Skip to main content
Friday, September 11, 2026 AI-Powered Newsroom — All facts, no faction
PB

Political Bytes

Where the left meets the right in an unbiased dialogue
Policy & Law

Former DHS Chiefs Call for New Public Safety Agency on Sept. 11 Anniversary

Michael Chertoff and Jeh Johnson argue the current Department of Homeland Security structure requires significant reform to address modern threats.

Chiefs Call — Pentagon-Papers-Part IV. C. 7. a
Photo: Pentagon-Department of Defense (Public domain) via Wikimedia Commons
⚡ The Bottom Line

The call for a new public safety agency marks a rare bipartisan consensus among former high-ranking officials on the need for structural reform within the DHS. While the proposal highlights concerns about mission drift, any legislative effort to reorganize the department would face significant hurdles in Congress. The discussion comes at a time when national security priorities remain a central...

Read full analysis ↓

Former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretaries Michael Chertoff and Jeh Johnson have called for the establishment of a new public safety agency to replace or significantly restructure the current department. The proposal, outlined in a joint interview with NBC News, coincides with the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Chertoff, who served as the second DHS Secretary under President George W. Bush, and Johnson, who served as the fourth Secretary under President Barack Obama, argued that the agency's original mission has been diluted by its current operational scope. They stated that the DHS has become too focused on immigration enforcement at the expense of its broader counterterrorism and emergency preparedness mandates.

What the Left Is Saying

Progressive advocates and former Democratic officials have largely supported the critique of the DHS's current operational priorities. Many on the left have long argued that the department's expansion of immigration detention and border enforcement capabilities has overshadowed its core public safety functions, such as cybersecurity and disaster response. Advocacy groups have frequently cited the need to separate immigration enforcement from homeland security to prevent the militarization of domestic policing. This perspective aligns with Johnson’s tenure, during which efforts were made to refine immigration policies within the existing framework.

What the Right Is Saying

Conservative commentators and former Republican officials have expressed skepticism regarding the proposal to dismantle or significantly alter the DHS structure. Critics on the right argue that consolidating border security, counterterrorism, and emergency management under one roof provides necessary coordination that would be lost in a fragmented system. Many conservatives view the emphasis on immigration enforcement as a necessary fulfillment of the department's mandate to secure the nation's borders against both traditional and non-traditional threats. They contend that the current leadership's focus is appropriate given the ongoing concerns regarding national sovereignty and border integrity.

What the Numbers Show

The Department of Homeland Security was established in 2002, merging 22 different federal departments and agencies into a single cabinet-level department. It currently employs approximately 240,000 people, making it the third-largest federal agency after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The DHS annual budget has consistently exceeded $50 billion in recent fiscal years, with significant portions allocated to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The creation of the department followed the 9/11 Commission Report, which recommended a unified approach to homeland security.

The Bottom Line

The call for a new public safety agency marks a rare bipartisan consensus among former high-ranking officials on the need for structural reform within the DHS. While the proposal highlights concerns about mission drift, any legislative effort to reorganize the department would face significant hurdles in Congress. The discussion comes at a time when national security priorities remain a central focus of federal policy, and it is unclear whether current administration officials will entertain a structural overhaul.

Sources