives that the Bush II Administration had set forth as objectives for budgeting the
DHS and its homeland security efforts. These main five objectives outline the general
concerns and preventive measures that the federal government, through the DHS, can
implement its homeland security efforts.
According to the DHS (2008), the first of the five main objectives is to provide
support and assistance to personal and resources that act as the primary response unit in
the case of a terrorist attack in the imminent future. This means supporting the agencies
and individuals tasked with being the first to respond to a potential terrorist attacks
whether it be federal agents and law enforcement officials or local fire departments
responding to a fire catastrophe such as the case at Ground Zero in New York City on
September 11, 2001. This is a highly important objective because it assures swift
response in the case of an attack that could equate to preventing a full-scale attack and the
associated damage and loss of American life. The second of the five main objectives is to
advance and improve the federal government's response and dealing with biological
terrorism, which has became a legitimate and heightened concern among the American
public. While the US has definitely increased its arsenal of advanced technology to
combat terrorist activities globally, terrorist networks and groups have also increased the
technology and weaponry that have allocated. Some terrorist groups are already believed
to be in possession of biological and chemical means of warfare. Furthermore, the US is
very concerned with preventing any terrorist group or network from obtaining nuclear

Running Head: Homeland Security

14

weapons technology. The third of the five main objectives is to secure and improve the
control and safety of borders. As discussed earlier, border safety is an integral part of
preventing the success and funding of terrorist groups, especially sleeper cells existing
and operating here in the US. The fourth of the five main objectives is improving the
safety and security of airports and aviation activities. The 9/11 attacks were carried
through by the means of using aviation technology as a weapon against the U.S.
Therefore, airports and commercial and private airliners have been a major focal point for
the DHS and homeland security measures and it is the TSA that is tasked with the
primary responsibility of upholding this fourth objective.
The fifth and final objective set forth by the Bush II Administration for homeland
security measures concern information and intelligence. This objective relates to
increasing the technology and enhancing the means by which different parts of the DHS,
federal government, and various law enforcement departments throughout the country
can share information related to potential terrorists. Intelligence is a primary part of the
'War on Terror' and homeland security measures and is one of the prime methods by
which to prevent terrorist attacks and locate and apprehend terrorists before they initiate
an attack on the US or American citizens both domestically and abroad. These objectives
and the subsequent work being finished by the DHS in its homeland security efforts have
definitely demonstrated that the federal government and the DHS have made
improvements and changes following recommendations from the 9/11 Commission
Report. It is further evident that there have been many lessons learned from the 9/11
attacks by the federal government and one of the main changes that have been made
following recommendations is that of prevention. A large part of resources and activities

Running Head: Homeland Security

15

that the DHS has set forth in homeland security efforts is to prevent future attacks on
Americans and on American soil by any terrorist group throughout the world. Since the
inception of the DHS and the increased spending and resources on homeland security
efforts, there has not been a major attack on U.S. soil or on American life equal to that of
the 9/11 attacks (DHS, 2008). This of course does not include any incidents or loss of
American life associated with the U.S. military wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2003
and onwards as those are part of an official war and military activity. In relation to actual
terrorist attacks domestically, the changes and efforts made by the DHS has definitely
been a success and overall whether one is a opponent or proponent of the DHS it is more
clear to view the federal department as an asset to the American people than a liability.
Yes, it does cost a large sum of money to operate and maintain the initiatives of the DHS
but it is worth the security and preventive measures.
The future of the DHS is not perfectly clear and many people fear that it will
eventually and gradually lead to unfair martial law. However, this is not the necessary
case as the Bush Administration has ended the Obama Administration has provided a less
conservative approach to homeland security that is attempting to preserve freedoms and
rights of the American people. It is definitely possible for Americans to maintain their
rights as well as have a department such as the DHS operate and protect the country.
There is a certain balance that the U.S. government needs to aim for in order to assure the
preservation of constitutional rights and at the same time allow for the active funding of
the DHS to further protect the country and American citizens. This balance is integral to
allowing the DHS to function as a valuable asset and diminish any sense of liability. A
ideal future for the DHS would include increased resources, technology, information-

Running Head: Homeland Security

16

sharing, and other associations with the five main objections for its funding without the
repeal of legal rights or important constitutional laws. The prevention of martial law
developing out of the DHS and homeland security efforts is definitely possible and is not
a inevitable reality of the existence of the DHS. This examination and discussion on the
Department of Homeland Security concludes that the DHS and homeland security efforts
are a necessary reality following the configuration of world security after 2001.
Nevertheless, it is equally important to find a balance between national security and
national freedoms that allows for the co-existence of a large federal department for
homeland security efforts and constitutional rights and economic prosperity.

17

Running Head: Homeland Security

References:
Alden, E. (2008). The Closing of the American Border. P.98. Print.
Altheide (2006). Terrorism and the Politics of Fear. P.15. Print.
Baily, Martin N (2001). Economic Policy Following the Terrorist Attacks. Institute for
International Economics International Economics Policy Brief no. 01-10,
October.
Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (2007).
H.R.1684, 109th Cong.
DHS (2008): One Team, One Mission: Securing Our Homeland available at
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/DHS_StratPlan_FINAL_spread.pdf
Houston, Betsy (2003). "Science and Technology Is Prominent in the Department of
Homeland Security." JOM 55, no. 1
Hughes, David (2007). "Homeland Security Dept.: So Many Details, So Little
Time." AviationWeek & Space Technology 157, no. 23
Knight (2004). The History of the DHS. Encyclopedia Britannica. Print.
New York Times (2001). Cities and States Say Confusion and Cost Hamper U.S.
Security Drive. December 10, p. B1.
Ridge, T. (2009). The Test of our Times: America under Siege. P.235-39. 2009. Print.
Sniffen, Michael J. (2007). "DHS Ends Criticized Data-Mining
Program". Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved October 31, 2007.