White House aims to fold DHS’ main intel arm into secretary’s office

One year after Congress blunted deep cuts to the Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security, the Trump administration is trying to merge the unit into the office of the DHS secretary.

The administration’s 2027 budget proposal outlines a plan to combine I&A with DHS’ Management Directorate, Office of Situational Awareness, and Office of the Executive Secretary—essentially, folding the department’s intelligence arm into a consolidated headquarters office alongside management and executive functions.

Administration documents released on Friday said the plan would save $53 million and “would yield efficiencies and would enable better communication throughout the department and with external partners.”

But the plan requires approval from Congress, which last year rejected administration plans to slash the office from about 1,000 workers to 275, Nextgov/FCW first reported last July. That proposal drew pushback from law-enforcement organizations and Jewish groups that long relied on the agency to disseminate timely intelligence about threats to state, local, tribal and territorial communities. One international organization privately warned Congress that the proposed cuts would create “dangerous intelligence gaps.”

The downsizing was put on hold just days later, but DHS soon began a more gradual effort to shrink the office. By late last year, the office was down to about 500 employees. It’s possible that more people have since departed.

In November, the House Intelligence Committee considered adding a provision to the annual intelligence community authorization bill to curtail the size and scope of I&A. The provision would have barred the office from gathering and analyzing intelligence, effectively turning I&A into a clearinghouse for intelligence findings produced elsewhere and stripping it of standard spy-agency collection authorities.

I&A also helps manage a series of fusion centers around the country that help share intelligence among federal agencies and state and local law enforcement.

The move proposed in the FY27 budget would likely draw questions from lawmakers about the independence of DHS’s primary intelligence arm, how threat information is shared with state and local partners, and concerns about proper oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol.

For years, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have argued that I&A needs reform.

Democrats have faulted the office for overstepping its domestic surveillance authorities and for failing to protect civil liberties, especially during the 2020 racial justice protests. Republicans, meanwhile, have accused it of drifting into partisanship and falling short in providing timely intelligence to state and local partners, particularly on border threats.

A 2022 DHS oversight report assessed that I&A had detected online threats ahead of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot but failed to share that information in time to be useful.

The Intelligence and Analysis unit holds a unique place in the federal oversight landscape. As one of 18 intelligence agencies managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, it falls within the purview of the Senate and House Intelligence committees. But its status as a DHS component also subjects it to oversight from the Homeland Security panels in both chambers.

It’s not clear whether the proposed consolidation would formally reduce the number of U.S. intelligence agencies statutorily managed under ODNI. Nextgov/FCW has asked ODNI and DHS spokespeople for comment.

I&A was born as part of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to coordinate intelligence on homeland threats and expand information sharing with state and local authorities.

Its placement in DHS has put it at the center of recurring jurisdictional tensions with the FBI, which drives much of the nation’s domestic intelligence, counterterrorism and counterintelligence work under the Justice Department. Researchers have long argued the division of labor creates a fragmented architecture that splits operational responsibilities across agencies whose missions too often overlap.