Book cover

Handbook of Security Science pp 1–18 Cite as

Homeland Security: Concepts, Definitions, and Evolution

  • Stephanie Lipson Mizrahi 2  
  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online: 13 March 2022

37 Accesses

This chapter describes the efforts to define “homeland security” from the 1950s to the present day. Definitions embedded in the missions, vision statements, and goals of homeland security institutions are examined using key government documents, reports, and directives. The impact of the history of civil defense and emergency management in the United States on current homeland security concepts is analyzed. Finally, the challenges of integrating national security, public safety, and homeland security into a single paradigm are discussed. What emerges is a homeland security concept that draws on previously existing institutions, bureaucracies, and policies, but that also evolves and adapts – not always successfully – to rapidly and constantly changing threats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Bremer Commission (National Commission on Terrorism) (2000) Countering the changing threat of international terrorism. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

Google Scholar  

Dahl EJ (2021) Assessing the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security, 20 years after 9/11. Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=860799

Gilmore Commission (Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction) (1999) First annual report to the president and the congress: assessing the threat. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

Gilmore Commission (Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction) (2003) Fifth annual report to the president and the congress: forging America’s new normalcy: securing our homeland, preserving our liberty. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

Graham DA (2015) The mother of all disasters. The Atlantic, September 2. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/09/the-disaster-next-time/403063 . Accessed 26 Nov 2021

Hart-Rudman Commission (United States Commission on National Security/21st Century) (2001) Road map for national security: imperative for change. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

Kettl DF (2014) System under stress: the challenge to 21st century governance, 3rd edn. CQ Press, Thousand Oaks

Martin G (2015) Understanding homeland security. Sage, Thousand Oaks

McIntyre DH (2020) How to think about homeland security: the imperfect intersection of national security and public safety. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (2004) The 9/11 commission report: final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. WW Norton, New York

National Defense Panel (2007) Transforming defense. Department of Defense, Washington, DC

Reese S (2012) Defining homeland security: analysis and congressional considerations. Congressional Research Service, 3 April 2012

Schneier B (2009) Beyond security theatre. New Int 427(November):10–12. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44656890 . Accessed 29 Dec 2021

Scott J, Spaniel D (2017) The cybersecurity show must go on: surpassing security theatre and minimal compliance regulations. Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology. http://icitech.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ICIT-Analysis-Security-Theatre.pdf . Accessed 29 Dec 2021

Sylves R (2020) Disaster policy and politics: emergency management and homeland security, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

United States Department of Defense (2021) Department of defense dictionary of military and associated terms. “Homeland defense”. Department of Defense, Washington, DC. http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf . Accessed 29 Dec 2021

United States Department of Homeland Security (2010) The 2014 quadrennial homeland security review, Washington, DC

United States Department of Homeland Security (2014) The 2014 quadrennial homeland security review, Washington, DC

United States Department of Homeland Security (2019) The DHS strategic plan. https://www.dhs/gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0702_plcy_dhs-strategic-plan-fy20-24.pdf

United States Department of Homeland Security (2021) Mission. https://www.dhs.gov/mission . Accessed 10 Dec 2021

Webster’s Dictionary (2021). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition . Accessed 13 Dec 2021

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Criminal Justice, California State University, Sacramento, CA, USA

Stephanie Lipson Mizrahi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Lipson Mizrahi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

Anthony J. Masys

Section Editor information

The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), Middletown, PA, USA

Alexander Siedschlag Ph.D., M.A.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Mizrahi, S.L. (2022). Homeland Security: Concepts, Definitions, and Evolution. In: Masys, A.J. (eds) Handbook of Security Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51761-2_46-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51761-2_46-1

Received : 02 January 2022

Accepted : 08 January 2022

Published : 13 March 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-51761-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-51761-2

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Physics and Astronomy Reference Module Physical and Materials Science Reference Module Chemistry, Materials and Physics

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research
  • Search Menu
  • Browse content in Arts and Humanities
  • Browse content in Archaeology
  • Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
  • Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
  • Archaeology by Region
  • Archaeology of Religion
  • Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
  • Biblical Archaeology
  • Contemporary and Public Archaeology
  • Environmental Archaeology
  • Historical Archaeology
  • History and Theory of Archaeology
  • Industrial Archaeology
  • Landscape Archaeology
  • Mortuary Archaeology
  • Prehistoric Archaeology
  • Underwater Archaeology
  • Zooarchaeology
  • Browse content in Architecture
  • Architectural Structure and Design
  • History of Architecture
  • Residential and Domestic Buildings
  • Theory of Architecture
  • Browse content in Art
  • Art Subjects and Themes
  • History of Art
  • Industrial and Commercial Art
  • Theory of Art
  • Biographical Studies
  • Byzantine Studies
  • Browse content in Classical Studies
  • Classical History
  • Classical Philosophy
  • Classical Mythology
  • Classical Literature
  • Classical Reception
  • Classical Art and Architecture
  • Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
  • Greek and Roman Epigraphy
  • Greek and Roman Law
  • Greek and Roman Papyrology
  • Greek and Roman Archaeology
  • Late Antiquity
  • Religion in the Ancient World
  • Digital Humanities
  • Browse content in History
  • Colonialism and Imperialism
  • Diplomatic History
  • Environmental History
  • Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
  • Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
  • Historical Geography
  • History by Period
  • History of Agriculture
  • History of Education
  • History of Gender and Sexuality
  • Industrial History
  • Intellectual History
  • International History
  • Labour History
  • Legal and Constitutional History
  • Local and Family History
  • Maritime History
  • Military History
  • National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
  • Oral History
  • Political History
  • Public History
  • Regional and National History
  • Revolutions and Rebellions
  • Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
  • Social and Cultural History
  • Theory, Methods, and Historiography
  • Urban History
  • World History
  • Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
  • Language Learning (Specific Skills)
  • Language Teaching Theory and Methods
  • Browse content in Linguistics
  • Applied Linguistics
  • Cognitive Linguistics
  • Computational Linguistics
  • Forensic Linguistics
  • Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
  • Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
  • History of English
  • Language Acquisition
  • Language Evolution
  • Language Reference
  • Language Variation
  • Language Families
  • Lexicography
  • Linguistic Anthropology
  • Linguistic Theories
  • Linguistic Typology
  • Phonetics and Phonology
  • Psycholinguistics
  • Sociolinguistics
  • Translation and Interpretation
  • Writing Systems
  • Browse content in Literature
  • Bibliography
  • Children's Literature Studies
  • Literary Studies (Asian)
  • Literary Studies (European)
  • Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
  • Literary Studies (Romanticism)
  • Literary Studies (American)
  • Literary Studies (Modernism)
  • Literary Studies - World
  • Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
  • Literary Studies (19th Century)
  • Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
  • Literary Studies (African American Literature)
  • Literary Studies (British and Irish)
  • Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
  • Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
  • Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
  • Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
  • Literary Studies (History of the Book)
  • Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
  • Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
  • Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
  • Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
  • Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
  • Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
  • Literary Studies (War Literature)
  • Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
  • Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
  • Mythology and Folklore
  • Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
  • Browse content in Media Studies
  • Browse content in Music
  • Applied Music
  • Dance and Music
  • Ethics in Music
  • Ethnomusicology
  • Gender and Sexuality in Music
  • Medicine and Music
  • Music Cultures
  • Music and Religion
  • Music and Media
  • Music and Culture
  • Music Education and Pedagogy
  • Music Theory and Analysis
  • Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
  • Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
  • Musicology and Music History
  • Performance Practice and Studies
  • Race and Ethnicity in Music
  • Sound Studies
  • Browse content in Performing Arts
  • Browse content in Philosophy
  • Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
  • Epistemology
  • Feminist Philosophy
  • History of Western Philosophy
  • Metaphysics
  • Moral Philosophy
  • Non-Western Philosophy
  • Philosophy of Science
  • Philosophy of Language
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Philosophy of Perception
  • Philosophy of Action
  • Philosophy of Law
  • Philosophy of Religion
  • Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
  • Practical Ethics
  • Social and Political Philosophy
  • Browse content in Religion
  • Biblical Studies
  • Christianity
  • East Asian Religions
  • History of Religion
  • Judaism and Jewish Studies
  • Qumran Studies
  • Religion and Education
  • Religion and Health
  • Religion and Politics
  • Religion and Science
  • Religion and Law
  • Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
  • Religious Studies
  • Browse content in Society and Culture
  • Cookery, Food, and Drink
  • Cultural Studies
  • Customs and Traditions
  • Ethical Issues and Debates
  • Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
  • Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
  • Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
  • Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
  • Sports and Outdoor Recreation
  • Technology and Society
  • Travel and Holiday
  • Visual Culture
  • Browse content in Law
  • Arbitration
  • Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
  • Commercial Law
  • Company Law
  • Browse content in Comparative Law
  • Systems of Law
  • Competition Law
  • Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
  • Government Powers
  • Judicial Review
  • Local Government Law
  • Military and Defence Law
  • Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
  • Construction Law
  • Contract Law
  • Browse content in Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Criminal Evidence Law
  • Sentencing and Punishment
  • Employment and Labour Law
  • Environment and Energy Law
  • Browse content in Financial Law
  • Banking Law
  • Insolvency Law
  • History of Law
  • Human Rights and Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Browse content in International Law
  • Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
  • Public International Law
  • IT and Communications Law
  • Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
  • Law and Politics
  • Law and Society
  • Browse content in Legal System and Practice
  • Courts and Procedure
  • Legal Skills and Practice
  • Primary Sources of Law
  • Regulation of Legal Profession
  • Medical and Healthcare Law
  • Browse content in Policing
  • Criminal Investigation and Detection
  • Police and Security Services
  • Police Procedure and Law
  • Police Regional Planning
  • Browse content in Property Law
  • Personal Property Law
  • Study and Revision
  • Terrorism and National Security Law
  • Browse content in Trusts Law
  • Wills and Probate or Succession
  • Browse content in Medicine and Health
  • Browse content in Allied Health Professions
  • Arts Therapies
  • Clinical Science
  • Dietetics and Nutrition
  • Occupational Therapy
  • Operating Department Practice
  • Physiotherapy
  • Radiography
  • Speech and Language Therapy
  • Browse content in Anaesthetics
  • General Anaesthesia
  • Neuroanaesthesia
  • Browse content in Clinical Medicine
  • Acute Medicine
  • Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Clinical Genetics
  • Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
  • Dermatology
  • Endocrinology and Diabetes
  • Gastroenterology
  • Genito-urinary Medicine
  • Geriatric Medicine
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Medical Toxicology
  • Medical Oncology
  • Pain Medicine
  • Palliative Medicine
  • Rehabilitation Medicine
  • Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
  • Rheumatology
  • Sleep Medicine
  • Sports and Exercise Medicine
  • Clinical Neuroscience
  • Community Medical Services
  • Critical Care
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Forensic Medicine
  • Haematology
  • History of Medicine
  • Browse content in Medical Dentistry
  • Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
  • Paediatric Dentistry
  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
  • Surgical Dentistry
  • Browse content in Medical Skills
  • Clinical Skills
  • Communication Skills
  • Nursing Skills
  • Surgical Skills
  • Medical Ethics
  • Medical Statistics and Methodology
  • Browse content in Neurology
  • Clinical Neurophysiology
  • Neuropathology
  • Nursing Studies
  • Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Gynaecology
  • Occupational Medicine
  • Ophthalmology
  • Otolaryngology (ENT)
  • Browse content in Paediatrics
  • Neonatology
  • Browse content in Pathology
  • Chemical Pathology
  • Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
  • Histopathology
  • Medical Microbiology and Virology
  • Patient Education and Information
  • Browse content in Pharmacology
  • Psychopharmacology
  • Browse content in Popular Health
  • Caring for Others
  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • Self-help and Personal Development
  • Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
  • Cell Biology
  • Molecular Biology and Genetics
  • Reproduction, Growth and Development
  • Primary Care
  • Professional Development in Medicine
  • Browse content in Psychiatry
  • Addiction Medicine
  • Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
  • Forensic Psychiatry
  • Learning Disabilities
  • Old Age Psychiatry
  • Psychotherapy
  • Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
  • Epidemiology
  • Public Health
  • Browse content in Radiology
  • Clinical Radiology
  • Interventional Radiology
  • Nuclear Medicine
  • Radiation Oncology
  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Browse content in Surgery
  • Cardiothoracic Surgery
  • Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
  • General Surgery
  • Neurosurgery
  • Paediatric Surgery
  • Peri-operative Care
  • Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
  • Surgical Oncology
  • Transplant Surgery
  • Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Vascular Surgery
  • Browse content in Science and Mathematics
  • Browse content in Biological Sciences
  • Aquatic Biology
  • Biochemistry
  • Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology and Conservation
  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Genetics and Genomics
  • Microbiology
  • Molecular and Cell Biology
  • Natural History
  • Plant Sciences and Forestry
  • Research Methods in Life Sciences
  • Structural Biology
  • Systems Biology
  • Zoology and Animal Sciences
  • Browse content in Chemistry
  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Computational Chemistry
  • Crystallography
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Industrial Chemistry
  • Inorganic Chemistry
  • Materials Chemistry
  • Medicinal Chemistry
  • Mineralogy and Gems
  • Organic Chemistry
  • Physical Chemistry
  • Polymer Chemistry
  • Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
  • Theoretical Chemistry
  • Browse content in Computer Science
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Computer Architecture and Logic Design
  • Game Studies
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Mathematical Theory of Computation
  • Programming Languages
  • Software Engineering
  • Systems Analysis and Design
  • Virtual Reality
  • Browse content in Computing
  • Business Applications
  • Computer Security
  • Computer Games
  • Computer Networking and Communications
  • Digital Lifestyle
  • Graphical and Digital Media Applications
  • Operating Systems
  • Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
  • Atmospheric Sciences
  • Environmental Geography
  • Geology and the Lithosphere
  • Maps and Map-making
  • Meteorology and Climatology
  • Oceanography and Hydrology
  • Palaeontology
  • Physical Geography and Topography
  • Regional Geography
  • Soil Science
  • Urban Geography
  • Browse content in Engineering and Technology
  • Agriculture and Farming
  • Biological Engineering
  • Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
  • Electronics and Communications Engineering
  • Energy Technology
  • Engineering (General)
  • Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
  • History of Engineering and Technology
  • Mechanical Engineering and Materials
  • Technology of Industrial Chemistry
  • Transport Technology and Trades
  • Browse content in Environmental Science
  • Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
  • Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
  • Environmental Sustainability
  • Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
  • Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
  • Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
  • Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
  • Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
  • Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
  • History of Science and Technology
  • Browse content in Materials Science
  • Ceramics and Glasses
  • Composite Materials
  • Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
  • Nanotechnology
  • Browse content in Mathematics
  • Applied Mathematics
  • Biomathematics and Statistics
  • History of Mathematics
  • Mathematical Education
  • Mathematical Finance
  • Mathematical Analysis
  • Numerical and Computational Mathematics
  • Probability and Statistics
  • Pure Mathematics
  • Browse content in Neuroscience
  • Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
  • Development of the Nervous System
  • Disorders of the Nervous System
  • History of Neuroscience
  • Invertebrate Neurobiology
  • Molecular and Cellular Systems
  • Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
  • Neuroscientific Techniques
  • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • Browse content in Physics
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
  • Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
  • Biological and Medical Physics
  • Classical Mechanics
  • Computational Physics
  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
  • History of Physics
  • Mathematical and Statistical Physics
  • Measurement Science
  • Nuclear Physics
  • Particles and Fields
  • Plasma Physics
  • Quantum Physics
  • Relativity and Gravitation
  • Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
  • Browse content in Psychology
  • Affective Sciences
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Criminal and Forensic Psychology
  • Developmental Psychology
  • Educational Psychology
  • Evolutionary Psychology
  • Health Psychology
  • History and Systems in Psychology
  • Music Psychology
  • Neuropsychology
  • Organizational Psychology
  • Psychological Assessment and Testing
  • Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
  • Psychology Professional Development and Training
  • Research Methods in Psychology
  • Social Psychology
  • Browse content in Social Sciences
  • Browse content in Anthropology
  • Anthropology of Religion
  • Human Evolution
  • Medical Anthropology
  • Physical Anthropology
  • Regional Anthropology
  • Social and Cultural Anthropology
  • Theory and Practice of Anthropology
  • Browse content in Business and Management
  • Business Strategy
  • Business Ethics
  • Business History
  • Business and Government
  • Business and Technology
  • Business and the Environment
  • Comparative Management
  • Corporate Governance
  • Corporate Social Responsibility
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Health Management
  • Human Resource Management
  • Industrial and Employment Relations
  • Industry Studies
  • Information and Communication Technologies
  • International Business
  • Knowledge Management
  • Management and Management Techniques
  • Operations Management
  • Organizational Theory and Behaviour
  • Pensions and Pension Management
  • Public and Nonprofit Management
  • Strategic Management
  • Supply Chain Management
  • Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
  • Criminal Justice
  • Criminology
  • Forms of Crime
  • International and Comparative Criminology
  • Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
  • Development Studies
  • Browse content in Economics
  • Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
  • Asian Economics
  • Behavioural Finance
  • Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
  • Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
  • Economic Systems
  • Economic History
  • Economic Methodology
  • Economic Development and Growth
  • Financial Markets
  • Financial Institutions and Services
  • General Economics and Teaching
  • Health, Education, and Welfare
  • History of Economic Thought
  • International Economics
  • Labour and Demographic Economics
  • Law and Economics
  • Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
  • Microeconomics
  • Public Economics
  • Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
  • Welfare Economics
  • Browse content in Education
  • Adult Education and Continuous Learning
  • Care and Counselling of Students
  • Early Childhood and Elementary Education
  • Educational Equipment and Technology
  • Educational Strategies and Policy
  • Higher and Further Education
  • Organization and Management of Education
  • Philosophy and Theory of Education
  • Schools Studies
  • Secondary Education
  • Teaching of a Specific Subject
  • Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
  • Teaching Skills and Techniques
  • Browse content in Environment
  • Applied Ecology (Social Science)
  • Climate Change
  • Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
  • Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
  • Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
  • Browse content in Human Geography
  • Cultural Geography
  • Economic Geography
  • Political Geography
  • Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
  • Communication Studies
  • Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
  • Browse content in Politics
  • African Politics
  • Asian Politics
  • Chinese Politics
  • Comparative Politics
  • Conflict Politics
  • Elections and Electoral Studies
  • Environmental Politics
  • European Union
  • Foreign Policy
  • Gender and Politics
  • Human Rights and Politics
  • Indian Politics
  • International Relations
  • International Organization (Politics)
  • International Political Economy
  • Irish Politics
  • Latin American Politics
  • Middle Eastern Politics
  • Political Methodology
  • Political Communication
  • Political Philosophy
  • Political Sociology
  • Political Behaviour
  • Political Economy
  • Political Institutions
  • Political Theory
  • Politics and Law
  • Public Administration
  • Public Policy
  • Quantitative Political Methodology
  • Regional Political Studies
  • Russian Politics
  • Security Studies
  • State and Local Government
  • UK Politics
  • US Politics
  • Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
  • African Studies
  • Asian Studies
  • East Asian Studies
  • Japanese Studies
  • Latin American Studies
  • Middle Eastern Studies
  • Native American Studies
  • Scottish Studies
  • Browse content in Research and Information
  • Research Methods
  • Browse content in Social Work
  • Addictions and Substance Misuse
  • Adoption and Fostering
  • Care of the Elderly
  • Child and Adolescent Social Work
  • Couple and Family Social Work
  • Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
  • Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
  • Emergency Services
  • Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
  • International and Global Issues in Social Work
  • Mental and Behavioural Health
  • Social Justice and Human Rights
  • Social Policy and Advocacy
  • Social Work and Crime and Justice
  • Social Work Macro Practice
  • Social Work Practice Settings
  • Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
  • Welfare and Benefit Systems
  • Browse content in Sociology
  • Childhood Studies
  • Community Development
  • Comparative and Historical Sociology
  • Economic Sociology
  • Gender and Sexuality
  • Gerontology and Ageing
  • Health, Illness, and Medicine
  • Marriage and the Family
  • Migration Studies
  • Occupations, Professions, and Work
  • Organizations
  • Population and Demography
  • Race and Ethnicity
  • Social Theory
  • Social Movements and Social Change
  • Social Research and Statistics
  • Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
  • Sociology of Religion
  • Sociology of Education
  • Sport and Leisure
  • Urban and Rural Studies
  • Browse content in Warfare and Defence
  • Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
  • Land Forces and Warfare
  • Military Administration
  • Military Life and Institutions
  • Naval Forces and Warfare
  • Other Warfare and Defence Issues
  • Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
  • Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of U.S. National Security

  • < Previous chapter
  • Next chapter >

The Oxford Handbook of U.S. National Security

18 Homeland Security

George Cadwalader Jr. is an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. As a career officer in the Marine Corps, his military assignments included serving as a member of the faculty at the Naval War College and the Naval Justice School as well as deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq. He now teaches emergency management, homeland security, and national security courses. He holds a Juris Doctorate, cum laude, from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies, with distinction, from the Naval War College.

  • Published: 11 January 2018
  • Cite Icon Cite
  • Permissions Icon Permissions

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 caused a seismic shift in how the United States organizes and executes the mission of securing the homeland. The creation and growth of the Department of Homeland Security is the most visible manifestation of this change. However, the homeland security discipline contemplates shared responsibilities and a unity of effort among all levels of government, the private sector, and the general public. The wide array of stakeholders, alongside an expanding definition of what constitutes homeland security, presents complex challenges for policymakers. With the perspective of the more than fifteen years that have elapsed since 9/11, this chapter examines the evolution of homeland security from a near-exclusive focus on terrorism to a broader “all hazards” approach, the relationship between homeland security and national security, the roles of leading actors, and contemporary issues.

Securing the homeland of the United States is the central concern of government as it discharges the obligation set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” However, prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 (9/11), no single entity within government was given the primary responsibility of defense against terrorist attacks within the homeland. 1 The United States addressed threats to the homeland through the “separate prisms of national defense, law enforcement, and emergency management.” 2 In the years following 9/11, the United States has made a concerted effort to develop a model for homeland security that ensures a unity of effort across government, and its focus has grown beyond terrorism to also include manmade and natural hazards.

The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) defines the homeland security vision of the United States as a “homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and hazards, where American interests, aspirations, and way of life can thrive.” 3 The organizational architecture for this effort is referred to collectively as the “homeland security enterprise,” which consists of “federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector entities, as well as individuals, families, and communities who share a common national interest in the safety and security of America and the American population.” 4 Homeland security, in its current incarnation, embraces an enormous array of issues and stakeholders. Understanding the state of the homeland security discipline requires an examination of the structure of the homeland security enterprise, the evolving definition of what constitutes homeland security, and the relationship between homeland security and national security.

The Homeland Security Enterprise

In response to 9/11 and the recognized need for greater interagency cooperation in the homeland security domain, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002. 5 The building blocks for the DHS were existing structures taken from throughout the executive branch. The DHS merged twenty-two different federal departments and agencies and 179,000 federal employees into one cabinet level department. 6 Since its inception, the DHS has grown substantially. The number of DHS employees now exceeds 240,000. 7 The DHS’s overall budget grew from $31.2 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 8 to $66.3 billion in FY 2016. 9

The 2014 QHSR provides that “preventing terrorist attacks on the Nation is and should remain the cornerstone of homeland security.” 10 However, it is only one of five enumerated homeland security missions in the QHSR. They are summarized as follows:

Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security . This includes addressing terrorist threats from overseas as well as from “domestic-based ‘lone offenders’ and those who are inspired by extremist ideologies to radicalize to violence and commit acts of terrorism against Americans and the Nation.” 11

Secure and Manage Our Borders . This includes improving border security to exclude “terrorist threats, drug traffickers, and other threats to national security, economic security, and public safety.” 12

Enforce and Administer Our Immigration laws . This includes taking “a smart, effective, and efficient risk-based approach to border security and interior enforcement and continually evaluating the best use of resources to prioritize the removal of those who represent threats to public safety and national security.” 13

Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace . This includes addressing cyber threats to forms of infrastructure that “provide essential services such as energy, telecommunications, water, transportation, and financial services.” 14

Strengthen National Preparedness and Resilience . This includes “disaster planning with federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as nongovernmental organizations and the private sector” in order to “to respond to disasters in a quick and robust fashion.” 15

Nested under each mission are supporting goals that embrace a broad portfolio of topics, including protecting against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats; reducing risks to critical infrastructure; disrupting transnational criminal organizations; and preparing for, mitigating against, responding to, and recovering from natural and manmade hazards. 16

Responsibility for these missions falls upon twenty offices, directorates, and agencies under the authority of the secretary of homeland security. 17 Major DHS components, and their respective missions, are provided in the following section. They illustrate the wide scope of activities that fall within the reach of homeland security.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

The mission of FEMA is to “support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all hazards.” 18 The FEMA mission is drawn from the National Preparedness Goal of the United States, which is described as “a secure and resilient nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.” 19 Per the National Preparedness Goal and its implementing frameworks, “prevention” includes measures taken when faced with an imminent act of terrorism, 20 “protection” includes safeguarding the United States’ critical infrastructure (physical and cyber), borders, and food supply against terrorism and other threats; 21 “mitigation” includes reducing the impact of disasters through prophylactic measures; 22 “response” includes “those capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs after an incident has occurred;” 23 and, “recovery” includes longer-term measures necessary to restore and rebuild communities following a disaster. 24

In support of the National Preparedness Goal , FEMA’s responsibilities include coordinating and directing federal response and recovery efforts when required for domestic incidents; conducting training and exercises; awarding homeland security and mitigation grants to state and local governments and other public and private entities; and administering individual and public assistance to members of the public impacted by disasters. 25

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

The CBP agency is responsible for “securing America’s borders to protect the United States against terrorist threats and prevent the illegal entry of inadmissible persons and contraband, while facilitating lawful travel, trade, and immigration.” 26

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

The ICE agency’s mission includes disrupting and dismantling “transnational criminal organizations (TCO) that exploit U.S. borders, prevent[ing] terrorism, and enhance[ing] security through the enforcement of customs and immigration laws.” 27

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

The TSA provides security for “aviation, mass transit, rail, highway, and pipeline” transportation systems. 28

United States Coast Guard (USCG)

The USCG is the only military branch in the DHS. It is also the only military branch with law enforcement and regulatory authorities. 29 Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, only five of the eleven USCG’s statutory responsibilities constitute “homeland security missions.” These are (1) “ports, waterways and coastal security”; (2) “drug interdiction”; (3) “migrant interdiction”; (4) “defense readiness”; and (5) “other law enforcement.” 30

Secret Service

The Secret Service’s mission includes protecting the president and vice president and their immediate families, previous incumbents of those offices, visiting foreign leaders and dignitaries, and the White House complex and other key facilities. 31 It plans, coordinates, and implements “operational security plans” for National Special Security Events (NSSE) as designated by the secretary of homeland security (these include presidential inaugurations and major sporting events). 32 In addition, it investigates threats to the U.S. financial system posed by counterfeit currency and cyber criminals. 33

National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)

The NPPD is responsible for securing and enhancing the “resilience of the Nation’s infrastructure against cyber and physical threats,” providing “security related technical assistance, training, analysis, and assessments to infrastructure owners and operators nationwide,” and securing federal facilities with Federal Protective Service law enforcement assets. 34

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

The USCIS agency processes and adjudicates citizenship and immigration benefits. Among other responsibilities, it evaluates whether individuals seeking immigration benefits pose a threat to the homeland. 35

Other Federal Agencies

Homeland security responsibilities are also distributed throughout federal agencies external to DHS. For example, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reported that twenty-nine federal agencies shared in the $71.2 billion appropriated for terrorism-related homeland security activities in FY 2016. The top six recipients are DHS ($37.6 billion); the Department of Defense (DoD) ($13.7 billion); the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) ($5.3 billion); the Department of State (State) ($4.3 billion); the Department of Justice (DOJ) ($4.1 billion); and, the Department of Energy (DOE) ($2 billion). 36

Nonfederal Entities

State, local, tribal, and territorial (hereafter “state and local”) governments and agencies play a central role in homeland security by executing preparedness and response activities within their jurisdictions. State and local governments have the primary responsibility “for protecting life and property and maintaining law and order in the civilian community.” 37 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in March 2015 there were 916,512 full- and part-time police personnel and 392,063 full- and part-time fire protection personnel employed by state and local governments to help fulfill this mandate. 38 Private-sector entities (such as owners of critical infrastructure), volunteer and nongovernmental organizations, and individuals also are key homeland security partners. 39

Defining Homeland Security— from “Terrorism” to “All-Hazards”

When President George W. Bush used his executive authority to create the Office of Homeland Security on October 8, 2001, its mission was developing and coordinating “a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks.” 40 Congress followed with legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security, which President Bush signed into law on November 25, 2002. 41 While terrorism was the clear and pressing concern, neither of these authorities provided a clear definition for “homeland security,” leaving its parameters undefined. 42

In light of its origin, it is not surprising that the primary focus of the homeland security discipline was (and remains) terrorism. However, the understanding of what constitutes homeland security has expanded to now include hazards that, as described by one commentator, have the “potential to endanger the citizenry, economy, rule of law, and the general functioning of government and society.” 43 The evolving conceptualization of homeland security can be traced through strategic documents issued in the years following 9/11. 44

President Bush released the first National Strategy for Homeland Security in 2002. Its purpose was to “mobilize and organize our Nation to secure the U.S. homeland from terrorist attacks.” 45 The Strategy identified that improving the capabilities to address terrorism would have a collateral benefit of improving response to “non-terrorist phenomena such as crime, natural disease, natural disasters, and national security incidents.” 46 The second iteration, published in 2007, defined homeland security as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.” 47 However, the 2007 Strategy expressly incorporated lessons learned from the unsatisfactory federal response to Hurricane Katrina and noted “certain non-terrorist events that reach catastrophic levels can have significant implications for homeland security.” 48 The 2008 Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan built upon this. It provided, as a guiding principle, that “our Nation faces threats from both natural and man-made sources. We will take an all-hazards approach to emergency management that allows us to respond effectively to all emergencies, whether caused by acts of nature or by our enemies.” 49

President Barack Obama did not promulgate a separate Homeland Security Strategy . Instead, he incorporated homeland security guidance in his 2010 National Security Strategy , emphasizing the need “to integrate homeland security with national security; including seamless coordination among Federal, state, and local governments to prevent, protect against, and respond to threats and natural disasters.” 50 The 2010 Strategy embraced the broad “all hazards” understanding of additional threats that fall within the purview of homeland security such as natural disasters, large-scale cyberattacks, pandemics, and transnational criminal organizations among others. 51 The progression of these documents—along with the five missions in the 2014 QHSR described above—reflect that the outlines of homeland security have grown substantially since 9/11.

The Relationship between Homeland Security and National Security

Given that national security and homeland security are complementary endeavors designed to safeguard American people and interests, it is difficult (and perhaps counterproductive) to determine where one discipline ends and the other begins. Complicating this inquiry, both of these are elastic terms of art that exist in a perpetual state of metamorphosis.

The DoD provides useful contours for each. It defines “national security” as a “collective term encompassing both national defense and foreign relations of the United States with the purpose of gaining: a. A military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations; b. A favorable foreign relations position; or c. A defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action from within or without, overt or covert.” 52 “Homeland security,” in turn, is described as “concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, major disasters, and other emergencies; and minimize the damage and recover from attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies that occur” for which DHS is the lead federal agency. 53 Homeland security is distinguished from the DoD “homeland defense” mission, which is “the protection of US sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical infrastructure against external threats and aggression, or other threats as directed by the President.” 54

These definitions overlap in that they all implicate hazards that manifest themselves in the homeland. In 2009, President Obama integrated his White House national security and homeland security staffs under the rubric of a consolidated “National Security Staff” designed to (1) “support all White House policymaking activities related to international, transnational, and homeland security matters”; and (2) eliminate “the artificial divide between White House staff who have been dealing with national security and homeland security issues.” 55 In his 2010 National Security Strategy , he declared, “We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. National security draws on the strength and resilience of our citizens, communities, and economy.” 56

It appears President Donald Trump’s administration will continue to regard national and homeland security as requiring integrated policy consideration within the White House. His initial organization of the National Security Council (NSC) and Homeland Security Council (HSC) of January 28, 2017 gave the National Security Advisor and Homeland Security Advisor equal authority to set their respective agendas. 57 However, on April 4, 2017, he changed course and gave primary responsibility to determine the agenda for both the NSC and HSC to the National Security Advisor. 58 This change suggests recognition of the fact that neither national nor homeland security issues should be considered independently.

Although national security and homeland security represent two sides of the same coin, homeland security presents very different legal and policy challenges. Under the Constitution, foreign policy and national defense are the sole responsibilities of the federal government. 59 National security initiatives outside of the United States are executed by the federal government and guided by applicable federal and international law. Homeland security operates within a decentralized federalist system where authorities are divided between the federal and state governments. As a result, authorities at the federal, state, and local levels all play a role. This means multiple layers of stakeholders, legal regimes, policy concerns, and organizational priorities.

Theory and Policy

Translating homeland security theory into policy is made more challenging by virtue of the enormous numbers of stakeholders and issues involved. There are over 87,000 separate federal, state, and local government entities involved in homeland security. 60 In addition, in the American federalist system of government, homeland security functions are executed in a constitutional framework that divides authorities and responsibilities between federal and state governments. At the state level, authorities and responsibilities are shared with local governments under applicable provisions for home rule. 61

These multiple layers create what has been called “vertical fragmentation” and “horizontal fragmentation.” 62 Vertical fragmentation pertains to the relationship between the three levels of government, and horizontal fragmentation describes the relationship between “a multitude of competing agencies with overlapping jurisdictional prerogatives on each level of government.” 63 Successfully translating homeland security theory into effective policy requires navigating the vertical and horizontal axes.

Understanding the vertical axis requires an examination of the role of federalism in homeland security. Article IV, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” The Second Amendment provides that the right of the states to maintain security through “a well regulated militia” shall not be infringed. The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 64 Taken together, these provisions have been understood to divide responsibilities for “homeland security and the general welfare of the people with the states and territories, and defense of the homeland with the Federal Government.” 65

As a result of this construct, federal response to domestic disasters was uncommon until after World War II. When the federal government did respond, it was typically in the form of military assistance to aid in immediate response or ad hoc congressional authorization for monetary relief to victims. 66 Since that time, the federal government has played an increasing role in domestic emergency management. 67 The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) 68 provides the primary mechanism by which federal assistance flows to the states. The Stafford Act allows the president to declare an “emergency” 69 or “major disaster,” 70 which authorizes the deployment of federal funds and resources to the affected jurisdiction when managing consequences of the event exceed a state’s capabilities. 71 The Stafford Act provides significant resource support to states. For example, between FY 2000 and FY 2015, the president made 936 major disaster declarations amounting to $133.6 billion in federal relief. 72

While states increasingly rely on federal support for disasters, they nonetheless jealously guard their operational authority to lead disaster relief inside their borders. Accordingly, the relationship between separate sovereigns in a federalist system plays a central role in the development of homeland security policy. This was illustrated in 2007 when, in response to criticism of federal response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress expanded the president’s authority under the Insurrection Act 73 to unilaterally take federal control of a state’s National Guard in order to respond to domestic emergencies including natural disasters, epidemics, and terrorist attacks. 74 All fifty governors objected to the change 75 and, as a result of widespread criticism, the law was repealed the following year. 76 In theory, updating the Insurrection Act to improve and more clearly articulate military authorities inside the homeland served the interest of a streamlined response to domestic threats. As a practical matter, it was politically untenable. 77

The challenges posed by horizontal fragmentation are underlined by the creation of DHS and its efforts to bring homeland security under the umbrella of a single federal agency. As described above, DHS incorporated twenty-two separate agencies from within the executive branch; however, multiple agencies with homeland security responsibilities remain outside its ambit. The process by which certain agencies were included, and others omitted, has been described as being “based more on political bargaining than on any clarity about the department’s mission or what it would take to create a cohesive department,” leaving a “hodgepodge without a clear mission.” 78 Notably, the FBI and the National Guard were left separate from DHS, leaving the department without direct control of two entities that provide vital homeland security intelligence as well as investigatory and military functions. 79

Parochial political interests also play a role in shaping policy. Per a report in the Atlantic Magazine , Tom Ridge, the first secretary of Homeland Security, recalled that during the formation of DHS his offhand query about consolidating the aviation assets of the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Patrol resulted in “calls from Capitol Hill warning us not to mess with the Coast Guard’s or Customs’ procurements.” 80 In addition, after creating DHS, Congress “did not adapt its oversight structure to the largest reorganization of the executive branch since the creation of the Department of Defense.” 81 As a result, 119 congressional committees and subcommittees provide DHS oversight, far more than other cabinet-level departments. 82 Multiple overseers increase the likelihood of conflicting guidance and ineffective oversight from the legislative branch. 83

What Can Scholars Offer Policymakers?

As a discipline, homeland security is in its infancy when compared to national security. Scholars can provide an invaluable service to policymakers by helping define what activities should fall within the purview of homeland security; how risks should be prioritized; and how the homeland security enterprise should be organized and its mission executed.

The Congressional Research Service noted that “consistency in discussion of homeland security missions and strategy could facilitate debate about the appropriate role of various federal, state, local and private sector stakeholders in ensuring homeland security. Such discussions are important in ensuring each level understands its role and can invest the proper level of resources to carry it out.” 84 Define homeland security too narrowly, and potential hazards may go unnoticed. Define it too broadly, and the discipline runs the risk of being a “mile wide and an inch deep” where resources are spread too thinly and the most likely and consequential threats are not appropriately prioritized. 85

Dr. Christopher Bellavita of the Naval Postgraduate School identified “seven defensible definitions of homeland security” that provide very useful analytical frameworks through which scholars can critically study the discipline, its possible permutations, and how it should be best configured. 86 They are:

“Homeland Security Is about Terrorism.” This definition recognizes the primacy of “preventing terrorism and responding appropriately when we are attacked.” 87 Proponents of this definition would likely dismiss other definitions of homeland security as mission creep.

“Homeland Security Is about All Hazards.” This definition recognizes that terrorism is one of many threats to the homeland. Consequently, considering terrorism in a vacuum presents two problems. First, it diminishes effectiveness in addressing other “man-made and natural hazards”; and, second, it ignores the fact that “the skills, equipment, and knowledge needed to respond to most emergencies” are also relevant to responding to terrorism. 88 Thus, an “all hazards” approach seeks synergies that may be realized when homeland security addresses more common disasters alongside terrorism.

“Homeland Security Is about Terrorism and Catastrophes.” This definition would limit the applicability of homeland security to only those terrorist attacks and other catastrophes so devastating in their impact that they would exceed the capabilities of state and local authorities and require a federal response. 89

“Homeland Security Is about Jurisdictional Hazards.” This definition recognizes that “homeland security can be different things to different jurisdictions” and that it “derives its foundation from local experience not federal decree.” It would replace a national definition with local definitions tailored to local threats. 90

“Homeland Security Is about Meta Hazards.” This definition would take a long view of homeland security and focus on slowly developing existential threats that could come to fruition well beyond normal planning horizons. These threats run the gamut from climate change to public health issues, which may be manageable in the short term but could become exponentially more severe over time. Under this model, the responsibility for “routine disasters” would be disaggregated from DHS allowing the department to focus on those long-term strategies necessary to preserve the viability of the nation for future generations. 91

“Homeland Security Is about National Security.” Under this definition, the already blurry lines between homeland defense and homeland security would be erased and both would be consolidated under the umbrella of “national security.” Proponents of this viewpoint argue it would eliminate unnecessary barriers and improve efficiency and coordination. 92

“Homeland Security Über Alles .” This viewpoint argues that homeland security “is a dangerously dysfunctional reaction” to 9/11 that, in the name of public safety, allows for increased governmental authorities for surveillance, detention, and other threats to the privacy and liberty interests of the citizenry. 93

Homeland Security Priorities

Homeland security is now understood to include more than preventing, preparing for, and responding to terrorism—a change accelerated by the devastating consequences of and flawed response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The problems in response were, in part, attributed to a prevailing focus on terrorism in DHS at the expense of other hazards. 94 The DHS Inspector General report into the Katrina response concluded, “after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, DHS’ prevention and preparedness for terrorism have overshadowed that for natural hazards, both in perception and in application.” 95 Underlining this imbalance, in FY 2005 close to three-quarters of DHS grants to state and local governments were for counterterrorism programs. 96 In addition, after being assimilated into DHS, FEMA was reorganized in a manner that undermined its ability to function effectively. 97

As 9/11 was a “focusing event” that “generated unprecedented interest in terrorism as a problem within U.S. national borders, and significantly changed the mass public’s perception of the risk of terrorism,” Hurricane Katrina served as a powerful reminder that natural disasters do not diminish in lethality or frequency as a result. 98 Hurricane Katrina provided Congress and the president with the political impetus to enact legislation in 2006 that significantly reorganized DHS, restored FEMA authorities for preparedness, and enhanced FEMA’s independence and authority. 99

Both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina and the responses thereto are seminal examples of how large-scale disasters drive major policy changes. These events illustrate the concept of “issue salience” that posits conditions for change are at their high-water mark when sensational, disruptive events captivate the attention of the public and politicians. 100 This combination of interest, demand for action, and political will can combine to overcome organizational inertia and resistance to change. However, it also presents challenges for thoughtful policy development. The imperative to “do something” may result in hasty, ill-considered changes. Additionally, while it is important to learn lessons from the past, focusing on previous disasters risks violating the old military adage against preparing to fight the last war.

Ideally, research can help policymakers take a proactive, risk-based approach to homeland security that prioritizes threats and hazards, seeks cost-effective solutions, and avoids reactive policies driven by news cycles and political concerns. For politicians, qualifying certain threats as being more or less of a priority—particularly when terrorism is part of the discussion—can constitute a “political third rail.” 101 President Obama received significant criticism for reportedly reminding his staff that bathtubs, vehicle accidents, and handguns kill far more Americans than terrorists. While this is factually correct, it led to accusations from political opponents that he did not take terrorism seriously. 102 It is easier to make generic and broad assurances of security than it is to acknowledge varying degrees of risk, accept that not all terrorist and other threats can be prevented, and then plan accordingly. 103

The result of failing to consider these difficult choices is a system where fear, emotion, perceived threats, and political opportunism may lead to policy initiatives that are wasteful at best and counterproductive at worst. In a thought-provoking 2011 article, Benjamin Friedman concluded that the costs associated with homeland security counterterrorism programs exceed the value of return. He attributes this imbalance to an inflated fear of terrorism among the public that is capitalized upon by politicians and government agencies in order to support homeland security policies and programs. These policies and programs subsequently corroborate and intensify the public’s threat perception, causing a feedback loop that results in the public perceiving a greater threat of terrorism than exists and the government buying more homeland security than it needs. 104

Regardless of whether or not one subscribes to this more skeptical viewpoint, it is without controversy that responsible policymakers must prioritize homeland resource allocations based on sound risk assessments. 105 Homeland security scholarship has and should continue to inform this discussion. 106 This is particularly so because of the complexity of conducting such risk assessments. Policymakers and practitioners are faced with both predicable occurrences, such as reoccurring natural hazards, and more difficult to evaluate “high-consequence/low-likelihood events” such as terrorist attacks “that are not inherently probabilistic because they are carried out by intelligent adversaries.” 107 In their research of how to best calculate homeland security priorities, Russell Lundberg and Henry Willis note that “identifying the attributes of concern in a model specific to the hazard makes it difficult to compare risks.” 108 For example, they observe that “comparing risks based only on estimates of expected casualties will bias results against cyber-attacks, while omitting environmental damages will bias results against oil spills.” 109 To use a simplistic analogy, conducting these evaluations involves comparing apples and oranges. Scholars can add value by considering the best quantitative and qualitative methodologies in order to do so.

Scholarly research can also add value in analyzing how homeland security should be organized and executed. Some argue DHS should be abolished. Proponents of this view assert that its size and disparate and unrelated missions result in bloated bureaucracy and inefficient management. 110 Others contend that the “federalization” of homeland security responsibilities traditionally addressed by states is inherently inefficient. These critics claim that the billions of dollars in DHS grants awarded to states encourages wasteful spending and incentivizes jurisdictions to rely on federal funds in lieu of sufficiently budgeting for emergencies on their own. 111 Moreover, since grants come with strings attached, they may have the effect of distorting state priorities in a manner that is not aligned with their actual needs. 112 Proponents of this point of view recommend returning more authority and responsibility to the states and limiting federal involvement in emergency management to only those hazards where states may lack the specialized capabilities to respond, such as pandemics and CBRN incidents. 113

Others argue the secretary of homeland security should be given more authority over DHS components to rectify structural weaknesses arising from DHS being built around existing agencies that retained their pre-DHS authorities. Supporters of this change maintain the secretary of homeland security has the responsibility without the concomitant authorities to execute the homeland security mission. 114 Unlike the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland security has “very limited command and control authority to direct coordinated operational activities of DHS components . . . and must rely primarily on the authority of the individual component heads.” 115 Moreover, limitations on the ability of the secretary to reorganize agencies and resources within the department without congressional approval is seen as undermining organizational effectiveness while increasing the likelihood of parochialism among DHS components. 116

Policy Perspectives

Department of homeland security.

The DHS has sought to increase interoperability and coordination among its components by creating joint task forces (JTF) modeled on the DoD. 117 In 2014, then Secretary of DHS Jeh Johnson created the “Southern Border and Approaches Campaign” that organizes CBP, ICE, USCG, and USCIS assets into geographic and functional task forces analogous to DoD JTFs. 118 Congress codified DHS JTF structure in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, indicating legislative support for a more cohesive, integrated DHS operational structure. 119

Although the homeland security strategy of DHS under the new administration is still taking shape and it is unclear the extent to which it will diverge from that of its predecessor, President Trump’s FY 2018 budget proposal provides some initial insight. It recommends increased funding for border security and immigration enforcement while reducing or capping funds for TSA, FEMA, the USCG, and the Secret Service. 120 This budget would add $2.6 billion to build a wall along the Mexican border and cut $667 million from FEMA state and local mitigation and counterterrorism grants. 121

Department of Justice (DOJ)/Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

By and through the FBI, the DOJ has primary authority for investigating, detecting, preventing, preempting, and disrupting terrorist attacks within the homeland and against U.S. citizens and interests abroad. In addition, its responsibilities include “searching for, finding, and neutralizing WMD within the United States.” 122 As a result of lessons learned from 9/11, the FBI “implemented reforms intended to transform itself from a largely reactive law enforcement agency focused on investigations of criminal activity into a more proactive, agile, flexible, and intelligence-driven agency that can prevent acts of terrorism.” 123 Part of this evolution in its homeland and national security missions is the enhanced use of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) to promote vertical and horizontal integration and intelligence sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Prior to 9/11, there were thirty-three FBI-led JTTFs. There are now 104 throughout the United States, composed of four thousand members drawn from over fifty-five federal and five hundred state and local agencies. 124

Department of Defense (DoD)

Federal DoD forces support the homeland security mission when civil authorities are overwhelmed or where the DoD has unique operational or technical capabilities that can provide assistance. 125 The DoD defines Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) as that support provided by federal forces “in response to requests from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events.” 126 For the DSCA mission, DoD objectives include “maintaining Defense preparedness for domestic [Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) incidents]” and “developing plans and procedures to ensure DSCA during complex catastrophes.” 127

The DoD evaluates requests for support based on “(1) Legality (compliance with laws); (2) Lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DOD Forces); (3) Risk (safety of DoD Forces); (4) Cost (including the source of funding and the effect on the DOD budget); (5) Appropriateness (whether providing the requested support is in the interest of the DOD); [and,] (6) Readiness (impact on the Department of Defense’s ability to perform its other primary missions).” 128 With limited exceptions including emergent situations where immediate action is required to “save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United States,” DSCA operations require approval of the president or secretary of defense. 129 When federal forces provide DSCA, they operate within the DHS National Response Framework and “under the direction of a designated lead federal agency (LFA).” 130 Nonetheless, they are required to remain under the command and control of federal military authorities. 131 The U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) coordinates the DSCA mission for the DoD. The NORTHCOM describes its DSCA mission as ranging from “domestic disaster relief operations that occur during fires, hurricanes, floods and earthquakes” to “counter-drug operations and managing the consequences of a terrorist event employing a weapon of mass destruction.” 132

The DSCA operations include important legal limitations that recognize the primacy of civil authorities within the homeland. Federal law, including the Posse Comitatus Act, 133 and DoD directives generally prevent DoD federal military forces from directly participating in civilian law enforcement activities such as searches, seizures, and arrests. 134 The most significant exception to this is the Insurrection Act, 135 which allows the president to use federal troops in a law enforcement capacity when required to suppress insurrections, enforce federal law, or protect the constitutional rights of the citizenry either in response to a state request or when a state is unwilling or unable to do so itself. 136

National Guard

As a state-controlled military force capable of being mobilized for federal service, the National Guard provides a flexible, dispersed homeland and national security capability. 137 National Guard forces may be used “in one of three legally distinct ways.” 138 First, they may be employed “by the Governor for a state purpose authorized by state law (State Active Duty).” 139 When in a State Active Duty (SAD) status, National Guard forces are typically used to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies. The associated operational expenses are born by the state without federal support. 140 Second, under Title 32 of the United States Code, they may serve in a hybrid state/federal status where the state retains operational control but the federal government offsets costs with federal funds. 141 National Guard forces have been used in a Title 32 status for missions including border security operations, counterdrug operations, and large-scale disaster response. 142 In addition, the federal government uses Title 32 to pay for specialized National Guard units that provide Weapons of Mass Destruction and CBRN support to civil authorities. 143 Third, under certain circumstances National Guard forces may be “federalized” by the president or secretary of defense under Title 10 of the United States Code. While in a Title 10 status they are removed from state control and are fully integrated into the federal forces to support DoD missions. 144 When in a State Active Duty or Title 32 status, National Guard forces, unlike federal forces, are not barred from participating in law enforcement activities. Depending on the nature of the incident, this provides an important consideration for officials deciding how and under what status National Guard forces should be employed. 145

The United States Intelligence Community (IC)

In response to 9/11, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA). 146 This act created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to “improve information sharing, promote a strategic, unified direction, and ensure integration across the U.S. Intelligence Community.” 147 The IC is charged with “working separately and together to engage in intelligence activities that are necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States.” 148

The DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) is one of seventeen organizations within the IC. The DHS I&A intelligence priorities include aviation security, border security, cyber network integrity, and countering violent extremism. 149 The DHS I&A provides a unique capability within the IC. Its statutory mission includes delivering intelligence to and gathering intelligence from state, local, and private entities. 150

This information sharing is facilitated through the National Network of Fusion Centers (NNFC). 151 Fusion centers are federally supported, state- and locally operated multiagency entities designated by the applicable state governor. 152 Participating agencies provide “resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, investigate, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.” 153 The NNFC “Critical Operational Capabilities” are fourfold. Fusion centers must be able to (1) “receive classified and unclassified information from federal partners”; (2) “assess local implications of that threat information through the use of a formal risk assessment process”; (3) “disseminate that threat information to other state, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector entities within their jurisdiction”; and, (4) “gather locally generated information, aggregate it, analyze it, and share it with federal partners as appropriate.” 154 Supporting the NNFC mission, the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI) provides a standardized process “for identifying and reporting suspicious activity in jurisdictions across the country and also serves as the unified focal point for sharing SAR information.” 155 The DHS National Operations Center is responsible for “collecting and synthesizing” information from the NNFC. 156 In 2015, there were 78 fusion centers in the United States composed of 2,479 nonfederal and 365 federal employees. 157

National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)

The IRTPA also codified the NCTC as an entity within the ODNI. 158 The NCTC supports other agencies with counterterrorism (CT) responsibilities by analyzing intelligence collected domestically and internationally, sharing information and best practices, identifying gaps, and conducting strategic operational planning for government-wide CT activities. 159 In addition, NCTC maintains the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database, which is “the US government’s central classified repository for all known or suspected international terrorists and their networks of contacts and support.” 160 When deemed appropriate, NCTC releases names nominated for inclusion in TIDE to the FBI watchlist, which may in turn result in the individual being assigned to the TSA “No-Fly” list or the Department of State’s visa database. 161 In December 2013, there were 1.1 million names enrolled in TIDE (many entries are redundant due to spelling variations of individual names ), 25,000 of which were residents or lawful citizens of the United States. 162

Contemporary Issues

Attempting to gaze into the future of homeland security presents a particularly murky crystal ball. In a discipline that addresses the gamut of often rapidly evolving natural and manmade hazards, we can be reasonably confident the next decade will present a potentially catastrophic event that will force policymakers to reevaluate their priorities. The 2014 QHSR described possible low-probability but high-consequence “black swans” that would radically change the homeland security environment. These include the loss of control over CBRN technologies caused by the unexpected collapse of a nation-state; the growth of sophisticated nonstate adversaries capable of launching “a campaign of well-coordinated and highly organized attacks, conducted by interconnected but autonomous groups or individuals within the United States”; and drastic and accelerated climate change consequences. 163

That being said, with the “past as prologue,” we can also reasonably speculate that high-visibility issues preoccupying policymakers today will continue to be an important part of the conversation over the next ten years. This section provides a nonexhaustive look of some of these issues.

Homegrown Violent Extremism (HVE)

A homegrown violent extremist is defined as “a person of any citizenship who has lived and/or operated primarily in the United States or its territories who advocates, is engaged in, or is preparing to engage in ideologically-motivated terrorist activities (including providing support to terrorism) in furtherance of political or social objectives promoted by a foreign terrorist organization, but is acting independently of direction by a foreign terrorist organization.” 164 The Islamic State inspired mass casualty attacks at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino, California and the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida on December 5, 2015 and June 12, 2016, respectively, underlined the danger of HVE. 165 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that between September 12, 2001 and December 31, 2016, twenty-three attacks inspired by “radical Islamist belief” claimed the lives of 119 victims within the homeland. 166 The September 2017 U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee “Terror Threat Snapshot” reports that there have been 145 “homegrown jihadist cases”within the United States since 2013. 167

Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)

The CVE issue refers to “proactive actions to counter efforts by extremists to radicalize, recruit, and mobilize followers to violence.” 168 Since 2010, the federal government has attempted to reduce domestic violent extremism through measures designed to short-circuit the radicalization process. 169 The approach involves “(1) empowering communities and civil society; (2) messaging and counter–messaging; and (3) addressing causes and driving factors.” 170 CVE is predicated on the understanding “that parents, neighbors, colleagues, peers, teachers, and community leaders are best positioned to address the underlying causes of violent extremism, recognize when an individual becomes ideologically-motivated to commit violence, and intervene before an individual or a group commits an act of violent extremism.” 171 As such, among other efforts, CVE involves “direct outreach, training, and education on the threat of violent extremism in specific communities targeted for recruitment by violent extremist groups.” 172 In FY 2016, Congress appropriated funds for new, dedicated CVE grants programs and in January 2017, the DHS Office of Community Partnerships awarded $10 million to thirty-one local public and private entities for “intervention, developing resilience, challenging the narrative, and building capacity.” 173

Critics of CVE initiatives argue they unfairly target and stigmatize Muslim communities and are built on the flawed assumption “that there is a predictable path toward terrorism, and that potential terrorists have identifiable markers.” 174 Their concerns include that reliance upon community members to identify and report indicia of radicalization will result in overreporting of potential threats, have a chilling effect on protected speech, and “undermine the social compacts and trusting relationships school teachers, social workers, and religious figures require to effectively serve communities.” 175

Homeland Security and Civil Rights

Since 9/11, increased governmental authorities for surveillance, intelligence gathering, and law enforcement have provoked a vigorous debate on the appropriate balance between public safety, security, and private rights. For example, Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act 176 expanded the ability of government officials under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) 177 to obtain business records relevant to investigations of “international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” 178 Prior to the PATRIOT Act, business records amenable to production under FISA were limited to “common carriers, public accommodation facilities, storage facilities, and vehicle rental facilities.” 179 Section 215 provided procedures whereby the FBI could seek an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court directing its recipient to “produce any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).” 180 This provision engendered significant controversy when former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked classified information to the media revealing that the FBI and NSA had relied on Section 215 to engage in the bulk collection of telephone records from American telecommunications companies. 181 Responsive information included dates, times, and lengths of calls, phone numbers, and associated technical “metadata” (but not audio of the phone calls or identities of the participants). 182 These records were stored in a database where they could be queried as needed for calling records of phone numbers linked to suspected terrorists. 183 In response to the widespread criticism of this program, Congress passed the USA FREEDOM Act in 2015 prohibiting the bulk collection of phone numbers by the NSA. 184 However, the act continues to permit the targeted querying of suspected terrorist telephone numbers against records maintained by telephone companies. 185

With regard to homeland security and policing, the use of military equipment and tactics during the riots in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014 elevated the debate about the “militarization of law enforcement” to one of national concern. 186 The DHS grants to law enforcement designed to promote counterterrorism capabilities have enabled law enforcement agencies to augment their inventories with military equipment. 187 In addition, Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997 authorizes the DoD to transfer excess military property to state and local law enforcement agencies. 188 The Defense Logistics Agency Law Enforcement Support Office reports that the program has resulted in the transfer of $6 billion worth of property to over eight thousand law enforcement agencies. 189 Critics ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the American Civil Liberties Union assert that arming and equipping police in a military manner can result in unnecessarily aggressive law enforcement techniques. 190 Supporting this theory, the Department of Justice Ferguson After-Action Assessment concluded “the use of military weapons and sniper deployment atop military vehicles was inappropriate, inflamed tensions, and created fear among demonstrators.” 191 The Obama administration subsequently restricted certain types of military equipment that could be transferred to or purchased by state and local law enforcement with federal grants. 192 The Trump administration rescinded these limitations on August 28, 2017. 193

How Are the Issues Framed?

Although national security and homeland security are complementary and at times overlapping disciplines, the framework in which their respective policy debates take place differ significantly. Many overseas national security and foreign policy initiatives may only be of theoretical interest to the average American. Conversely, homeland security programs tangibly impact the lives of Americans through effects such as the inconvenience of long lines at airport security, the effectiveness of response after a disaster, or the sense that government has encroached upon privacy and civil rights in the name of security. Homeland security as a discipline implicates some of the most complicated and contentious domestic policy issues in the public sphere. For example, immigration policy, homegrown terrorism, government surveillance, the militarization of law enforcement, and striking the appropriate balance between public safety and individual liberties all invite strong opinions across the political spectrum. In addition, the discipline resides within a federalist system that divides authorities between federal and state governments. Navigating these complexities provides unique challenges for scholars and policymakers who seek the best model for homeland security. It is a vitally important endeavor. As President Obama noted, a strong, resilient, economically prosperous homeland is the nucleus of national security. 194 National security scholarship is incomplete if it fails to consider the new and rapidly evolving discipline of homeland security.

1. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (Washington, DC: GPO, 2004), 395 .

2. Shawn Reese , Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations , CRS Report No. R42462 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2013), 1 .

3. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (Washington, DC: 2014), 14 .

4. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2010), 12 .

6. Jane A. Bullock , George D. Haddow , and Damon P. Coppola , Introduction to Homeland Security , 5th ed. (Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014), 18 .

8. William L. Painter , “Selected Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 114th Congress” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, May 19, 2015), 5 . In this chapter, figures expressed in billions are rounded to the nearest hundred million.

9. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2017 (Washington, DC: 2016), 1 .

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review , 6.

12. Ibid. , 7 .

14. Ibid. , 7–8 .

15. Ibid. , 8 .

16. Ibid. , 78–80 . The Department of Homeland Security’s Fiscal Years 2014 – 2108 Strategic Plan provides various performance measures aligned with each goal. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Years 2014–2018 Strategic Plan (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014) , Critical Infrastructure is defined as “the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the U.S. that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, public health or safety, or any combination thereof.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Risk Lexicon (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010), 51 .

18. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2017 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016), 64 .

19. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal , 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015), 1 . In homeland security lexicon, “hazard” is defined as a “natural or man-made source or cause of harm or difficulty”; threat is defined as a “natural or man-made occurrence, individual, entity, or action that has or indicates the potential to harm life, information, operations, the environment, and/or property”; and risk is defined as “potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an incident, event, or occurrence, as determined by its likelihood and the associated consequences.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Risk Lexicon (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010) .

20. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal , 6–8; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Prevention Framework , 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016) .

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal , 8–10; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection Framework .

22. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal , 10–12; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Mitigation Framework , 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016) .

23. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal 12–17; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework , 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016) .

24. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Goal , 17–19; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Disaster Recovery Framework , 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016) .

25. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2017 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016), 64–67 .

26. Ibid. , 25 .

27. Ibid. , 34 .

28. Ibid. , 40 .

29. Ibid. , 46 .

31. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2017 (Washington, DC: 2016), 58 .

32. U.S. Secret Service, Annual Report 2015 (Washington, DC: n.d.), 12–16 ; Shawn Reese , “National Special Security Events: Fact Sheet” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, January 25, 2017) .

33. U.S. Secret Service, Annual Report 2015 (Washington, DC: n.d.), 24–28 .

34. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2017 (Washington, DC: 2016), 58 .

35. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2017 (Washington, DC: 2016), 70–72 .

36. Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2017 (Washington, DC: GPO 2016), 350 .

Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations § 182.6(b)(1)(ii).

39. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (Washington, DC:), 92–93 .

Executive Order 13228 of October 8, 2001, Establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council.

Homeland Security Act of 2002 , Public Law 107–296 (as amended).

42. William L. Painter , “Selected Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 114th Congress” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, May 19, 2015), 1 .

43. Nadav Morag , “Does Homeland Security Exist Outside the United States?,” Homeland Security Affairs 7 (September 2011), 1, https://www.hsaj.org/articles/69 .

44. Shawn Reese , “Defining Homeland Security: Analysis and Congressional Considerations” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, January 8, 2013) .

45. The White House, National Strategy for Homeland Security (Washington, DC: 2002), 1 .

46. The White House, National Strategy for Homeland Security (Washington, DC: 2002), 4 .

47. The White House, National Strategy for Homeland Security (Washington, DC: 2007), 3 .

48. The White House, National Strategy for Homeland Security (Washington, DC: 2007), 3 .

49. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “ One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2008-2013 ” (Washington, DC: n.d.), 4 .

50. The White House, National Security Strategy (Washington, DC: 2010), 4 .

51. The White House, National Security Strategy (Washington, DC: 2010), 15, 18 .

52. Department of Defense Joint Publication 1-02, “ DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms” (March 2017), 164 .

53. Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-27, “ Homeland Defense ” (July 29, 2013), I-2 .

54. Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-27, “ Homeland Defense ” (July 29, 2013), I-1 .

56. The White House, National Security Strategy (Washington, DC: 2010), 10 .

57. National Security Presidential Memorandum—2, Organization of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council (January 28, 2017) .

58. National Security Presidential Memorandum—4, Organization of the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and Subcommittees (April 4, 2017) .

59. Edwin Meese , “ Who Is Responsible for America’s Security?, ” (Heritage Foundation, August 19, 2011), last accessed May 21, 2017, http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/who-responsible-americas-security ; Jonathan Masters, “ U.S. Foreign Policy Powers: Congress and the President ” (Council on Foreign Relations, March 2, 2017), last accessed May 21, 2017, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president .

60. Jane A. Bullock , George D. Haddow , and Damon P. Coppola , Introduction to Homeland Security , 5th ed. (Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014), 20 .

61. Richard Sylves , Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security , 2nd ed. (London: Sage, 2015), 13 .

64. The Constitution of the United States of America: Literal Print (Washington, DC: GPO), last accessed May 21, 2017, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-6.pdf .

65. Richard J. Hayes Jr. , “DOD Response under the Stafford Act: A Call to Action,” Joint Force Quarterly 77 (2nd Quarter 2015): 85 .

66. Chris Edwards , “The Federal Emergency Management Agency Floods, Failures, and Federalism” (CATO Institute Policy Analysis 764, November 18, 2014), 3–6 .

68. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act , Public Law 93–288, (May 22, 1974) (as amended).

“Emergency” “ means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.” Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act , Public Law 93–288 (as amended) § 102(1).

“Major disaster” “ means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.” Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act , Public Law 93–288 (as amended) § 102(2).

71. The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Domestic Operational Law 2015 Handbook for Judge Advocates (Charlottesville, VA: Center for Law and Militray Operations, 2015), 33 .

72. Jaclyn Petruzzelli , “Major Disaster Assistance from the Disaster Relief Fund: State Profiles” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2017), 1 .

73. The Insurrection Act available at 10 U.S. Code Service §§ 251–255 (2017) .

74. Geoffrey S. Corn , Jimmy Gurulé , Eric Jensen , and Peter Margulies , National Security Law: Principles and Policy (New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2015), 470 .

75. New York Times , “Making Martial Law Easier,” February 19, 2007, last accessed May 21, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html .

76. Richard J. Hayes Jr. , “DOD Response under the Stafford Act: A Call to Action,” Joint Force Quarterly 77 (2nd Quarter 2015), 86 .

77. Geoffrey S. Corn , Jimmy Gurulé , Eric Jensen , and Peter Margulies , National Security Law: Principles and Policy (New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2015), 470 .

78. Jane A. Bullock , George D. Haddow , and Damon P. Coppola , Introduction to Homeland Security , 5th ed. (Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014), 16 .

79. Jane A. Bullock , George D. Haddow , and Damon P. Coppola , Introduction to Homeland Security , 5th ed. (Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014), 16, 19 ; see also Susan B. Glasser and Michael Grunwald , “Department’s Mission Was Undermined from Start,” Washington Post , December 22, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102327.html .

80. Steven Brill , “Are We Any Safer,” The Atlantic (September 2016), 68 .

81. Joan V. O’Hara et al., “Turf Wars: How a Jurisdictional Quagmire in Congress Compromises Homeland Security,” N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation & Public Policy 18, no. 1 (2015): 4 .

82. Ibid. , 420–424 .

83. Senator Tom Coburn , “A Review of the Department of Homeland Security’s Missions and Performance” (January 2015), 150–152 .

84. William L. Painter , “Selected Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 114th Congress” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, May 19, 2015), 4 .

85. Christopher Bellavita , “Changing Homeland Security: What Is Homeland Security?,” Homeland Security Affairs 4 (June 2008): 10, https://www.hsaj.org/articles/118 .

86. Ibid. ,1 .

87. Ibid. , 3 .

89. Ibid. , 5–7 .

90. Ibid. , 7–10 .

91. Ibid. , 10–11 .

92. Ibid. , 11–13 .

93. Ibid. , 14–18 .

94. Thomas A. Birkland , “Disasters, Catastrophes, and Policy Failure in Homeland Security Era Review of Policy Research,” Review of Policy Research 26, no. 4 (2009): 425–429 .

95. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, “ A Performance Review of FEMA’s Disaster Management Activities in Response to Hurricane Katrina ” (March 2016), 2 .

96. Ibid. , 118 .

97. Susan B. Glasser and Michael Grunwald , “Brown’s Turf Wars Sapped FEMA’s Strength,” Washington Post , December 23, 2005, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/12/23/browns-turf-wars-sapped-femas-strength/323fd421-78f3-44ce-a667-9c60c5473d86/ .

98. Thomas A. Birkland , “Disasters, Catastrophes, and Policy Failure in Homeland Security Era Review of Policy Research,” Review of Policy Research 26, no. 4 (2009): 423–424 .

99. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 , Public Law 109–295, (October 4, 2006) ; Kenneth Bea , “Federal Emergency Management Policy Changes after Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions,” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, November 15, 2006) .

Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics , 10.

Brill, “Are We Any Safer,” 75.

102. Ibid. , 86 . John Mueller , “Why Obama Won’t Tell the Truth about Terrorism,” National Interest (December 12, 2016) http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-obama-wont-tell-the-truth-about-terrorism-18722 .

Brill, “Are We Any Safer,” 84–87.

104. Benjamin H. Friedman , “Managing Fear: The Politics of Homeland Security,” Political Science Quarterly 126, no. 1 (2011): 77–106 .

105. Current DHS risk methodology involves consideration of “threat, vulnerability, and consequence.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2016 Homeland Security Grant Program (Washington, DC: 2016), 2 . See also U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Risk Lexicon (Washington, DC: 2010) .

106. See, e.g., Ralph L. Keeney and Detlof von Winterfeldt , “A Value Model for Evaluating Homeland Security Decisions,” Risk Analysis 31, no. 9 (2011): 1470–1487 ; John Mueller and Mark Stewart , “Evaluating Counterterrorism Spending,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28, no. 3 (Summer 2014): 237–248 ; Russell Lundberg , Comparing Homeland Security Risks Using a Deliberative Risk Ranking Methodology , (Washington D.C.: Rand Corporation, 2013 ; Richard White , “Toward a Unified Homeland Security Strategy: An Asset Vulnerability Model,” Homeland Security Affairs 10, no. 1 (February 2014), https://www.hsaj.org/articles/254 .

107. Russell Lundberg and Henry Willis , “Assessing Homeland Security Risks: A Comparative Assessment of Ten Hazards,” Homeland Security Affairs 11, no. 10 (December 2015), 1, https://www.hsaj.org/articles/7707 .

108. Ibid. , 1–2 .

109. Ibid. , 2 .

110. David Rittgers , “Abolish the Department of Homeland Security” (CATO Institute Policy Analysis 683, September 11, 2011, 6 .

111. Chris Edwards , “The Federal Emergency Management Agency Floods, Failures, and Federalism,” (CATO Institute Policy Analysis 764, November 18, 2014), 10, 15–18 .

112. Matt A. Mayer , “An Analysis of Federal State and Local Homeland Security Budgets” (Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis, March 9, 2009), 1–4 ; David Rittgers , “Abolish the Department of Homeland Security” (CATO Institute Policy Analysis 683, September 11, 2011), 22 .

113. Chris Edwards , “The Federal Emergency Management Agency Floods, Failures, and Federalism” (CATO Institute Policy Analysis 764, November 18, 2014), 10–11, 23 .

116. Ryan Landrum , “DHS Next: Moving beyond Collaboration and Cooperation,” Small Wars Journal (April 10, 2017), http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/dhs-next-moving-beyond-collaboration-and-cooperation .

117. Matthew Wein , “DHS’s Joint Task Forces: The Next Chapter,” Lawfare (February 17, 2017), last accessed May 21, 2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/dhss-joint-task-forces-next-chapter .

119. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 , S. 2943 § 1901, (December 13, 2016) ; Matthew Wein , “DHS’s Joint Task Forces: The Next Chapter,” Lawfare (February 17, 2017), last accessed May 21, 2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/dhss-joint-task-forces-next-chapter .

120. Michael Chertoff , James Loy , John Pistole , and Christian Marrone , “Trump’s Unbalanced Homeland Security Budget,” The Atlantic (March 23, 2017), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-budget-department-of-homeland-security/520512/ .

121. Devlin Barrett , “Trump’s DHS Budget includes Billions to Build His Border Wall,” Washington Post (March 16, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-would-boost-dhs-spending-for-border-wall-agents/2017/03/15/426b48d8-09ad-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.3ee8c79c16a3 .

122. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework , 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: 2016), 17 .

123. Jerome P. Bjelopera , “The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, February 19, 2014), i .

125. Department of Defense, Strategy for Homeland Defense and Defense Support of Civil Authorities (February 2013), 5 .

126. Department of Defense Directive 3025.18, “ Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA)” (December 29, 2010, Incorporating Change 1, September 21, 2012), 16 .

127. Department of Defense, Strategy for Homeland Defense and Defense Support of Civil Authorities (February 2013), 9 .

128. Department of Defense Directive 3025.18, “ Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” (December 29, 2010 Incorporating Change 1, September 21, 2012), 4 .

129. Department of Defense Directive 3025.18, “ Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” (December 29, 2010 Incorporating Change 1, September 21, 2012), 3–4 .

130. The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Domestic Operational Law 2015 Handbook for Judge Advocates (Charlottesville, VA: Center for Law and Militray Operations, 2015), 4–6 .

131. DoD Directive 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010 Incorporating Change 1, September 21, 2012, 6 .

133. The Posse Comitatus Act, available at 10 U.S. Code Service § 1385 (2017) .

135. The Insurrection Act , available at 10 U.S. Code Service §§ 251–255 (2017) .

136. The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Domestic Operational Law 2015 Handbook for Judge Advocates (Charlottesville, VA: Center for Law and Militray Operations, 2015), 95–98 .

137. Lawrence Kapp , Defense Primer: Reserve Forces (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, December 9, 2016), 1 .

138. Maj. Gen. Timothy J. Lowenberg , “The Role of the National Guard in National Defense and Homeland Security” (National Guard Association of the United States), 3, last accessed May 21, 2017, https://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/pdf/primer%20fin.pdf .

139. Ibid. , 3 .

140. The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Domestic Operational Law 2015 Handbook for Judge Advocates (Charlottesville, VA: Center for Law and Militray Operations, 2015), 62 .

141. Ibid. , 61 .

143. Ibid. , 116–117 .

144. Maj. Gen. Timothy J. Lowenberg , “The Role of the National Guard in National Defense and Homeland Security” (National Guard Association of the United States), 3, last accessed May 21, 2017, https://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/pdf/primer%20fin.pdf ; The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Domestic Operational Law 2015 Handbook for Judge Advocates (Charlottesville, VA: Center for Law and Militray Operations, 2015), 55–58 .

145. Maj. Gen. Timothy J. Lowenberg , “The Role of the National Guard in National Defense and Homeland Security” (National Guard Association of the United States), 3, last accessed May 21, 2017, https://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/pdf/primer%20fin.pdf .

146. Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act , Public Law 108–458 (December 17, 2014) .

147. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, US National Intelligence: An Overview (Washington, DC: 2013), 9 .

151. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, US National Intelligence: An Overview (Washington, DC: 2013), 20 .

156. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Framework , 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: 2016), 44 .

157. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015 National Network of Fusion Centers: Final Report (Washington, DC: April 2016), 5 .

158. Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act , Public Law 108–458 § 1021 (December 17, 2014) .

163. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (Washington, DC), 29 .

165. Frank Staub , Jennifer Zeunik , and Ben Gorban , “Lessons Learned from the Police Response to the San Bernardino and Orlando Terrorist Attacks,” CTC Sentinel 10, no. 5 (May 2017): 1–7 .

166. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Counter Violent Extremism: Actions Needed to Define Strategy and Assess Progress of Federal Efforts (April 2017), 28–29, 33–34 . This report also indicates that during the same period, 62 attacks perpetrated by “far right violent extremists” killed 106 victims. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Counter Violent Extremism: Actions Needed to Define Strategy and Assess Progress of Federal Efforts (April 2017), 28–29, 33–34 .

168. U.S. Department of Homeland, “Department of Homeland Security Strategy for Countering Violent Extremism” (October 28, 2016), 1 .

169. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Counter Violent Extremism: Actions Needed to Define Strategy and Assess Progress of Federal Efforts (April 2017), 11 .

170. Ibid. , 7 .

171. U.S. Department of Homeland, “Department of Homeland Security Strategy for Countering Violent Extremism” (October 28, 2016), 1 .

174. Faiza Patzel and Meghan Koushik , Countering Violent Extremism ” (New York: New York University Law School Brennan Center for Justice, 2017), 1–2 .

175. Ibid. , 13 .

176. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 , Public Law 107–156 (October 26, 2001) (as amended).

177. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 , Public Law 95–511 (October 25, 1978) (as amended).

178. Edward C. Liu , “Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Extended Until June 1, 2015” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, June 16, 2011), 9 .

179. Ibid. , 10 .

181. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Report on the Telephone Records Program Conducted under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and on the Operations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court , (January 23, 2014), 1 .

182. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Report on the Telephone Records Program Conducted under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and on the Operations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (January 23, 2014), 21–22 .

183. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Report on the Telephone Records Program Conducted under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and on the Operations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (January 23, 2014), 26–28 .

184. Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline over Monitoring Act of 2015 , Public Law 114–123 (June 2, 2015) .

185. “USA Freedom Act: What’s in, What’s out,” Washington Post , June 2, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/usa-freedom-act/ .

186. Paul D. Shinkman , “Ferguson and the Militarization of Police,” U.S News and World Report , August 14, 2014, https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/14/ferguson-and-the-shocking-nature-of-us-police-militarization .

187. Senator Tom Coburn , Safety at Any Price: Assessing the Impact of Homeland Security Spending in U.S. Cities (Washington DC, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, December 2012), 36–47 .

188. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law 104–201 § 1033 (September 23, 1996) .

190. American Civil Liberties Union, “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing” (June 2014) ; Evan Bernick , “Overmilitarization: Why Law Enforcement Needs to Scale Down Its Use of Military Hardware and Tactics” (Heritage Foundation, August 22, 2013), last accessed May 21, 2017, http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/overmilitarization-why-law-enforcement-needs-scale-down-its-use-military .

191. U.S. Department of Justice, After-Action Assessment of the Police Response to the August 2014 Demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri (2015), xvii .

193. Donald J. Trump , Executive Order 13809, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement’s Access to Life-Saving Equipment and Resources,” Federal Register , 82, No. 168, (August 31, 2017): 41499–41500 .

194. The White House, National Security Strategy (Washington, DC: 2010), 71 .

  • About Oxford Academic
  • Publish journals with us
  • University press partners
  • What we publish
  • New features  
  • Open access
  • Institutional account management
  • Rights and permissions
  • Get help with access
  • Accessibility
  • Advertising
  • Media enquiries
  • Oxford University Press
  • Oxford Languages
  • University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

  • Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
  • Cookie settings
  • Cookie policy
  • Privacy policy
  • Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

National Academies Press: OpenBook

Terrorism: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Improving Responses: U.S.-Russian Workshop Proceedings (2004)

Chapter: the department of homeland security: background and challenges, the department of homeland security: background and challenges.

Raphael Perl *

Congressional Research Service

This presentation is divided into two parts. It begins with background on creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and addresses the issue of how and why this new department came to be. It then focuses on policy issues and challenges facing the new department.

WHY A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY?

How did the idea of the establishment of a department of homeland security evolve into the biggest U.S. government reorganization in American history—and not only the biggest but also the most diverse merger of functions and responsibilities?

In the early 1990s, Americans increasingly became concerned about terrorism on our soil. This concern was fueled by the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the discovery of a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics in 1994. Moreover, it became increasingly evident to the American public that terrorism had a growing sophisticated and global reach, a perception fueled by overseas events such as the bombings in 1998 of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the subsequent bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.

Hand in hand with this development came a recognition that the security environment after the cold war had shifted dramatically—that power was devolving from the nation-state to the individual and to transnational, or subnational, groups and organizations; that individuals and disaffected groups were seeking and might gain access to weapons of mass destruction; and that globalization,

free trade, and the expansion of democratic regimes provided a relatively unregulated environment for terrorist and criminal groups worldwide.

The result was a series of U.S. commissions in the late 1990s that looked at differing aspects of U.S. national security, including the threat of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism—the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Gilmore Commission, and the National Commission on Terrorism. At the same time, individual members of Congress had expressed concern that the United States did not have a cohesive, threat-driven, counterterrorism strategy. Some in Congress also expressed concern over the difficulty of ascertaining how much money was allocated to combat terrorism and where it was going.

Many proposals for reform were announced, most recommending more centralized policy direction. Some favored keeping and strengthening existing institutions. Others proposed establishing a coordinating office within the office of the vice-president, and yet others sought to merge a few federal agencies into a larger one. Reform was debated, but before the attacks of September 11, 2001, counterterrorism was simply not the top priority of the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities.

After September 11, 2001, priorities changed rapidly and dramatically. There was strong pressure for Congress and the administration to act decisively, and there was strong pressure from the intelligence community to focus any dramatic organizational mergers and reassignment of responsibilities away from them. Shortly thereafter (October 2001), President Bush, arguably in an attempt to preempt action from Congress, created an Office of Homeland Security designed to coordinate domestic terrorism efforts. Some members of Congress and some experts in the field, however, recommended a new federal agency or full department to integrate and heighten antiterrorism efforts. In 2002 the Bush administration sponsored its own proposal along these lines, and on November 19, 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). The president named Tom Ridge, former director of the Office of Homeland Security, to be secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security created by the act. The Senate confirmed Ridge’s nomination.

The creation of the new department constitutes the most substantial reorganization of the federal government agencies since the National Security Act of 1947, which placed the different military departments under a secretary of defense and created the National Security Council (NSC) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

When we look at the emerging Department of Homeland Security, we see that it incorporates 22 government agencies and some 179,000 people into a single organization. We also see an organization with

a proposed budget for FY 2004 of $36.2 billion—roughly one-tenth the size of the nation’s military defense budget ($380 billion). Note that overall these amounts constitute roughly a 7 percent jump in domestic defense spending.

customs and border protection responsibilities

emergency preparedness and response functions

an intelligence analysis and infrastructure protection mission

a science and technology mission

coordination functions involving the federal government, state and local governments, foreign governments, and the private sector

narcotics control functions that at the same time house the Secret Service, Coast Guard, and Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS)

A DHS reorganization plan of November 25, 2002, sets out a blueprint for the new organization. Included are five directorates: (1) Border and Transportation Security, (2) Emergency Preparedness and Response, (3) Science and Technology, (4) Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and (5) Management.

POLICY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

What are some of the immediate and long-term policy issues and challenges facing the new department? At least seven are worthy of note:

building an effective organization, that is, start-up

assigning/dividing jurisdictional responsibilities

processing and sharing of intelligence

integrating science and technology

interacting with Congress

defining relationships with the military

adding value over preexisting structures and relationships

Woven throughout these challenges is an ongoing theme of increasing coordination from merging related organizations into a single focal point and by creating new and innovative interagency coordinating mechanisms.

Building an Effective Organization

The immediate challenge facing the new department is clearly start-up: How quickly can DHS be up and running? The department formally began operating on January 24, 2003, and by March 1 had absorbed representatives from most of its component parts. The formal process of transferring agencies is expected to be completed by September 30, 2003, but analysts suggest full integration of agencies will take at least several years.

Notwithstanding, as a practical matter, the new department today is preoccupied with day-to-day start-up issues: finding a physical location, improving communications capabilities, and personnel management tasks. Finding a loca-

tion for the agency is key. DHS headquarters is currently at a temporary location with the majority of additional personnel scattered elsewhere. Practical staff questions about, for example, new office location and supervisor, remain for the most part unanswered.

Questions abound about how the new organizational components will communicate with each other. Linking phone systems and databases (most of the 22 agencies have their own internal computer systems and communications systems, as well as different e-mail systems) remains a pressing challenge of the first magnitude.

Human resources issues abound as well, for example, hiring, firing, retirement, processing of the payroll, and assignment to new tasks. Enormous pressure exists to fill positions. Yet, as of early March 2003, most of the senior and critical jobs in DHS were still unfilled. Only 3 of the department’s top 23 managers had been confirmed by the Senate, and nominees for most of those jobs had not been decided.

What are some of the challenges and practical problems facing DHS as it seeks to integrate agencies such as the Coast Guard, the INS, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) into one organization, while at the same time not incorporating others, such as the FBI and CIA? Compounding this concern is the relative autonomy of some of the transferred federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard and Secret Service. What new controls and guidance will they face? In a broader context, the new department has been likened to an interior ministry but without a national police component.

A major challenge facing the department is how to effectively join border security functions and interior functions into an organization that has centralized leadership and decentralized operations. Moreover, DHS must coordinate a network of disaster response capabilities, while at the same time seeking to become a central focal point for analysis and dissemination of intelligence. At the same time, the organization is charged with joining research and development efforts to detect and counter potential terror attacks with the goal of shoring up vulnerabilities of the nation’s critical infrastructures to include its ports, utilities, and food and water supply—no small task!

Assigning and Dividing Jurisdictional Responsibilities

A second issue relates to the functions that differing DHS components will perform. Clearly, in this new organizational arrangement, some agencies, such as the Coast Guard and Secret Service, will probably not change dramatically in the way they are managed and operate. However, the way that functions of other agencies will be orchestrated in this new setup is far from finalized. Yet to be seen are the additional functions or components that will emerge from the department. One new function is likely to be creation of a full-time, permanent red team that will simulate terrorist threats and test the security of installations, such

as nuclear plants and government buildings. Another new function assigned to the department is oversight of visa processing. How will this be worked out with the State Department? Moreover, what, if any, will the operational role of DHS be in its many areas of responsibility?

Processing and Sharing of Intelligence

A third and crucial issue is how intelligence will be moved through the system and shared. It is not clear the degree to which the department will have its own intelligence analysis group. Absent a strong in-house intelligence analysis component, it may be that DHS will have to rely more heavily on predigested information from many other agencies. As it starts up, the new department’s intelligence role will be limited, primarily linking analysis from a newly created interagency Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC; see below) to efforts to strengthen the defenses of critical infrastructures.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush announced creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. The new center will be responsible for fusing and analyzing domestic and foreign intelligence related to terrorist threats. It is chaired by the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and will be staffed by members of the intelligence community, the law enforcement community, and DHS. Reportedly, the center will have access to all intelligence information available to the U.S. government, both raw and processed.

Creation of the TTIC, however, is considered controversial by some in Congress who are concerned it undermines the language and intent of the Homeland Security Act, that is, that the TTIC’s functions be performed within the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Directorate of DHS. Other analysts express concern that the TTIC structure will increasingly involve the DCI in domestic intelligence issues, a prickly arena potentially prone to collision with civil liberties safeguards.

One of the functions of the TTIC will reportedly be to maintain an up-to-date database of known and suspected terrorists that will be available to federal and nonfederal officials, as needed. This function is a terrorism counterpart to EPIC, the El Paso Intelligence Center. Currently, in the drug area, a policeman on the beat can, in real time, contact EPIC and get information on a suspect from a national drug trafficking database.

There are other complex issues as well. What role will DHS play in the flow of information from the national level to the first responder and vise versa? What role will the new department have in facilitating the flow of information to the public, to the private sector, to international organizations, and to foreign governments? Some argue that homeland security is in its essence global security. Thus, homeland security must be based on the underlying principle that security for one will never be achieved without security for all. Yet to be defined is how DHS will interact with the international community.

Integrating Science and Technology

An important issue is what role will DHS play in the area of promoting and integrating science and technology into the homeland security policy equation. The pragmatic answer here is “more,” especially in the area of threat and vulnerability assessment. The National Academies’ report Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Combating Terrorism has outlined a policy framework.

A current policy debate within DHS centers on whether the new information analysis directorate should focus on vulnerabilities or threats. Whatever the outcome, analysts predict that increasingly systems analysis and risk management will be brought to bear on this debate. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Accounting Office (GAO), and the NAE have emphasized the importance of the risk management sciences to the nation’s homeland security effort. Moreover, the intelligence community is increasingly employing such methodologies. At some point, we are likely to see widespread use—and perhaps even daily use—of a broad range of terrorist threat-based risk assessment matrixes by government officials charged with homeland security decision making.

In September 2002 the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology issued a report on maximizing the contribution of science and technology to homeland security. Stressed was a need for flexibility for research and development programs in terms of organization, personnel, and budget. Moreover, the report proposed a DHS organizational structure for research and development to be headed by an undersecretary for science and technology, an idea subsequently adopted. The report also recommended the use of risk management, based on risk assessment, in the budgeting process and in research and development programs to determine infrastructure interaction models. The new DHS Science and Technology Directorate will coordinate research and development programs, including preparation for and responding to threats from weapons of mass destruction. A major responsibility of the new DHS Science and Technology Directorate is to join research and development efforts to detect and counter potential terrorist attacks. The DHS requests for funding for research and development totaled $761 million for fiscal year 2003 and $1 billion for fiscal year 2004.

Relationship with Congress

An important question is how will Congress relate to this new entity as the legislature performs its traditional functions of overseeing, legislating, and appropriating money. Much of this depends on how Congress chooses to organize, either with a new structure or by restructuring its committees. Both the new department and the threats it addresses defy traditional jurisdictional power structures. Today in Congress, 88 committees and subcommittees have oversight responsibilities for agencies that have been folded into DHS.

Because of this, both houses of Congress have recognized a need for integrating these jurisdictional complexities. In the House of Representatives, the leadership has created a new House Select Committee on Homeland Security. The committee is chaired by Representative Christopher Cox of California, who sees one of the major challenges of the committee as integrating the efforts of FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and intelligence communities into a homeland security framework.

The House committee has five subcommittees, which mirror the five directorates at DHS. The five subcommittees are

Infrastructure and Border Security

Emergency Preparedness and Response

Cybersecurity, Science, and Research and Development

Intelligence and Counterterrorism

In addition, new Subcommittees on Homeland Security under both House and Senate Appropriations Committees have been created.

When discussing government failures preceding September 11, 2001, the focus tends to be on failures of the executive branch, but questions have also been raised about the effectiveness of legislative activities. The Subcommittee on Rules is studying whether Congress should structure itself to more effectively perform its responsibilities in light of the new policy and organizational focus afforded the issue of homeland security.

Defining, or Redefining, Relationships with the Military

An issue of emerging importance is the role of the military in homeland security—of the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Guard, and in some instances the state militias.

On October 1, 2002, DOD activated a new regional combatant command, Northern Command (NORCOM), which plays the lead role in homeland defense for missile or air attack defense. Yet unclear is where DOD will fit into a support role for other homeland security missions, such as intelligence analysis; intelligence gathering and law enforcement; research and development, particularly in the chemical/biological area; and use of reserves and the National Guard in functions ranging from protecting airports and borders to assisting in the wake of national disasters.

We must be mindful that if we look at missions from the DOD perspective, much interest centers on keeping overseas military operations as the department’s primary focus. Providing personnel and resources to the support of a homeland security mission, though important, is not DOD’s top priority.

Value Added

Finally, we must ask ourselves what added value, if any, will DHS provide over preexisting structures and relationships. Arguably, it will better integrate state and local government activities with national antiterrorism and homeland defense efforts, and it will provide better coordination of law enforcement functions among component federal agencies and thereby enhance the efficiency of such operations.

There is an expectation that DHS will provide a more effective use of science and technology in combating terrorism and supporting homeland defense. Certainly, we can expect an enhanced role for science and technology because of DHS activity. To the degree that DHS lends support to science and technology projects on a large scale, a challenge will be not to overlook smaller, creative, and perhaps more independent projects that may look at things differently. In this regard, independent input from organizations such the National Academies may contribute much to preserving a spirit of open and promising scientific inquiry.

Last, it is hoped that DHS will provide a better model for government structures in an increasingly borderless, jurisdictionless, interconnected, interdisciplinary world. However, civil libertarians are quick to remind us that a potential downside of centralization of power in institutions is the possibility of a climate less conducive to open inquiry and dissent.

Who would have thought even 10 years ago that the United States would so dramatically reorganize the federal government? In one sense, what the DHS model attempts to do is deal a serious blow to the nineteenth century musket assembly-line model of government, where every agency had a separate piece of the action, and where at the end of the day, the pieces fitted together fairly well. Although in most instances such compartmentalized models served us relatively well for certain functions, they may be losing relevance in the world of today and the world of the future. If successful, DHS will enhance homeland security. Perhaps even more important, a smoothly functioning DHS could well provide the United States with a government that will function more efficiently and serve as a model for other organizational fusions in our nation and abroad.

It is possible to take a solid or sound path to the wrong destination. It is also possible to take a good path to the right destination at the wrong time. Clearly, there are downsides to massively reorganizing the federal government especially at a time when the nation perceives itself at war. There is strength in the argument that at such critical times, individual and organizational efforts should be focused on combating the threat of terrorism and not diverted by a need to find office space, define turf, or get working telephones.

On the other hand, if not now, when? Is it realistic to expect threats to the homeland of any nation to diminish in the immediate future? Without the events of September 11, 2001, it is unlikely that any reorganization of substance would have had the impetus to go further than the planning stage. A fully operational DHS is expected to have the resources readily available for controlling borders, fighting terrorism, and combating illegal activity generally and the power to prioritize such resources and use them more efficiently.

What will the impact of DHS actions be on earlier priorities and policies? Will anticounterfeiting efforts suffer because the Secret Service is no longer in the Treasury Department? Will marine safety activities of the Coast Guard lose their importance in a homeland security organization? Will antidrug efforts be helped, or harmed, by infusion of new resources along the U.S. border, resources directed by DHS, not by the Department of Justice?

The issue is part of a broader question: Is the nation overreacting by overprioritizing terrorism? We must ask ourselves, to what degree does America’s expenditure of unending energy and countless billions of dollars constitute a follow-on victory for al Qaeda by weakening our economy and relatively open, unregulated lifestyle? As a society, are we diverting money and attention in an area, or in areas, that are not productive?

What can science, technology, and engineering offer here? How can the scientific and engineering community support government and industry decision making in a world of increasing terrorist risk? The National Academies and other scientific organizations continue to face these questions head on.

This book is devoted primarily to papers prepared by American and Russian specialists on cyber terrorism and urban terrorism. It also includes papers on biological and radiological terrorism from the American and Russian perspectives. Of particular interest are the discussions of the hostage situation at Dubrovko in Moscow, the damge inflicted in New York during the attacks on 9/11, and Russian priorities in addressing cyber terrorism.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, is north korea going to war the capital cable #88, a human rights approach to ukraine's rapid digitalization, ukraine in the balance: a battlefield update on the war in ukraine, under secretary of state victoria nuland: the two-year anniversary of russia's full-scale invasion of ukraine.

  • Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
  • Aerospace Security Project
  • Africa Program
  • Americas Program
  • Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
  • Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
  • Asia Program
  • Australia Chair
  • Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
  • Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
  • Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
  • China Power Project
  • Chinese Business and Economics
  • Defending Democratic Institutions
  • Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
  • Defense 360
  • Defense Budget Analysis
  • Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
  • Economics Program
  • Emeritus Chair in Strategy
  • Energy Security and Climate Change Program
  • Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
  • Freeman Chair in China Studies
  • Futures Lab
  • Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
  • Global Food and Water Security Program
  • Global Health Policy Center
  • Hess Center for New Frontiers
  • Human Rights Initiative
  • Humanitarian Agenda
  • Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
  • International Security Program
  • Japan Chair
  • Kissinger Chair
  • Korea Chair
  • Langone Chair in American Leadership
  • Middle East Program
  • Missile Defense Project
  • Project on Fragility and Mobility
  • Project on Nuclear Issues
  • Project on Prosperity and Development
  • Project on Trade and Technology
  • Renewing American Innovation Project
  • Scholl Chair in International Business
  • Smart Women, Smart Power
  • Southeast Asia Program
  • Stephenson Ocean Security Project
  • Strategic Technologies Program
  • Transnational Threats Project
  • Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
  • All Regions
  • Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
  • Middle East
  • Russia and Eurasia
  • American Innovation
  • Civic Education
  • Climate Change
  • Cybersecurity
  • Defense Budget and Acquisition
  • Defense and Security
  • Energy and Sustainability
  • Food Security
  • Gender and International Security
  • Geopolitics
  • Global Health
  • Human Rights
  • Humanitarian Assistance
  • Intelligence
  • International Development
  • Maritime Issues and Oceans
  • Missile Defense
  • Nuclear Issues
  • Transnational Threats
  • Water Security

The War Comes Home: The Evolution of Domestic Terrorism in the United States

Photo: LOGAN CYRUS/AFP/Getty Images

Photo: LOGAN CYRUS/AFP/Getty Images

Table of Contents

Brief by Seth G. Jones , Catrina Doxsee , James Suber , Grace Hwang , and Nicholas Harrington

Published October 22, 2020

Available Downloads

  • Download the CSIS Brief 1177kb
  • Download the Methodology 84kb

CSIS Briefs

White supremacists and other like-minded extremists conducted two-thirds of the terrorist plots and attacks in the United States in 2020, according to new CSIS data. Anarchists, anti-fascists, and other like-minded extremists orchestrated 20 percent of the plots and attacks, though the number of incidents grew from previous years as these extremists targeted law enforcement, military, and government facilities and personnel. Despite these findings, however, the number of fatalities from domestic terrorism is relatively low compared to previous years.

Introduction

There has been growing concern about the threat of domestic terrorism, with extremists motivated by political, racial, ethnic, economic, health, and other grievances. In October 2020, the FBI arrested Adam Fox, Barry Croft, and several other accomplices in a plot to kidnap and potentially execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Members of this network, which had ties to militias in Michigan and other states, referred to Governor Whitmer as a “tyrant” and claimed that she had “uncontrolled power right now.” 1 They also discussed kidnapping Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, in part because of his lockdown orders to slow the spread of Covid-19. 2

Some U.S. government agencies have outlined the threat from domestic extremists, though most have not provided recent data about terrorist incidents. In its Homeland Threat Assessment released in October 2020, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that “racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.” 3 The report also assessed that anarchists and other individuals inspired by anti-government and anti-authority ideologies posed a threat. But it did not provide 2020 data. The Federal Bureau of Investigation similarly argued that the “top threat we face from domestic violent extremists” is from racially- and ethnically-motivated violent extremists, including white supremacists. 4 Nevertheless, FBI officials have not publicly released their data, making it difficult for U.S. civilians to judge the degree and type of threat.

To help fill this gap, this analysis provides new data on the domestic terrorist threat in the United States. It asks several questions. What are the main trends in domestic terrorism in 2020 in such areas as terrorist motivation, tactics, and targets? How did 2020 compare to previous years? To answer these questions, the authors constructed a data set of terrorist attacks and plots in the United States from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020, which updated a broader CSIS data set of terrorist incidents in the United States from 1994 to 2020. 5

Based on the data, this analysis has several findings, which are discussed at greater length later in this assessment. First, white supremacists and other like-minded extremists conducted 67 percent of terrorist plots and attacks in the United States in 2020. They used vehicles, explosives, and firearms as their predominant weapons and targeted demonstrators and other individuals because of their racial, ethnic, religious, or political makeup—such as African Americans, immigrants, Muslims, and Jews. Second, there was a rise in the number of anarchist, anti-fascist, and other like-minded attacks and plots in 2020 compared to previous years, which comprised 20 percent of terrorist incidents (an increase from 8 percent in 2019). These types of extremists used explosives and incendiaries in the majority of attacks, followed by firearms. They also targeted police, military, and government personnel and facilities. Third, far-left and far-right violence was deeply intertwined—creating a classic “security dilemma.” 6 Since it is difficult to distinguish between offensive and defensive weapons, armed individuals from various sides reacted to each other during protests and riots, and each side’s efforts to protect itself and acquire weapons generally threatened others.

Despite these findings, this violence needs to be understood in historical context. The number of fatalities from terrorist attacks in the U.S. homeland is still relatively small compared to some periods in U.S. history, making it important not to overstate the threat. 7 Roughly half of the years since 1994 had a greater number of fatalities from terrorism than 2020—at least between January 1 and August 31, 2020. There were also no mass-casualty terrorist attacks, a stark contrast from such incidents as the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people; the September 2001 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people; and the June 2016 Orlando attack, which killed 49 people. Still, violence levels in the United States could rise over the next year depending on political polarization, the persistence of the Covid-19 pandemic (and reactions to policy decisions to mitigate its spread), worsening economic conditions, growing concerns about immigration (whether real or perceived), racial injustice, or other factors. It is also possible that the organizational structure of extremism could evolve from today’s decentralized landscape to include more hierarchically structured groups.

The rest of this report is divided into three sections. The first defines terrorism and differentiates this report’s focus on terrorism from other phenomena, such as hate crimes and riots. The second section outlines and analyzes the 2020 terrorism data. The third explores future developments, including the potential for violence after the 2020 presidential election.

Defining Terrorism

This report focuses on terrorism—not other issues, such as hate crimes, protests, riots, or broader civil unrest. Terrorism is the deliberate use—or threat—of violence by non-state actors in order to achieve political goals and create a broad psychological impact. 8 Violence and the threat of violence are important components of terrorism. This analysis divides terrorism into several categories: religious, ethnonationalist, violent-far-right, violent-far-left, and other (which includes terrorism that does not fit neatly into any of the other categories). 9 Terms such as far-right and far-left terrorism do not correspond to mainstream political parties in the United States, such as the Republican and Democratic parties, which eschew terrorism. Nor do they correspond to the vast majority of political conservatives and liberals in the United States, who do not support terrorism. Instead, terrorism is orchestrated by a small set of violent extremists. As terrorism scholar Walter Laqueur argues, “terrorist movements are usually small; some very small indeed, and while historians and sociologists can sometimes account for mass movements, the movements of small particles in politics as in physics often defy any explanation.” 10

Religious terrorism includes violence in support of a faith-based belief system, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism. The primary threat from religious terrorists in the United States comes from Salafi-jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. 11 Ethnonationalist terrorism refers to violence in support of ethnic or nationalist goals, which often include struggles of self-determination and separatism along ethnic or nationalist lines. Due to the relatively low levels of ethnonationalist terrorism in the United States—no such incidents occurred in 2020—this brief does not address ethnonationalist terrorism. 12 Far-right terrorism refers to the use or threat of violence by subnational or non-state entities whose goals may include racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority; anger at women, including from the involuntary celibate (or “incel”) movement; belief in certain conspiracy theories, such as QAnon; and outrage against certain policies, such as abortion. 13 Some extremists on the violent far-right have supported “accelerationism,” which includes taking actions to promote social upheaval and incite a civil war. 14 Far-left terrorism involves the use or threat of violence by subnational or non-state entities that oppose capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism; advocate black nationalism; pursue environmental or animal rights issues; espouse pro-communist or pro-socialist beliefs; or support a decentralized social and political system such as anarchism. 15 Other involves the use or threat of violence by subnational or non-state entities that do not neatly fit into any of the above categories, such as the anti-government Boogaloo movement, whose adherents aim to start a civil war (or “boogaloo”) in the United States. 16

In focusing on terrorism, this report does not cover the broader categories of hate speech or hate crimes. There is some overlap between terrorism and hate crimes, since some hate crimes include the use or threat of violence. 17 But hate crimes can also include non-violent incidents, such as graffiti and verbal abuse. Hate crimes and hate speech are obviously concerning and a threat to society, but this analysis concentrates only on terrorism and the use—or threat—of violence to achieve political objectives. In addition, this analysis does not focus on protests, looting, and broader civil disturbances. While these incidents are important to analyze—particularly in light of the events in 2020 following the death of George Floyd—most are not terrorism. Some are not violent, while others lack a political motivation. For instance, some of the looting following the death of George Floyd was perpetrated by apolitical criminals. 18 Nevertheless, coding incidents as terrorism is challenging in some cases, which is addressed in the methodology that accompanies this analysis.

Finally, while there is often a desire among government officials and academics to focus on terrorist groups and organizations , the terrorism landscape in the United States remains highly decentralized. Many are inspired by the concept of “leaderless resistance,” which rejects a centralized, hierarchical organization in favor of decentralized networks or individual activity. 19 As Kathleen Belew argues in her study of the white power movement in the United States, the aim of leaderless resistance is “to prevent the infiltration of groups, and the prosecution of organizations and individuals, by formally dissociating activists from each other and by eliminating official orders.” 20 In addition to their decentralized structures, the violent far-right and far-left in the United States include a wide range of ideologies. The decentralized nature of terrorism is particularly noteworthy regarding the use of violence, which CSIS data suggests is often planned and orchestrated by a single individual or small network. Consequently, this analysis frequently refers to terrorist individuals and networks, rather than groups.

Data Analysis

To evaluate the terrorism threat in the United States, CSIS compiled a data set of 61 incidents that occurred in the country between January 1 and August 31, 2020. (The link to the methodology can be found at the end of the brief.) These incidents included both attacks and plots. The authors coded the ideology of the perpetrators into one of four categories: religious, violent far-right, violent far-left, and other (there were no ethnonationalist attacks or plots during this period). All religious attacks and plots in the CSIS data set were committed by terrorists motivated by a Salafi-jihadist ideology. Of the four attacks coded as “other,” all were committed by adherents of the Boogaloo movement. This section analyzes the data in three parts: number of attacks and plots, targets and tactics, and fatalities.

Attacks and Plots: Most domestic terrorist attacks and plots between January 1 and August 31, 2020 were committed by white supremacists, anti-government extremists from the violent far-right, and involuntary celibates (incels). As shown in Figure 1, far-right terrorists committed 67 percent of attacks and plots, far-left terrorists committed 20 percent, and extremists with other motivations (such as supporters of the Boogaloo movement) and Salafi-jihadists each committed 7 percent.

history of homeland security research paper

In mid-January 2020, six members of The Base, a transnational white supremacist group, were arrested in Georgia and Maryland and charged with plotting terrorist attacks. 21 On May 8, the FBI arrested anti-government extremist Christian Stanley Ferguson in Cleveland, Ohio, who was planning to ambush and execute federal law enforcement officers and then start an uprising. 22 Ferguson also posted violent messages on the digital distribution platform Discord. In one of three attacks in 2020 linked to the online “manosphere,” Armando Hernandez, Jr. was arrested in Glendale, Arizona, after a shooting spree targeting couples at the Westgate Entertainment District that injured three individuals. 23

Targets and Tactics: The increase in protests and political rallies over the summer of 2020 resulted in notable changes in targets and weapons adopted by violent far-left and far-right extremists.

Actors of both orientations targeted demonstrators in a large percentage of their attacks. 24 Demonstrators were the primary targets of far-right terrorists—in 50 percent of attacks and plots—including attacks from white supremacists and others who opposed the Black Lives Matter movement. For example, on May 30 Brandon McCormick threatened Black Lives Matter protesters in Salt Lake City, Utah, with a knife and a loaded compound bow while shouting racial slurs. 25 As in previous years, violent far-right extremists frequently targeted government, military, and police targets (18 percent of incidents) and private individuals based on race, gender, and other factors (18 percent of incidents).

history of homeland security research paper

While the primary targets (58 percent) of anarchists and anti-fascists were police, government, and military personnel and institutions, 42 percent of their attacks and plots in 2020 also targeted demonstrators. These included crowds supporting the police and Donald Trump, as well as protesters against abortion. The rise in violent far-left and far-right attacks against demonstrators may have been caused by the emerging security dilemma in urban areas, where there was a combustible mix of large crowds, angry demonstrators, and weapons.

history of homeland security research paper

There was also an increase in vehicle attacks, most of which targeted demonstrators and most of which were committed by white supremacists or others who opposed the Black Lives Matter movement. On June 7, for instance, Harry H. Rogers—a member of the Ku Klux Klan—intentionally drove his blue Chevrolet pick-up truck into a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters, injuring one. 26 Rogers was later convicted and sentenced to six years in prison. From January to August 2020, vehicles were used in 11 violent far-right attacks—27 percent of all far-right terrorist incidents—narrowly making them the weapons most frequently used in far-right attacks. This marked a significant increase from 2015 to 2019, during which a vehicle was used in only one violent far-right attack. Although vehicle attacks against demonstrators were most common among white supremacists, one such attack was committed by a violent far-left perpetrator as well. On July 25, Isaiah Ray Cordova drove his sports utility vehicle into a crowd in Eaton, Colorado, which had gathered for a Defend the Police rally. 27

This spike in vehicle attacks may have been caused by the ease of using a vehicle to target large gatherings, such as protests. As a Department of Homeland Security assessment concluded, “Attacks of this nature require minimal capability, but can have a devastating impact in crowded places with low levels of visible security.” 28 While a concerning development, these vehicle attacks were not as lethal as those in such cities as Nice, France in July 2016, which killed 86 people; Barcelona in August 2017, which killed 16 people; or New York City in October 2017, which killed 8 people.

history of homeland security research paper

Explosives, incendiaries, and firearms remained common in both violent far-right and violent far-left attacks and plots, despite the increase in vehicle attacks linked to rallies and protests. Firearms were used in nearly a quarter of violent far-right incidents and were used in 34 percent of violent far-left attacks and plots. On June 6, local police arrested Brandon Moore in Coos Bay, Oregon, after he threatened protesters with a handgun while saying, “White lives matter.” 29 Meanwhile, explosives and incendiaries were used in half of far-left incidents—all of which targeted government or police property or personnel—and in 25 percent of violent far-right attacks and plots. On May 28, far-left extremists in Minneapolis, Minnesota, conducted an arson attack against the Minneapolis Police Department’s Third Precinct, as the crowd shouted “Burn it down, burn it down.” 30 The U.S. Department of Justice charged four men—Dylan Shakespeare Robinson, Davon De-Andre Turner, Bryce Michael Williams, and Branden Michael Wolfe—with conspiracy to commit arson and other crimes in the attack at the Third Precinct. 31

Overall, the data suggest that domestic terrorism evolved based on the surge in public demonstrations that began in May. These trends were not a commentary on the protests themselves, but rather on the ability of extremists to adapt to opportunities and the proximity of armed individuals in cities with different political and ideological motivations. Data compiled by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) found that out of 10,600 demonstrations between May and August, nearly 95 percent were peaceful, while approximately 5 percent—fewer than 570—involved violence.” 32

Fatalities: Despite the large number of terrorist incidents, there were only five fatalities caused by domestic terrorism in the first eight months of 2020. There were four times as many far-left terrorist incidents and the same number of far-right terrorist incidents in 2020 as in all of 2019. Yet only 5 of the 61 incidents (8 percent) recorded between January and August 2020 resulted in fatalities, excluding the perpetrator. Some of these incidents were plots foiled by the FBI or other law enforcement agencies, which suggested that law enforcement agencies were effective in preventing several major attacks. Still, the number of fatalities in 2020 was low compared to the past five years, in which total fatalities ranged from 22 to 66 fatalities. All five fatal attacks in 2020 were conducted with firearms. 33

Of the five fatal attacks—each of which resulted in the death of one individual—one was committed by an Antifa activist, one by a far-right extremist, one by an anti-feminist, and two by an adherent of the Boogaloo movement. 34 In the fatal far-left attack, Michael Reinoehl, an Antifa extremist, shot and killed Aaron “Jay” Danielson in Portland, Oregon, on August 29. 35 On July 25, Daniel Perry shot and killed a protester in Austin, Texas. 36 On July 19, anti-feminist Roy Den Hollander shot the family of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, killing her son and wounding her husband. 37 Finally, there were two fatal Boogaloo attacks in 2020. On May 29, Steven Carrillo shot and killed Pat Underwood, a protective security officer, and wounded his partner in Oakland, California. 38 Carrillo also killed a Santa Cruz County Sherriff’s Deputy in Ben Lomond, California, with an assault rifle on June 6, 2020. 39

The relatively low number of fatalities compared to the high number of terrorist incidents suggests that extremists in 2020 prioritized sending messages through intimidation and threats rather than killing. Given that a large portion of attacks were conducted with vehicles or firearms, there was a high potential for lethality—but an apparent lack of will.

Future Developments

A growing number of U.S. federal and state threat assessments have concluded that domestic terrorism could persist in the United States for the foreseeable future, including in 2021 and beyond. For example, the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness projected that “domestic extremists—primarily anarchist, anti-government, and racially motivated—will continue to manipulate national incidents” and remain a threat at least through 2021. 40 Looking toward the future, there are several issues worth monitoring.

First, there are various scenarios for a continuation—and even a rise—of violence after the November 2020 elections, which could persist into 2021 and beyond. Rising political polarization, growing economic challenges, the persistence of Covid-19, and growing concerns about immigration could lead to a rise in domestic terrorism.

The actions of far-left and far-right extremists are likely to be interlinked as various sides respond to others during protests, riots, demonstrations, and online activity. There appears to be an assumption by some extremists that others are prepared to use force, which heightens the possibility of violence. All sides have access to firearms, incendiaries, crude explosives, and other weapons, and are willing to bring them to demonstrations. This situation is a classic security dilemma. 41 Each side’s efforts to increase its own security and acquire weapons inadvertently threaten the other side. Since it may be difficult for individuals to distinguish between offensive and defensive arms, even efforts by one side to protect itself may motivate others to arm, creating a spiral of actions that leads to violence. 42 As Figure 6 highlights, domestic terrorism incidents have not been isolated to specific geographic locations, suggesting that a rise in terrorism would likely be a national problem, not a regional one. The broad scope of domestic terrorism also makes it difficult to predict where future incidents will occur.

history of homeland security research paper

In the event of a Democratic presidential victory, the threat could involve specific attacks by radicalized white supremacists, militias, and other related individuals. In these incidents, the primary weapons—particularly for fatal attacks—are likely to be firearms and explosives, as highlighted in the 2020 militia plots against the governors of Michigan and Virginia. Based on data from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the number of firearm background checks for gun purchases spiked to its highest level ever in 2020—which doubled over the past decade. 43 The pervasiveness of guns—including automatic weapons—is particularly concerning in the United States’ ultra-polarized political climate. Based on our data, the targets are likely to be demonstrators, politicians, or individuals based on their race, ethnicity, or religion—such as African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, and Jews.

In the event of a Republican presidential victory, for example, the primary threat may come from large-scale demonstrations in cities, some of which become violent. Anarchists, anti-fascists, and other far-left extremists have utilized digital platforms and other publications to argue that Donald Trump is a neo-fascist and that violence is legitimate. 44 As the Antifa-aligned journal It’s Going Down argued, “Suddenly, anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along.’” 45 A Baltimore-based Antifa activist explained the use of violence as graduated and escalating: “You fight them with fists so you don’t have to fight them with knives. You fight them with knives so you don’t have to fight them with guns. You fight them with guns so you don’t have to fight them with tanks.” 46 Anarchists, anti-fascists, and other far-left individuals and networks have increasingly used firearms—in addition to explosives and incendiary devices—in conducting attacks. In this scenario, the primary targets could be government, military, and police facilities and personnel.

Digital platforms will likely continue to be a major battlefield. Far-left extremists will likely continue to use social media platforms—such as Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter—to release propaganda and instigate violence against political opponents, law enforcement, military, and the government. 47 Many adopted slogans, such as ACAB (“all cops are bastards”), that were used in memes as part of their propaganda campaigns. Far-right extremists will likely use a multitude of mainstream platforms (such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Telegram, and Reddit), lesser-known platforms (such as Gab, Discord, Minds, and Bitchute), forums (such as Stormfront and IronForge), and other online communities to instigate violence against African Americans, Jews, immigrants, and others. 48 Extremists from all sides will likely utilize digital platforms to fundraise, communicate, issue propaganda, conduct doxing campaigns (releasing an individual’s personally identifiable information), intimidate targets, and coordinate activity.

Second, the domestic landscape could shift from a decentralized milieu of extremists to more organized and hierarchically structured groups. As one study concluded, Louis Beam’s concept of “leaderless resistance” has been “a near total failure as a method of fomenting widespread armed resistance against the U.S. government.” 49 Most effective militant organizations have established centralized organizational structures to enable their leaders to control how violence is orchestrated and how finances are secured and managed. 50

In the United States, there are a handful of groups—such as The Base, the Atomwaffen Division (including rebranded versions such as the National Socialist Order), and the Feuerkrieg Division—with some leadership structure and command-and-control arrangements. There are also loose extremist movements that have a limited structure—especially in local areas or online—but lack a clear hierarchy and ideology. Examples include the Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, Boogaloos, QAnon, and some local networks of anarchists, anti-fascists, and militias. There have been some indications of greater organization, including the establishment of online hubs, such as MyMilitia, that provide a venue for individuals to find existing militias in the United States—or even to start their own. 51

A shift toward more hierarchical groups could have at least two implications. It could increase the competence and professionalism of these organizations in numerous areas, such as planning attacks, recruiting, training, improving operational security, and fundraising. In the 1960s and 1970s, extremists in the United States established more centralized groups—such as the Order, Mau Mau, and White Knights—to improve their effectiveness. 52 But research on terrorist and other militant groups indicates that centralized groups are more vulnerable to penetration by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 53

Fortunately, there is some good news. The number of fatalities from domestic terrorism today is relatively low, and the possibility of a civil war—which some experts have worried about and some extremists have predicted—is negligible. 54 The United States has endured more violent periods in the past. Examples include a surge in white supremacist terrorism in the 1950s and 1960s (such as the Ku Klux Klan), black nationalist violence in the 1960s (such as the Black Liberation Army), revolutionary leftist violence in the 1960s and 1970s (such as the Weather Underground), and Puerto Rican nationalist violence in the late-1960s and 1970s (such as the Armed Forces of National Liberation, or FALN). 55 In addition, the United States faced serious threats from Salafi-jihadists after September 11, 2001—such as Najibullah Zazi, Faisal Shahzad, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Nidal Hasan, Omar Mateen, and Mohammed Alshamrani—who perpetrated or plotted mass-casualty attacks.

But the United States weathered these periods thanks to the resilience of Americans and the effectiveness of U.S. law enforcement, intelligence, and other national security agencies. During his second inaugural address, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln said it best in encouraging Americans to come together during divisive times:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish, a just and lasting peace, among ourselves and with all nations. 56

President Lincoln’s words are just as relevant today.

Seth G. Jones is the Harold Brown Chair and director of the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Catrina Doxsee is a program manager and research associate with the Transnational Threats Project at CSIS. Nicholas Harrington is a program manager and research associate with the Transnational Threats Project at CSIS. Grace Hwang is a research assistant with the Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS. James Suber is a research associate with the Transnational Threats Project at CSIS.

The authors give special thanks to Brian Michael Jenkins, Colin Clarke, Jacob Ware, and Alex Friedland for their review of the document—including the data set—and their helpful critiques. Also, thanks to David Brannan and Paul Smith for their comments.

For an overview of the methodology used in compiling the data set, please see here .

This brief is made possible by general support to CSIS. No direct sponsorship contributed to this brief.

CSIS Briefs   are produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). 

© 2020 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Please consult the PDF for references.

Seth G. Jones

Seth G. Jones

Catrina Doxsee

Catrina Doxsee

James suber, grace hwang, nicholas harrington, programs & projects.

  • Degree Completion Plans
  • Course Guides
  • Supplemental Instruction
  • IT Helpdesk
  • Academic Departments
  • Doctoral Degrees
  • Communications
  • Criminal Justice
  • Public Policy
  • Strategic Leadership
  • Worship Studies
  • More Programs >
  • Masters Degrees
  • Applied Psychology
  • Business Administration
  • Clinical Mental Health Counseling
  • Executive Leadership
  • Healthcare Administration
  • Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Social Work
  • Bachelor's Degrees
  • Graphic Design
  • Information Technology
  • Paralegal Studies
  • Sports Management
  • Associate Degrees
  • Christian Counseling
  • Creative Writing
  • Early Childhood Education
  • Information Systems
  • Interdisciplinary Studies
  • Medical Office Assistant
  • STEM Mathematics
  • Undergraduate
  • Christian Ministry
  • Data Networking
  • Project Management
  • Biblical Studies
  • Educational Tech. & Online Instruction
  • General Business
  • Health Promotion
  • Theological Studies
  • Curriculum and Instruction
  • Instructional Design
  • Higher Ed. Administration
  • Special Education
  • New Programs
  • Biblical Counseling (BS)
  • Chaplaincy (MA)
  • Christian Leadership – Faith-Based Consulting (PhD)
  • Educational Research (PhD)
  • Fire Administration – Emergency Medical Services (BS)
  • Geographic Information Systems – Commercial Logistics (MS)
  • Healthcare Law and Compliance (MBA)
  • Instructional Design and Technology (EdS)
  • Interdisciplinary Research (MA)
  • International Relations – Human Rights (MS)
  • Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (BS)
  • Special Education (EdD)
  • Who Are We?
  • Our Three A's
  • Virtual Tour of Liberty's Campus
  • What is a Nonprofit University?
  • Why Choose Liberty?
  • Accreditation
  • Top 10 Reasons to Choose Liberty University
  • Video Testimonials
  • Annual Security Report
  • Annual Security Report 2023
  • Admission Information
  • Getting Started With Liberty
  • Admission Process
  • Admission FAQs
  • Academic Calendar
  • Admission Resources
  • Common Forms and Documents
  • Technical Requirements
  • Official Transcript Request Form
  • Textbooks and Software
  • Transferring to Liberty
  • Transfer Students
  • Experience Plus – Credit for Life Experience
  • Transfer FAQs
  • University Transcript Request Links
  • Tuition Assistance
  • First Responder Discount
  • Military Tuition Discount
  • Small Business Discount
  • Corporate Tuition Assistance
  • Corporate Tuition Affiliates
  • Financial Basics
  • Tuition & Fees
  • Payment Plans
  • Military Benefits
  • Financial Check-In
  • Financial Aid
  • Financial Aid Process
  • Financial Aid FAQs
  • Grants & Loans
  • Scholarship Opportunities
  • Military Homepage
  • Military Benefits Guide
  • Discount on Tuition
  • Doctoral Military Rate
  • Veterans Benefits
  • Academics and Programs
  • Military Programs and Partnerships
  • Military Benefits and Scholarships
  • Community and Resources
  • Top Used Links
  • Upcoming Events
  • Academic Advising
  • Jerry Falwell Library
  • Policies and Deadlines
  • Liberty University Academic Calendar Online
  • Academic Policies
  • Information Technology (IT)
  • Online Writing Center
  • Honor Societies
  • Student Advocate Office
  • Flames Pass (Student ID)
  • Online Student Life
  • Office of Disability Accommodation Support
  • Commonly Used Forms
  • learn.liberty.edu

Homeland Security Organization & Administration – HLSC 510

CG • Section 8WK • 11/08/2019 to 04/16/2020 • Modified 09/05/2023

Request Info

Course Description

This course will examine the evolution of Homeland Security as a concept, a legal framework, a redirection of national policies and priorities and also the actual implementation and creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The course provides an overview of the history of terrorist threats and U.S. responses and an introduction to the fundamental policy legislation and documents, such as national security strategies, homeland security directives, the National Response Framework (NRF), and National Incident Management System (NIMS).

For information regarding prerequisites for this course, please refer to the  Academic Course Catalog .

The purpose of this course is to analyze core policy, procedures, and legislation which create and build upon the foundation of homeland security.

Course Assignment

Textbook readings and lecture presentations/notes

Course Requirements Checklist

After reading the Course Syllabus and Student Expectations , the student will complete the related checklist found in the Course Overview.

Discussion Assignments (8)

Discussions are collaborative learning experiences. Therefore, the student is required to provide a thread in response to the provided topic for each discussion. Each thread is to be at least 750 words, cite at least 2 sources, and demonstrate course-related knowledge. In addition to the thread, the student is required to reply to 2 other classmates’ threads. Each reply must be at least 250 words and supported with literature.

Research Paper: History of Homeland Security Assignment

The student will complete a Research Paper which will provide an in-depth and detailed chronological history of homeland security before it was considered homeland security. In other words, describe what used to be in place for homeland security from the founding of the country up to when it became about civil defense. This section might be brief. Then cover the civil defense period in more detail. Finally, cover the period from 9/11 forward. Another way of viewing this timeline is from the founding to WWII, then post WWII to 9/11, then forward. Be sure to discuss emergency management (mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery issues) and homeland security (same as emergency management subtopics but also national security strategies, intelligence, counterterrorism, etc.). There is much to be covered in each time period: legal framework, policy development, Acts, laws, Preparedness directives, executive orders, and case law, etc. Consider the founding fathers and their documents as well. Consider Biblical foundations as well. The student will write at minimum a 5-full page research-oriented paper in current APA format. The paper must include at least 5 sources (not including the class textbook and the Bible) and the textbook and Bible. The paper will be submitted through Turnitin.

Research Paper: History of Terrorism Assignment

The student will complete a Research Paper which will provide an in-depth and detailed chronological history of terrorism as it pertains to the United States be it domestic or international be the activity on U.S. soil or abroad. The timeline will start with the founding of the country. You may create the timeline as you wish but you might consider from founding to WWI, post WWI to 1989 or 1990, then from 1990 onward or you may wish to create one more milestone that begins in 1990 to 9/11 then post 9/11. Be sure to cover types of terrorism, tactics, event history – growth and development, issues, and our responses, national security strategies or tactics for each era. Describe the linkage / responsibilities between local, state, and federal involvement. You do not need to go into detail on each group or type but do need to illustrate the types of groups etc. Discuss biblical relevance as well. The student will write at minimum a 5-full page research-oriented paper in current APA format. The paper must include at least 5 sources (not including the class textbook and the Bible) also use the textbook and Bible. The paper will be submitted through Turnitin.

PowerPoint Presentation: Governor Briefing Assignment

A new governor has come into office and was told you were the best out there on homeland security and emergency management. This governor is a novice in this area and badly needs to get up to speed quickly. He or she has asked you to provide a detailed briefing to him or her and the executive staff / cabinet heads. Your assignment is to brief the governor and staff on all things they need to know right away regarding homeland security and emergency management. Be sure to cover applicable homeland security and presidential directives, the National Response Framework (NRF), National Incident Management System (NIMS), and Incident Command System (ICS). Cover applicable Acts such as the Stafford Act etc. Also, be sure to explain and show the linkage / relationship between local, state, and federal involvement. You want to make sure the governor and staff are ready for any emergency that occurs. The student will summarize his or her findings in an audio/visual PPT presentation. The student will use PowerPoint (PPT) Mix, which may be turned into a Windows Media Video (WMV), to present and record his or her information. A minimum of fifteen content slides are required not including the cover and reference slides. The student will at the minimum use the same headings as listed previously in these instructions. The presentation needs to be at least ten minutes long and should last no more than 30 minutes maximum. References will be included on the last slide. Once submitted for grading the student will email his or her PPT video to the rest of the class for their review. The student does not have to show him or herself in the video unless they wish to.

Almost there! How may we contact you?

Our Admissions team is ready to answer any additional questions you may have.

By submitting contact information through this form, I agree that Liberty University and its affiliates may call and/or text me about its offerings by any phone number I have provided and may provide in the future, including any wireless number, using automated technology.

Message and data rates may apply. For additional information, text HELP to 49595 or 49596. You may opt-out at any time by sending STOP to 49595 or 49596. Visit for Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

  • Get My Results

Discover what Liberty can do for you!

Get your personalized guide on how to start with liberty..

In 60 seconds or less!

Become a Champion for Christ

Estimate your Cost

Cost Per Credit Hour Per Semester for 7 to 15 Credits* Per Semester for 9 to 15 Credits* i Visit the Tuition and Financing page for more information.

Additional program fees may apply. See program page for details.

Disclaimer: This calculator is a tool that provides a rough estimate of the total cost of tuition, and should not be relied upon to determine overall costs, as pricing may vary by program and tuition/fees are subject to change. Estimates are not final or binding, and do not include potential financial aid eligibility.

Your Cost Estimate:

View All Tuition & Fees Go Back

For eligibility requirements for military discounts at the doctoral level, please review the online benefits page .

Request Information

Learn More About Liberty University Online

You will be automatically taken to the application once you submit your request for information

Message and data rates may apply. For additional information, text HELP to 49595 or 49596. You may opt-out at any time by sending STOP to 49595 or 49596. Visit for Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

You have to have a lot of self-motivation and self-discipline when you are going to school online, but the amazing thing is at Liberty you do not need to do it by yourself. You really do have resources like someone who is going to school on campus.

– Janae Fleming ’15, B.S. in Education

Homeland Security Digital Library

Collections →

Naval postgraduate school theses & research reports, refine results.

  • {{item.name}} {{item.count}}
  • =(Math.ceil(total/rows)-4)" v-for="n in [-2,-1,0,1,2,3]"> (Math.ceil(total/rows)-4))?(Math.ceil(total/rows)-4)+n:page+n)" :class="{currentpage:page==((page>(Math.ceil(total/rows)-4))?(Math.ceil(total/rows)-4)+n:page+n)}">{{((page>(Math.ceil(total/rows)-4))?(Math.ceil(total/rows)-4)+n:page+n)}}
  • {{Math.ceil(total/rows)}}
  • Math.ceil(total/rows)?page:(page+1)))" v-if="page

{{total}} Results

More collections.

history of homeland security research paper

General U.S. Policy Documents

history of homeland security research paper

Exercises and Lessons Learned

history of homeland security research paper

Presidential Documents

history of homeland security research paper

Congressional Hearings & Testimony

Privacy overview.

The History of Homeland Security

Approximately 11 hours to complete

Earn a record of completion

Long-form content and interactive media

Course Overview

This course considers the emergence, development, and implications of the modern homeland security enterprise. Users will be asked to consider what “homeland security” is, as well as challenged to critically assess many popular notions about the homeland security enterprise. The course primarily focuses on the U.S. experience with homeland security, but it situates the discipline within broader international forces—in particular globalization—that are shaping the operating environment and threats with which homeland security practitioners must contend.

The course begins with a strategic overview of the United States’ approach to the issues of public safety that are now grouped under the term “homeland security,” which represent threats to civilians that do not stem directly from actual or potential military action by foreign nation-states. The course then provides a strategic overview of globalization and how it has challenged the government’s approach to security issues and shaped the contours of the modern threat environment. With that background, the course shifts to consider the emergence of the modern homeland security framework through a review of the searing lessons of the 9/11 attacks and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security that resulted. The course concludes with a series of modules examining the key threats to homeland security that have resulted in the enterprise’s principal mission areas: natural disasters and emergency management; migration management and border security; critical infrastructure and cybersecurity; infectious disease and public health; terrorism; and transnational organized crime. The course concludes with a discussion about the possible futures for homeland security.

Throughout this course, users will be asked to consider various viewpoints concerning key homeland security issues. A reoccurring theme will be the appropriate balance of homeland security functions and responsibilities among the federal government and state and local authorities, and between homeland security agencies and traditional law enforcement agencies. The course also considers alternative perspectives around the proper legal and policy approach to balance security with liberty, privacy, and civil rights. Finally, the course raises the international dimensions of homeland security and its place with respect to the traditional government focus on national security and foreign policy.

history of homeland security research paper

Module 1: Historical Homeland Security and Civil Defense

history of homeland security research paper

Module 2: Origins of the Modern Homeland Security Enterprise

history of homeland security research paper

Module 3: International Terrorism, the Shock of 9/11, and the Enduring Terror Threat

history of homeland security research paper

Module 4: The Formation of the Department of Homeland Security

history of homeland security research paper

Module 5: Hurricane Katrina and the New Era of Natural Disasters

history of homeland security research paper

Module 6: Twentieth Century Immigration Systems Meet Twenty-First Century Migration

history of homeland security research paper

Module 7: Critical Infrastructure and Law Enforcement in the Cyber Age

history of homeland security research paper

Module 8: Infectious Disease, the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the Future of Civilian Safety

history of homeland security research paper

Module 9: The Future of Homeland Security

About the instructors.

The instructors are partners at New Macro Risks , a business intelligence firm providing strategic insights into today’s most pressing homeland security challenges.

history of homeland security research paper

Alan Bersin has held numerous high-level positions at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Justice. Most recently, after serving as the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Bersin served as the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Chief Diplomatic Officer for DHS. Previously, he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. He also served as a Vice President for the Americas and on the Executive Committee of INTERPOL. Bersin is a Global Fellow with the Wilson Center and a Senior Fellow with the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School.

history of homeland security research paper

Nate Bruggeman held senior policy positions at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection addressing border security, law enforcement intelligence, and U.S.-Mexico engagement. He has also had a distinguished legal career, most recently at the Colorado Department of Law and previously in private practice. Bruggeman is a Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center’s Homeland Security Project and the Executive Editor of its Homeland Security Policy Paper Series.

history of homeland security research paper

Ben Rohrbaugh has been at the forefront of border and supply chain security and advancing U.S.-Mexico relations for over a decade. Rohrbaugh held senior policy positions at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and he was a Director on the White House’s National Security Council where he developed policy on border and supply chain security issues. Rohrbaugh is currently a Fellow at the Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas-Austin, and he is the author of the acclaimed More or Less Afraid of Nearly Everything: Homeland Security, Borders, and Disasters in the Twenty-first Century .

Course Content

  • Free Samples
  • Premium Essays
  • Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
  • Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
  • Essay Writing Help
  • About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
  • Studentshare
  • The Department of HomeLand Security

The Department of HomeLand Security - Research Paper Example

The Department of HomeLand Security

  • Subject: History
  • Type: Research Paper
  • Level: Undergraduate
  • Pages: 6 (1500 words)
  • Downloads: 2
  • Author: kristy18

Extract of sample "The Department of HomeLand Security"

White (2011) asserts that, following the 2001, September 11th attacks, the United States government strived to intensify security and protect the international borders. As a result, the government formed the department of homeland security, which became operational on 24th January 2003. This department came into being when the Homeland Security act of 2002 was passed into law by the Senate. Since its formation, this department has become the third largest department in the cabinet. It ranks third after Department of that of Veteran affairs.

The Senate enacted the homeland Security act of 2002. The Department of Homeland Security can be regarded as one of the executive departments, under title 5 of the United States code. President George W. Bush directed the advisor of homeland security to study the federal government. The main aim for doing this was to establish whether the existent structure could meet the threats of terrorist attacks. Following a keen study of the security structure, the president concluded that America needed a unified structure of Homeland Security.

This gave rise to the formation of Homeland Security, with the mandate of improving security (Borgeson and Valeri, 2009). Arguments raised included America’s vast technological advancement that provided the country with an added advantage to have the department. This prompted the government to come up with the department. Therefore, the formation of the Department resulted from the numerous security threats to the United States. According to Maniscalco and Christen (2010), the department’s mission entails prevention of terrorist attacks within the United States.

Homeland security also aims at countering any probable terrorist attacks by decreasing vulnerability to terrorism. Additionally, the department has the mandate to lessen damage, which might be caused by terrorist attacks. Homeland security does this by assisting and engaging in efforts of recovery resulting

  • Cited: 0 times
  • Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF The Department of HomeLand Security

Criminal justice and homeland security, goals and objectives of the department of homeland security, natures response to climate change, homeland security and child pornography, technology functioning under the department of homeland security, the establishment of the department of homeland security, united states federal agency under the control of the department of homeland security, fusion centre - the department of homeland security.

history of homeland security research paper

  • TERMS & CONDITIONS
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • COOKIES POLICY

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Cryptography and Security

Title: an interview study on third-party cyber threat hunting processes in the u.s. department of homeland security.

Abstract: Cybersecurity is a major challenge for large organizations. Traditional cybersecurity defense is reactive. Cybersecurity operations centers keep out adversaries and incident response teams clean up after break-ins. Recently a proactive stage has been introduced: Cyber Threat Hunting (TH) looks for potential compromises missed by other cyber defenses. TH is mandated for federal executive agencies and government contractors. As threat hunting is a new cybersecurity discipline, most TH teams operate without a defined process. The practices and challenges of TH have not yet been documented. To address this gap, this paper describes the first interview study of threat hunt practitioners. We obtained access and interviewed 11 threat hunters associated with the U.S. government's Department of Homeland Security. Hour-long interviews were conducted. We analyzed the transcripts with process and thematic coding.We describe the diversity among their processes, show that their processes differ from the TH processes reported in the literature, and unify our subjects' descriptions into a single TH process.We enumerate common TH challenges and solutions according to the subjects. The two most common challenges were difficulty in assessing a Threat Hunter's expertise, and developing and maintaining automation. We conclude with recommendations for TH teams (improve planning, focus on automation, and apprentice new members) and highlight directions for future work (finding a TH process that balances flexibility and formalism, and identifying assessments for TH team performance).

Submission history

Access paper:.

  • Download PDF
  • Other Formats

license icon

References & Citations

  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

BibSonomy logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

  • Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

  • International edition
  • Australia edition
  • Europe edition

Alejandro Mayorkas arrives for a news conference about security in Las Vegas, Nevada, on 7 February

First Thing: US House impeaches homeland security secretary

In a historic move the US House of Representatives voted to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas on explicitly political charges related to conditions at the southern border. Plus, the rise of romance novel bookstores

Good morning.

The US House of Representatives on Tuesday impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, Joe Biden’s secretary of homeland security, on explicitly political charges related to conditions at the southern border. Mayorkas is the first to face such punishment in more than 150 years.

The tight 214-213 vote comes amid an unprecedented situation at the US-Mexico border: there has been a surge in the number of encounters , with arrivals coming in record numbers despite more perilous journeys.

Last week, Republicans in the Senate sank an immigration and border deal – proposed after extensive negotiations with Democrats – after Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee, made his opposition clear.

How did Mayorkas respond? He told NBC that Republicans’ allegations against him were “baseless”, which was why he was not distracted by them. “I’m focused on the work of the Department of Homeland Security. I’m inspired every single day by the remarkable work that 216,000 men and women in our department perform on behalf of the American public.”

And Joe Biden? “History will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that has targeted an honorable public servant in order to play petty political games,” the US president said.

Hamas delegation heads to Cairo as Israeli negotiators leave

A bearded man in a cap stands before the heavily damaged Al-Huda Mosque against the backdrop of a blue sky. Within the rubble of the mosque, children have lined up to look at the damage left behind

A delegation led by the Israeli intelligence chief David Barnea left Cairo on Tuesday just as a Hamas source told the news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP) that its own delegation was heading there to meet Egyptian and Qatari mediators.

The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, an outspoken critic of Israel’s conduct during the Gaza war, was also due in Cairo on Wednesday for talks with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Barnea met the CIA director, William Burns, in the Egyptian capital for talks on a Qatari-brokered plan to temporarily halt fighting in Gaza, but departed without closing any of the major gaps in the negotiations.

In other news …

Democrat Tom Suozzi wins seat formerly held by George Santos – video

The Democrat Tom Suozzi won the New York congressional seat vacated by the disgraced Republican George Santos on Tuesday night, in a victory that narrows the slim Republican majority in the House.

An elderly man has died from Alaskapox, the first known fatality from the recently discovered virus that is related to smallpox, cowpox and mpox.

The EU is proposing to place sanctions on companies in mainland China for the first time for aiding Russia in its war in Ukraine.

Ukraine claims to have severely damaged and sunk a Russian landing ship in its latest drone attack against Moscow’s Black Sea fleet.

Scientists have discovered a jab that could prevent rheumatoid arthritis (RA) , a development experts say could offer hope to millions at risk of the disease.

Stat of the day: 1.6% of Greenland’s total ice cover has melted

A woman in a black shirt and jeans stands on a grassy expanse, looking across the barren rock, wetlands and shrub growth that exist where Greenland’s ice once was

Over the past three decades, an estimated 11,000 sq miles of Greenland’s ice sheet and glaciers have melted , an area equivalent to the size of Albania. Areas of Greenland’s melted ice sheet are now producing vegetation, risking increased greenhouse gas emissions, rising sea levels and instability of the landscape.

Don’t miss this: The US military is embedding in the gaming world

A drawing depicting a young, dark-haired teenage boy with red sneakers and a helmet, sitting in a gaming chair with a controller in his hands, as the shadow of combat camouflage washes over him

Amid a recruitment struggle, the US military is using hits such as Fortnite as marketing tools , with uniformed personnel playing video games in hopes of inspiring the young gamers on the other end of their headsets and screens. Some veterans see the practice as unethical, especially given the age of the gaming audience.

“I can’t tell someone that they can’t join, especially if you’re in a precarious financial situation. But people need to be able to understand what they’re getting into,” said Kaitlynn Considine, a former marines linguist and member of Gamers for Peace. “No matter what your job is, you are supposed to help the military kill. You might not ever pull a trigger, but you’re still part of that mission.”

… or this: The rise of romance novel bookstores

A brunette, bespectacled woman wearing a sage green shirt, jeans and white sneakers stands before the Meet Cute romance novel bookstore in San Diego. The Meet Cute store is painted light lavender and has a decorative waist-level white picket fence in front of the shop. The Meet Cute sign is in shades of light tangerine

Just in time for Valentine’s Day: romance novel bookstores have opened across the US and North America, in a quiet but rapidly growing trend . Six years ago, there was only one romance bookstore in the US, but at least eight others have opened since, from Wichita, Kansas, to Belfast, Maine, and another is planned in Portland, Oregon.

“Gen Z, they’re more open, they’re bolder, they’re more willing to be vulnerable. I think it’s giving us millennials, and also the baby boomers that love romance, more permission to love those things out loud,” said Jonlyn Scrogham, who opened A Novel Romance in Louisville, Kentucky, last year. “I think we’re undoing generations of guilt and shame.”

Climate check: The ancient Italian tradition facing extinction

In a black and white photo from 1951, more than a dozen men, most in caps and some shirtless, stand slightly leaning as they hold onto nets submerged in the ocean. Some women stand close behind the men, with one dark-hair woman looking directly at the camera

A tonnara is Italy’s version of an ancient Mediterrranean fishing custom, which traps and harvests bluefin tuna in an intimate, gruesome struggle known in Italian as the mattanza . Italy’s tonnare is facing extinction , but surprisingly not due to a lack of fish. EU regulations have helped tuna numbers recover over the past decade after the practice was threatened in the early 2000s by a collapse in tuna populations due to commercial overfishing – but now those same EU regulations are harming small fishing companies, with quota distributions going instead to larger companies, making it illegal for many small fishers in Italy to catch tuna.

Last Thing: Checking in at the Heartbreak Hotel

A composite photo of Whitney Houston crooning into a microphone, Jim Croce strumming a guitar and Candi Staton also with a microphone

Now for the flip side of Valentine’s Day: Guardian writers have put together a round-up of their favorite breakup songs . The list has everything from Fleetwood Mac and Guns N’ Roses to Arctic Monkeys. “It’s pathetic, petulant, pleading,” writes Michael Sun of his favorite breakup song, by Third Eye Blind. “In other words: exactly how a breakup feels.”

First Thing is delivered to thousands of inboxes every weekday. If you’re not already signed up, subscribe now .

Get in touch

If you have any questions or comments about any of our newsletters please email [email protected]

  • First Thing newsletter

Most viewed

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) An Empirical Study of the Evolution of Homeland Security

    history of homeland security research paper

  2. (DOC) National Security, Homeland Security (original version, as

    history of homeland security research paper

  3. (DOC) Homeland Security in the Northeast: Better or Worse

    history of homeland security research paper

  4. Homeland Security Memo

    history of homeland security research paper

  5. Research Paper #1 Complete.docx

    history of homeland security research paper

  6. HLSC 510 Research Paper 1.docx

    history of homeland security research paper

COMMENTS

  1. PDF Assessing the Effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security, 20

    Erik J. Dahl1 November 7, 2021 This paper assesses the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the larger United States homeland security enterprise in detecting and preventing terrorist attacks. Has DHS been successful in its mission of counterterrorism? Has it prevented terrorist attacks?

  2. PDF The U.S. Secret Service: History and Missions

    The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has two missions—criminal investigations and protection.1 Criminal investigation activities encompass financial crimes, identity theft, counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications ...

  3. Homeland Security: Concepts, Definitions, and Evolution

    First Online: 13 March 2022 37 Accesses Abstract This chapter describes the efforts to define "homeland security" from the 1950s to the present day. Definitions embedded in the missions, vision statements, and goals of homeland security institutions are examined using key government documents, reports, and directives.

  4. History

    History The Department of Homeland Security was established in 2002, combining 22 different federal departments and agencies into a unified, integrated Cabinet agency. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security A summary of historical laws and regulations constructing and modifying the existing Department of Homeland Security. Creation

  5. PDF The DoD Role in Homeland Security: Past, Present, and Future

    The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the ... homeland security expectations set in 2002 are examined to evaluate how well issues were defined and ... This analysis leverages learning from history by filtering past circumstances

  6. PDF HISTORY AND POLICY Defining Homeland Security distribute

    Although originally configured to describe national responses to domestic terrorist incidents in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, homeland security was conceptually expanded after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to include preparedness and recovery from natural and hazard-related incidents.

  7. Homeland Security

    11 January 2018 Split View Annotate Cite Permissions Share Abstract The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 caused a seismic shift in how the United States organizes and executes the mission of securing the homeland. The creation and growth of the Department of Homeland Security is the most visible manifestation of this change.

  8. The Department of Homeland Security: Background and Challenges

    The result was a series of U.S. commissions in the late 1990s that looked at differing aspects of U.S. national security, including the threat of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism—the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Gilmore Commission, and the National Commission on Terrorism.

  9. History of homeland security in the United States

    Coastal Defense 1800-1945 Fort McHenry in Baltimore harbor, typifies an early seacoast defense system prior to the War of 1812, with low earthworks. These cannons were added in late 19th century/ The defense of its coasts was a major concern from 1776 onward. [1]

  10. Homeland Security: A Compendium of Public and Private Organizations

    Price. Add to Cart. Paperback 68 pages. $25.00. The new Department of Homeland Security is faced with the task of meeting the ambitious goals set out for it by the Bush Administration. This paper provides a compendium of past recommendations from various public and private organizations on how the new department might achieve those goals.

  11. Homeland security research opportunities

    Homeland security research has gone through a significant transformation since the events of September 11, 2001, and continues to evolve. This article identifies opportunities that the industrial engineering and operations research communities can seize. By drawing together insights from thought leaders in these communities, a path outlining ...

  12. The War Comes Home: The Evolution of Domestic Terrorism in the ...

    The number of fatalities from terrorist attacks in the U.S. homeland is still relatively small compared to some periods in U.S. history, making it important not to overstate the threat. 7 Roughly half of the years since 1994 had a greater number of fatalities from terrorism than 2020—at least between January 1 and August 31, 2020. There were ...

  13. PDF What's in a Name? The Meaning of Homeland Security

    After setting the stage with an overview of national security and a summary of the evolution of modern homeland security, this article discusses official and nongovernmental efforts to develop an agreed meaning of this concept; investigates the scope of homeland security; explores the need for a definition; and covers the role of homeland defense.

  14. Research

    Science and Technology Research & Development Research & Development The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) fosters the tools, technologies, and knowledge products needed to secure our nation. S&T's research and development is driven by the Department of Homeland Security's core mission areas.

  15. Homeland Security Research

    IDA's nearly 50-year history of addressing the greatest challenges facing the nation has always included the broader inter-agency community supporting homeland and national security efforts; and State, local, and private sector homeland security partners. IDA's research leverages its operational and analytical expertise, trusted ...

  16. Homeland Security Organization & Administration

    Research Paper: History of Homeland Security Assignment. The student will complete a Research Paper which will provide an in-depth and detailed chronological history of homeland security before it ...

  17. Naval Postgraduate School Theses & Research Reports

    It does not store any personal data. The HSDL, a service of the Center for Homeland Defense and Security at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), highlights NPS theses and research reports related to homeland security.

  18. Border Security: A Comprehensive Review of the United Statesâ•Ž

    of drug violence and immigration perspectives in creating legislation. This paper will seek to describe a more comprehensive and contemporary border policy that utilizes technology and more inclusive policy while still upholding prevention of danger on America's homeland. 1 Pacheco: Border Security: A Comprehensive Review of the United States ...

  19. The History of Homeland Security

    The course primarily focuses on the U.S. experience with homeland security, but it situates the discipline within broader international forces—in particular globalization—that are shaping the operating environment and threats with which homeland security practitioners must contend. The course begins with a strategic overview of the United ...

  20. PDF Study on Mobile Device Security

    Dr. Robert P. Griffin, Jr. Under Secretary (Acting) for Science and Technology Executive Summary Threats to the Government's use of mobile devices are real and exist across all elements of the mobile ecosystem.

  21. Full article: Research on Terrorism, 2007-2016: A Review of Data

    ABSTRACT. Research on terrorism has long been criticized for its inability to overcome enduring methodological issues. These include an overreliance on secondary sources and the associated literature review methodology, a scarcity of statistical analyses, a tendency for authors to work alone rather than collaborate with colleagues, and the large number of one-time contributors to the field.

  22. The Department of HomeLand Security Research Paper

    Author: kristy18 Extract of sample "The Department of HomeLand Security" Download file to see previous pages White (2011) asserts that, following the 2001, September 11th attacks, the United States government strived to intensify security and protect the international borders.

  23. Research Paper History of Homeland Security .docx

    HLSC 510 2 Homeland Security founded The Office of Homeland Security was established on October 8, 2001. Presently, a bureau division, Homeland Security is currently probably the biggest organ of the national gov- ernment, accused of forestalling dread assaults, line security, settlements and customs, disaster help and avoidance and other related assignments.

  24. History of Homeland Security Research.docx

    HISTORY OF HOMELAND SECURITY 2 History of Homeland Security The reason we make it to church on Sunday morning, wake up for work every day, and get to love the ones we do. Homeland Security has a long history of defending the patriots of this country and those who support it. The intentions of this paper are to report the history of homeland security, the critical events that have led us to ...

  25. [2402.12252] An Interview Study on Third-Party Cyber Threat Hunting

    Download a PDF of the paper titled An Interview Study on Third-Party Cyber Threat Hunting Processes in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, by William P. Maxam III and James C. Davis ... We obtained access and interviewed 11 threat hunters associated with the U.S. government's Department of Homeland Security. Hour-long interviews were ...

  26. First Thing: US House impeaches homeland security secretary

    The US House of Representatives on Tuesday impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, Joe Biden's secretary of homeland security, on explicitly political charges related to conditions at the southern border.