PERSPECTIVE: Homeland Security: The Next Twenty-Five Years

Introduction

Homeland Security safeguards the nation from domestic catastrophic destruction. The threat came to the forefront of United States (US) security concerns after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, September 11, 2001 (9/11). It seems appropriate as we approach the twenty-fifth anniversary to take a look at what has been done, what was done right, what was done wrong, and what might yet be done to make the nation safer for the next twenty-five years.

Beginnings

The events on 9/11 killed 3,000 people and inflicted $40 billion in damages by subverting the US Transportation Infrastructure, turning passenger jets into guided missiles. The investigating 9/11 Commission found the attacks remarkable for their “surpassing disproportion”. They further determined the attacks were abetted by gaps and failures across US Law Enforcement and National Security agencies due to the “absence of a quarterback”. That’s why the 2002 White House Proposal to Congress recommended a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “to consolidate and synchronize the disparate efforts of multiple federal agencies currently scattered across several departments. This would create a single office whose primary mission is the critical task of protecting the United States from catastrophic terrorism.” In November 2002 Congress passed the Homeland Security Act and the President signed it creating DHS. Over the next several months 180,000 employees were consolidated from twenty-two executive agencies scattered across DC and the nation. On March 1, 2003, DHS was activated and began the business of Homeland Security. Today, the department has 260,000 employees (+44%), and while many are still deployed across the nation, the department now has a home in southeast Washington DC, and a budget of $107 billion.

What DHS Does

The department’s primary mission is to safeguard the nation from domestic catastrophic destruction. “Safeguarding” recognizes the fact there is no absolute safety or security, therefore DHS bases its approach on Disaster Management Theory recognizing four distinct phases for mitigating action: Prevent, Protect, Respond, and Recover. DHS operates across these four phases according to five mission sets that have remained functionally the same since the department was founded:

1. Border and Transportation Security (BTS). Keep malicious agents and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from entering the country.
2. Counter WMD (CWMD). Develop technologies to better detect, track, monitor, and respond to illicit WMD inside the US.
3. Information Analysis and Warning (IAW). Fusing both intelligence and law enforcement leads to the development of actionable alerts to thwart future attacks.
4. National Infrastructure Protection (NIP). Preclude infrastructure weaponization by reducing vulnerability to physical and cyber-attack.
5. Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR). Enhance coordination and capabilities among Federal, State, and Local authorities to better respond to catastrophes, both natural and manmade.

What DHS Doesn’t Do

Outside the transportation sector, DHS maintains no active defense of the country’s infrastructure. DHS has neither the resources nor authority to secure, protect, or recover privately owned infrastructure. The Prevent and Protect aspects of its mission mostly involve awareness and warning through Information Sharing and Analysis Centers and various Watch Centers. Where the Federal government has regulatory authority, they try to impose security measures but are ultimately constrained by cost tradeoffs to customers. The bottom line is owners and operators remain responsible for protecting and recovering their own assets. Awareness and warning make them safer, but our infrastructure remains vulnerable to attack.

What DHS Has Done Right

Fortunately, the nation hasn’t suffered another 9/11-type attack over the past twenty-five years. However, the number of natural disasters with damages of more than a billion dollars has increased significantly from an average of 3.3 per year in the 1980s to 17+ from 2014- 2023. Despite setbacks, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has become very proficient at working with States to improve Response and Recovery following disasters. This may be attributed to DHS in 2003 making the Incident Command System (ICS) a requirement for FEMA grant funding. On 9/11, 441 First Responders died at the World Trade Center, whereas none died at the Pentagon. The difference is attributed to ICS being employed in Arlington, but not in New York. EPR has been further enhanced through adoption of the National Incident Management System (NIMS)¹ and the National Response Framework (NRF). Together they offer a common organizing principle and process for acquiring assistance and working together. Through the power of the purse, DHS has established national standards in Emergency Management (EM) that were sorely lacking before 9/11.

What DHS Has Done Wrong

DHS initially made “Homeland Security” synonymous with “terrorism”. The conflation of “terrorism” with “catastrophic terrorism” has caused DHS to go astray. As defined by Title 18, Section 2331 United States Code (USC), terrorism is a crime distinguished by motive, namely, to commit acts intended to intimidate or coerce US government. Certainly 9/11 was a terrorist act, but the effect, and not the motive was the defining feature identified by the 9/11 Commission warranting the biggest shakeup of US government in fifty years. Safeguarding the nation from catastrophic destruction at the hands of non-state actors, either natural or manmade, is the unique mission of DHS. The problem should have been corrected after Hurricane Katrina when DHS was criticized for fixating on terrorism. However, the department continues to equivocate. Their current mission statement says: “With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values”. Safeguard America from what? The mission statement entirely omits DHS’s unique purpose and consequently places them in contention with the War Department, CIA, FBI, and others who also “safeguard the American people”. Mission statements are meant to solidify purpose across an organization. The current DHS mission statement doesn’t, and as a result the department has lacked focus. The 2023 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) added “Combat Crimes of Exploitation and Protect Victims” to the list of DHS missions. As heinous as they might be, human trafficking, labor exploitation, and child exploitation don’t pose a threat of domestic catastrophic destruction. This mission is clearly unrelated to Homeland Security.

The Next 25 Years

The US has been fortunate not to suffer another attack on the scale of 9/11, but that doesn’t mean that or something worse won’t happen in the future. What could be worse? All the catastrophes suffered from 9/11 to now have been regional in scope. This has the advantage that unaffected areas outside the afflicted region may lend assistance. The NRF is predicated on this concept. But what if the catastrophe is nationwide? Where will help come from then? There will be none. All emergency services will be overwhelmed. It happened to Puerto Rico when Hurricane Maria hit in 2017. What if a drone swarm or cyberattack shut down the US Electric Grid? The NRF is not prepared for this possibility, neither are the States whose Governors are ultimately responsible for their citizen’s safety. DHS needs to help them prepare for when no help is available. DHS through FEMA is responsible for Civil Defense, helping the US survive a nationwide attack. As with Homeland Security, FEMA’s responsibility in Civil Defense is to help the States recover from catastrophe. Building on its Emergency Management success, DHS/FEMA can work under its Civil Defense authorities to help States Respond and Recover when no outside help is available. Helping States become self-reliant is a tall order. DHS needs to sharpen focus on its primary purpose to direct all efforts towards such a goal. They can start by replacing their mission statement with something that better promotes unity of effort. Next, they can shed components related to Border and Transportation Security that are ancillary to safeguarding the nation from catastrophic destruction. Finally, they can change their name. “Homeland” is an emotionally charged term similar to “Motherland” and “Fatherland”. Many atrocities were committed in the name of the “Motherland” and “Fatherland” when emotions ran high. It would be best to avoid future potential distractions by adopting a more neutral term. Europe calls it “Civil Security”. It might be wise to do the same.

Conclusion

Homeland Security became necessary to counter the unprecedented threat of domestic catastrophic destruction by non-state actors. Although the US has benefited from almost twenty-five years of Homeland Security under the aegis of DHS, that doesn’t mean it is invulnerable to future attack potentially worse than 9/11. New and evolving threats in cyberattack and drones can conceivably disrupt or destroy a good portion of the US Electric Grid precipitating an unprecedented nationwide catastrophe. This is only one possible scenario. Within its latent authorities for Civil Defense, DHS can work with States to make them more self-reliant when the NRF fails and no outside assistance is available. To meet this tremendous challenge, DHS needs to refocus on its primary mission by shedding distractions starting with its mission statement, BTS components, and its name. By enacting these recommendations, we think Homeland Security, or rather, Civil Security will be better prepared to meet the nation’s needs for the next twenty-five years

Reference

¹ ICS is a subset of NIMS.