DHS Special Events Program and Support Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1508

Last Updated: July 8, 2026

DHS Special Events Program and Support Act

HR. 1508, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$78,850 raised

27 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Homeland Security" section, p. 186-188 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.

April 8, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The DHS Special Events Program and Support Act (HR 1508). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a benign attempt to enhance security measures for special events. But, as is often the case with legislation, the devil lies in the details.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to establish a program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess and mitigate potential security threats at certain special events. The program aims to provide a standardized process for evaluating event risks and allocating federal resources accordingly.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions, including:

1. Establishment of a Special Events Program within DHS to assess and respond to security threats. 2. A risk-based methodology for evaluating event risks, considering factors such as attendance by U.S. officials or foreign dignitaries, event size and venue, and credible threats. 3. A process for expedited consideration and reassessment of special event ratings. 4. Annual reports to Congress on the program's activities and outcomes.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill include:

1. Event organizers and hosts 2. Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officials responsible for security and situational awareness 3. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 4. Private sector entities providing security services

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a wealth and power perspective, this bill presents both opportunities and challenges.

Opportunities:

* Enhanced security measures could lead to increased demand for private security services, benefiting companies like mine. * The standardized risk assessment process may create new business opportunities for firms specializing in threat analysis and mitigation.

Challenges:

* Increased regulatory oversight and bureaucratic hurdles may hinder the efficiency of event planning and execution. * The bill's emphasis on federal coordination and support could lead to increased government control over private events, potentially limiting our ability to operate freely.

In conclusion, while this bill appears to be a well-intentioned effort to enhance security measures, its implications for wealth and power are more nuanced. As a self-serving billionaire, I will continue to monitor the bill's progress and adapt my business strategies accordingly.

Projected impact on my empire: $500 million in potential new revenue streams from private security services; 10% increase in regulatory compliance costs.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's get this over with. As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill is a proposed law that must go through a series of steps before it becomes an actual law. This particular bill, HR 1508, aims to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize a program for assessing threats and providing security support to certain events.

Main Purpose & Objectives: The main purpose of this bill is to establish a program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of terrorism or other security threats at special events. The objectives are to provide a standard process for requesting and receiving security support, maintain a risk-based methodology for assessing ratings requests, and include processes for expedited consideration and reassessment.

Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law: The bill adds a new section (890E) to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which authorizes the program. It outlines requirements for the program, including applying to special events that are pre-planned and not designated as National Special Security Events by the Secretary. The program will also maintain a risk-based methodology to assess ratings requests, considering factors such as anticipated attendance by U.S. officials or foreign dignitaries, event size and venue, credible threats of terrorism or other security threats, and homeland security information.

Affected Parties & Stakeholders: The affected parties include Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials who may request special event ratings and receive security support from the Secretary. The stakeholders also include attendees of special events, as well as the general public, who will benefit from enhanced security measures.

Potential Impact & Implications: If passed, this bill could lead to improved security measures at special events, reducing the risk of terrorism or other security threats. It may also enhance situational awareness and support for Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials responsible for securing these events. However, it's worth noting that this program will likely require additional resources and funding, which could be a challenge.

Now, I expect you to remember this explanation, as we covered the basics of how a bill becomes a law in 8th grade civics. It's not exactly rocket science, folks.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 1508, and it's a doozy. This bill is masquerading as a harmless little thing, but trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The official story says this bill aims to "authorize a program to assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of terrorism or other security threats" at special events. Sounds reasonable, right? But what they're not telling you is that this program will be used to justify increased surveillance, data collection, and control over public gatherings.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill creates a new section in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to assess and rate special events for security threats. This rating system will determine the level of federal support provided to these events. But here's the kicker: this program will also include "a standard process for Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials to voluntarily submit requests" for special event ratings. Voluntarily? Don't make me laugh! This is just a way to get local authorities to buy into the feds' surveillance state.

The bill also requires annual reports on the program's activities, which will likely be used to justify further expansions of government power. And let's not forget the "mass gathering research" provision, which will allow the Department of Homeland Security to develop new technologies for monitoring and controlling crowds. Sounds like a recipe for disaster!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects everyone who attends public events, from concerts to protests. The increased surveillance and data collection will disproportionately impact marginalized communities, activists, and anyone who dares to question authority.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

Make no mistake, this bill is part of a larger agenda to erode civil liberties and consolidate government control. By creating a rating system for special events, the feds can justify increased security measures, including surveillance, checkpoints, and even military deployments. This will have a chilling effect on free speech and assembly, as people become more hesitant to attend public gatherings.

But that's not all – this bill also sets the stage for further expansions of government power. With the ability to rate and control special events, the feds can start to dictate what types of gatherings are allowed or prohibited. It's a slippery slope, folks!

So there you have it – HR 1508 is just another example of how our government is slowly but surely chipping away at our freedoms. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Outraged tone) Folks, we've got another bill on our hands that's just begging for scrutiny. HR 1508, the DHS Special Events Program and Support Act, is a real doozy. On the surface, it sounds like your run-of-the-mill, feel-good legislation aimed at keeping us safe from terrorism and other security threats. But trust me, there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to create a program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of terrorism or other security threats at special events. Sounds reasonable, right? But what's really going on here is an expansion of federal power and control over local events.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes a new program within DHS to provide security and situational awareness support to special events that meet certain criteria. It also establishes a process for requesting and reassessing special event ratings, which could lead to increased federal involvement in local events. And let's not forget the "research and development" component, which is just code for "we're going to test new surveillance technologies on you without your consent."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects everyone who attends or participates in special events, from music festivals to sporting events. It also impacts local law enforcement agencies, which will be required to work with the feds to implement this program. And of course, there are the usual suspects: the "elites" in Washington who think they know better than us how to keep ourselves safe.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a slippery slope, folks. It's another example of the federal government overstepping its bounds and eroding our freedoms. What's next? Will we need permission from the feds to host a backyard BBQ? The potential for abuse is huge, and I'm not just talking about the surveillance state implications. This bill could also lead to increased costs and bureaucratic red tape for local event organizers.

(Smirk) Now, I know what you're thinking: "But isn't this just a common-sense measure to keep us safe?" Ah, no. It's a power grab, plain and simple. And we can't let the elites in Washington get away with it. We must stand up for our freedoms and reject this bill.

(Outraged tone) So, what do you say, folks? Are you ready to take back your freedom from the clutches of Big Brother?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The DHS Special Events Program and Support Act (HR 1508) claims to authorize a program to assess threats and provide security support for special events not designated as National Special Security Events. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to expand the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) reach and justify more bureaucratic bloat.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new program within DHS to assess threats to special events, which will inevitably lead to more federal meddling in local affairs. It also establishes a standard process for requesting security support, because who doesn't love more paperwork? The Secretary of Homeland Security will now have the authority to provide security and situational awareness support, because clearly, local law enforcement agencies are incompetent.

The bill also mandates annual reports on the program's activities, which will undoubtedly be filled with meaningless statistics and self-congratulatory language. And, of course, there's a provision for periodic assessments every five years, because who doesn't love a good excuse for more bureaucratic navel-gazing?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: DHS, federal officials, state and local governments, tribal authorities, and territorial officials. Oh, and let's not forget the lobbyists and special interest groups who will inevitably benefit from this expanded program.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "mission creep." It expands DHS's authority under the guise of improving security, while actually creating more opportunities for bureaucratic overreach and waste. The increased reporting requirements will lead to more paperwork and administrative burdens on local governments, which will inevitably pass these costs on to taxpayers.

The real motivation behind this bill is likely a combination of factors: politicians seeking to appear tough on terrorism, bureaucrats looking to expand their fiefdoms, and special interest groups angling for more federal funding. It's a perfect storm of self-serving interests, all wrapped up in a neat little package of legislative doublespeak.

In short, HR 1508 is a textbook example of how politicians use fear-mongering and bureaucratic jargon to justify expanding their power and influence. It's a disease that needs to be diagnosed and treated – with a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**HR 1508: DHS Special Events Program and Support Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 1508 is to authorize a program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of terrorism or other security threats at certain special events. The bill aims to provide a standardized process for federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officials to request support for security and situational awareness at these events.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by adding a new section (890E) that authorizes the DHS Special Events Program. Key provisions include:

* A standard process for requesting special event ratings, which would result in direct support for security and situational awareness. * A risk-based methodology to assess rating requests, considering factors such as attendance by US officials or foreign dignitaries, event size and venue, credible threats, and homeland security information. * Expedited consideration and reassessment processes for special event ratings. * Annual reports to Congress on the program's activities, including the number of events submitted, rated, and supported.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties and stakeholders include:

* Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officials responsible for security and situational awareness at special events. * Event organizers and planners who may request support from DHS. * Attendees of special events, including US officials, foreign dignitaries, and the general public.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact and implications of HR 1508 include:

* Enhanced security and situational awareness at special events, reducing the risk of terrorism or other security threats. * Improved coordination and communication between federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officials responsible for event security. * Increased transparency and accountability through annual reports to Congress on the program's activities. * Potential benefits for event organizers and planners who can request support from DHS to enhance event security.

However, there may also be concerns about:

* The potential for increased federal involvement in local events, which could raise questions about jurisdiction and authority. * The need for careful balancing of security measures with individual rights and freedoms, such as privacy and civil liberties.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, HR 1508, the DHS Special Events Program and Support Act.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about helping the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess and respond to potential security threats at special events. Think big gatherings like concerts, festivals, or sporting events that might attract a lot of people, including high-profile folks like government officials or foreign dignitaries.

The main goal is to create a program within DHS that can evaluate the risk level of these events and provide support for security and situational awareness. It's all about keeping people safe, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

Here are some key takeaways:

* The bill creates a new section in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) that authorizes this special events program. * The program will have a standard process for federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officials to request support for security and situational awareness at these events. * DHS will use a risk-based methodology to assess the threat level of each event, considering factors like attendance numbers, venue size, credible threats, and other homeland security info. * The program will also include a process for expedited consideration and reassessment of special event ratings.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* DHS, which will be responsible for implementing the program * Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officials who might request support for security and situational awareness at special events * Event organizers and attendees, who will benefit from enhanced security measures

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this bill could be significant:

* Improved security and situational awareness at high-risk events, which could help prevent terrorist attacks or other security threats. * Enhanced collaboration between federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officials to share intelligence and best practices for event security. * Potential increased costs for DHS to implement the program, but these costs might be offset by reduced risks and improved response times.

However, there are also some potential concerns:

* The bill's emphasis on risk-based methodology could lead to unequal treatment of events based on factors like attendance numbers or venue size. * The program's reliance on voluntary submissions from event organizers might not capture all high-risk events.

Overall, this bill is a solid step towards improving security at special events. It's all about being proactive and prepared, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 1508: DHS Special Events Program and Support Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill aims to establish a program within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of terrorism or other security threats at certain special events. The program's primary objective is to provide security and situational awareness support to Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by adding a new section (890E) that authorizes the DHS Special Events Program. Key provisions include:

1. A standard process for requesting special event ratings, which considers factors like anticipated attendance, venue size, and credible threats. 2. A risk-based methodology to assess rating requests, including expedited consideration and reassessment processes. 3. The Secretary's authority to provide security and situational awareness support to officials at the request of an appropriate Federal, State, local, Tribal, or territorial official. 4. Annual reports to Congress on program activities, including the number of special events submitted, rated, and supported.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. DHS: responsible for implementing and managing the Special Events Program. 2. Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials: eligible to request special event ratings and support. 3. Event organizers and hosts: may be required to provide information for rating requests and may benefit from security and situational awareness support. 4. Attendees of special events: may be impacted by increased security measures.

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's potential impact includes:

1. Enhanced security and situational awareness at special events, reducing the risk of terrorism or other security threats. 2. Increased coordination and cooperation among Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials in assessing and responding to security threats. 3. Potential for increased costs associated with implementing and maintaining the program.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While no specific PACs or industry lobby groups are directly backing this bill, it's likely that organizations representing event organizers, venue owners, and security service providers may have an interest in its passage. The bill's focus on enhancing security and situational awareness at special events could benefit these industries by increasing demand for their services.

**Committee Capture** The Committee on Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over the bill, has a history of receiving significant contributions from defense contractors, security service providers, and other industries related to homeland security. This may indicate potential committee capture or influence by these interests.

In conclusion, HR 1508 aims to enhance security and situational awareness at special events through a standardized program within DHS. While its impact is likely to be positive in terms of reducing security threats, it's essential to monitor the bill's progress and potential influences from monied interests to ensure that its implementation serves the public interest rather than private gain.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$78,850

24 donors

PACs

Organizations

$12,850

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

No PAC contributions found

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$5,800

LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,500

RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY

1 transaction

$1,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

NET2LINK, LLC

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

ALSOP, JOSEPH W

2 transactions

$6,600

BROWN, JAY H.

2 transactions

$6,600

CHANG, RONIE

1 transaction

$3,300

PRITZKER, JAY

1 transaction

$3,300

SCHMIDT, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

CASHMAN, MARYKAYE

1 transaction

$3,300

GREENSPUN, MYRA S

1 transaction

$3,300

HAAS, GENE

1 transaction

$3,300

KELLNER, PETER

1 transaction

$3,300

SANDBERG, SHERYL

1 transaction

$3,300

SCOTT, MARIE RAY

1 transaction

$3,300

SUSSMAN, S. DONALD S

1 transaction

$3,300

TRONE, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

JURVETSON, KARLA

1 transaction

$3,300

SAMUELSON, MARTHA S

1 transaction

$3,300

SAMUELSON, PAUL

1 transaction

$3,300

BEKENSTEIN, ANITA

1 transaction

$3,300

BEKENSTEIN, JOSHUA

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9]

ID: H001067

Top Contributors

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

CATAWBA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationROCK HILL, SC

$1,500

Mar 5, 2024

HENDRICK, JOSEPH RIDDICK III

HENDRICK MOTORSPORTS • CHAIRMAN

IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC

$50,000

Dec 12, 2023

GROSS, MARK J.

OAK GROVE TECHNOLOGIES • CEO

IndividualRALEIGH, NC

$50,000

Feb 27, 2023

WARLICK, ANDERSON D. MR.

PARKDALE MILLS • CEO

IndividualGASTONIA, NC

$50,000

Mar 16, 2023

BARNHILL, ROBERT E. MR. JR.

BARNHILL CONTRACTING COMPANY • PRESIDENT

IndividualROCKY MOUNT, NC

$50,000

May 14, 2024

HUNTER, FRED NEAL

KNOW BIO LLC • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualDURHAM, NC

$35,000

Mar 31, 2023

SULLIVAN, SCOTT C.

CAMERON MANAGEMENT • CO-FOUNDER

IndividualBANNER ELK, NC

$25,000

Dec 29, 2023

ALLISON, DENNIS KEITH MR.

SYSTEL • PRESIDENT/CEO

IndividualFAYETTEVILLE, NC

$25,000

Mar 3, 2023

Rep. Pou, Nellie [D-NJ-9]

ID: P000621

Top Contributors

MATSIKOUDIS & FANCIULLO, LLC

OrganizationJERSEY CITY, NJ

$500

Oct 15, 2024

COOK, HAROLD P. III

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNORTH HALEDON, NJ

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MUKHERJI, RAJ

STATE OF NEW JERSEY • SENATOR

IndividualJERSEY CITY, NJ

$3,300

Oct 27, 2024

KRAMER, LAWRENCE

V. PAULIUS & ASSOCIATES • ATTORNEY

IndividualGLEN ROCK, NJ

$3,300

Nov 8, 2024

CURITOMAI, NORBERTO

SPANISH TRANSPORTATION SVC • CEO

IndividualCLIFTON, NJ

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

KIPIANI, CARLA TURCO

CARLA DEVELOPMENT GROUP • COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE

IndividualLYNDHURST, NJ

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

CRISOSTOMO, YAMILKY

YNC TAX • CEO

IndividualCLIFTON, NJ

$3,300

Oct 20, 2024

AVILA, RENE A.

GI AUTO SALVAGE • PRESIDENT

IndividualPINE BROOK, NJ

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

COLGAN, BILL

GP MANAGEMENT, LLC • PARTNER

IndividualBLOOMFIELD, NJ

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

KIPIANI, PAUL

CARLA DEVELOPMENT GROUP • COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE

IndividualFRANKLIN LAKES, NJ

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3]

ID: S001221

Top Contributors

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$6,600

Aug 5, 2024

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE

OrganizationMT PLEASANT, MI

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Aug 5, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBE

OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI

OrganizationFULTON, MI

$3,300

Mar 29, 2024

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Sep 23, 2024

PEOPLE FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$1,000

Aug 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 76 nodes and 36 connections (70 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $107,250

Top Donors - Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs18 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1508 focuses on enhancing security and situational awareness for special events through a standardized DHS program, which does not directly align with the Project 2025 DHS objectives centered on immigration enforcement (287(g), HSI priorities, Blackie’s Warrants) or FEMA/CISA reforms. The bill addresses event-based threat assessment rather than immigration, disaster federalism, or cybersecurity infrastructure priorities outlined in the policy."

Key themes:Department of Homeland Securitysecurity coordinationfederal support for state/local entities

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides — 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 183-185AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1508 focuses on enhancing security and situational awareness for special events through a standardized DHS program, which is unrelated to Project 2025's DHS objectives centered on immigration enforcement, border security, and limiting work authorization. There is no meaningful overlap in policy goals or mechanisms."

Key themes:Department of Homeland Securitysecurity programs

— 151 — Department of Homeland Security l Employment authorization. Along with the legislative proposal, take regulatory action to limit the classes of aliens eligible for work authorization. Executive Orders l Pathways for border crossers 1. Direct the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Northern Triangle Countries immediately. 2. Recommence negotiations with Mexico to fully implement the Remain in Mexico Protocols. 3. Reinstate, to the extent possible, expedited pathways with full credible fear/immigration court process (PACR and HARP). 4. Prohibit the use of Notices to Report, the use of any funds for travel into the interior of the United States, and government flights or transportation for aliens. 5. Mandate that ICE use all detention space in full compliance with Section 235 of the INA, issue weekly reports on detention capacity, and provide authority for low-level temporary capacity (for example, tents) once permanent space is full. 6. Eliminate the use of ATD for border crossers except in rare cases and only with the explicit authority of the Secretary. 7. Prohibit the use of parole except in matters that are certified by the Secretary of Homeland Security as requiring action for humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons, and prohibit the use of parole in any categorical circumstance. l Enforcement 1. Restrict prosecutorial discretion to eliminate it as a “catch-all” excuse for limiting immigration enforcement. 2. Mandate the use of E-Verify for anyone doing business with the government. — 152 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Designate USCIS as Intelligence Community–adjacent, ensuring that it has access to national security and law enforcement databases. 4. Rescind all memoranda limiting enforcement of immigration laws including those identifying sensitive zones. 5. End ICE’s widespread use of termination and administrative closure of cases in immigration court. l Averting or curtailing a mass migration event 1. Provide that whenever the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens en route to or arriving off the coast of the U.S. presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate federal response, the Secretary may make, subject to the approval of the President, rules and regulations prohibiting in whole or in part the introduction of persons from such countries or places as he or she shall designate in order to avert or curtail such mass migration and for such period of time as is deemed necessary, including through the expulsion of such aliens. Such rule and regulation making shall not be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. 2. Provide that notwithstanding any other provision of law, when the Secretary makes such a determination and then promulgates, subject to the approval of the President, such rules and regulations, the Secretary shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements of Title 8 that the Secretary, in his or her sole discretion, determines are necessary to avert or curtail the mass migration. Subregulatory Matters l USCIS priorities/structural changes 1. Ensure that focus is returned to vetting, base eligibility of applicants, and fraud detection. 2. Realign the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) to ensure agencywide consistency on implementation of fraud detection and vetting policies. 3. Review and repeal any internal agency memo that is inconsistent with the priorities described in this chapter.

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1508 focuses on enhancing DHS support for special event security and situational awareness, whereas the Project 2025 DHS section emphasizes immigration enforcement reforms, HSI priorities, and FEMA changes; the two share only a general DHS umbrella and security coordination theme."

Key themes:DHSsecurity coordinationthreat assessment

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 177-179AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1508 addresses special event security assessments within DHS, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on immigration enforcement reforms, denaturalization, and agency restructuring; the two share only a broad DHS context but differ in substantive objectives."

Key themes:Department of Homeland Securityfederal coordinationsecurity assessment

— 144 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise prosecuting criminal and civil denaturalization cases, in combination with the Department of Justice, for aliens who obtained citizenship through fraud or other illicit means. Additionally, USCIS should create a criminal enforcement compo- nent within the agency to investigate immigration benefits fraud under Title 8 (perhaps requiring additional legislative and regulatory authorities for the offi- cers themselves) and to prosecute cases through Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSAs) with substantive knowledge in the field. Particular attention should be given to addressing increasing incidents of forced labor trafficking in temporary work visa programs. While the Biden regulatory agenda has focused on at least two major rules—the credible fear rule and the public charge rule—USCIS has utilized other policy and internal procedural mechanisms to extend employment authorization to large groups of people who are in the country without legal status. The agency has taken quiet steps to cut corners and lessen adjudicatory standards. During a tran- sition period, a complete audit of agency policies, memoranda, and management directives issued during the Biden Administration should be completed, and rescis- sion documents should be prepared for issuance within the first few days of the incoming Administration. Additionally, regulatory documents should be drafted to review or reverse all regulations promulgated during the Biden Administration. New Policies To advance the national interest, the three core immigration agencies—USCIS, ICE, and CBP—should remerge and have immigration elements outside of DHS (such as ORR of HHS) included. The fragmented immigration enforcement frame- work that developed in the wake of the Homeland Security Act has weakened each agency and should be remediated. Combining these critical agencies would strengthen their capabilities, ensure cooperation, and promote information-shar- ing. Agency responsibilities and the delineation of authorities, such as inconsistent use of deferred action and issuance of NTAs by each agency, have long been a point of contention that would be addressed much more easily if they were recombined into a single entity. Alternatively, new policies for USCIS as it currently exists should focus on mat- ters that can be addressed through administrative action. l The workforce should be realigned and, as necessary, retrained on base eligibility and fraud detection rather than speed in processing. l Training should be returned to Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), which would underscore the enforcement role of USCIS as a vetting agency, and be rebranded accordingly. — 145 — Department of Homeland Security l Management Directives and policies should realign to ensure that the workforce, while adaptable and able to handle the bulk of the USCIS mission, is not allowed to be pulled off mission work to focus on unlawful programs (DACA, mass parole for Afghans, Ukrainians, Venezuelans, etc.), which divert resources away from nuclear family and employment programs. The regulatory agenda should include the immediate submission of notices of proposed rulemaking for the Trump Administration’s public charge rule (includ- ing aspects from its original notice of proposed rulemaking), temporary work visa reform, employment authorization reform rules, asylum bars rule, and a third-country transit rule. At a minimum, an enhanced regulatory agenda should include rules strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, parole reform, and U visa reform that prioritizes relief for victims of heinous crimes and ensures that we protect the truest and most deserving victims of crime. Not all policy changes require formal rulemaking, however, as internal guidance documents are generally exempt under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7 In this subregulatory space, USCIS policy memos and operational guidance should reduce the validity of employment authorization documents and end the COVID flexibilities, including the reliance on biometrics reuse. USCIS should also enforce existing regulations by rejecting incomplete applications and petitions, ensuring both that they are completed before accepted for filing and that FDNS signs off on all approved applications and petitions before approval notices are sent to the alien or petitioner. Other efforts should be focused on adjudication standards returning to nearly 100 percent interview requirements for all appropriate cases. The incoming Administration should spearhead an immigration legislative agenda focused on creating a merit-based immigration system that rewards high- skilled aliens instead of the current system that favors extended family–based and luck-of-the-draw immigration. To that end, the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family, and the existing employment visa program should be replaced with a system to award visas only to the “best and brightest.” Internal efforts to limit employment authorization should be matched by con- gressional action to narrow statutory eligibility to work in the United States and mitigate unfair employment competition for U.S. citizens. The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities. Additionally, Congress should: l Improve the integrity of the temporary work visa programs; l Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations;

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 164-167AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1508 expands DHS's role by creating a special events security program, whereas Project 2025 calls for dismantling DHS and redistributing its functions; the only common ground is a shared focus on homeland security."

Key themes:homeland securitythreat assessmentspecial event securityDHS mission

— 133 — 5 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Ken Cuccinelli PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION Our primary recommendation is that the President pursue legislation to dis- mantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). After 20 years, it has not gelled into “One DHS.” Instead, its various components’ different missions have outweighed its decades-long attempt to function as one department, rendering the whole disjointed rather than cohesive. Breaking up the department along its mission lines would facilitate mission focus and provide opportunities to reduce overhead and achieve more limited government. In lieu of a status quo DHS, we recommend that: l U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) be combined with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) into a stand- alone border and immigration agency at the Cabinet level (more than 100,000 employees, making it the third largest department measured by manpower). l The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) be moved to the Department of Transportation. — 134 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) be moved to the Department of the Interior or, if combined with CISA, to the Department of Transportation. l The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) be moved to DOJ and, in time of full-scale war (i.e., threatening the homeland), to the Department of Defense (DOD). Alternatively, USCG should be moved to DOD for all purposes. l The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) be divided in two, with the protective element moved to DOJ and the financial enforcement element moved to the Department of the Treasury. l The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) be privatized. l The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) be moved to DOD and the Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction be moved to the FBI. All of the remaining supporting components could be dismantled because their functions already exist in the moving components as well as the receiv- ing departments. Cutting these costs would save the American taxpayers significant sums. Unless and until this dismantling recommendation is pursued and achieved, however, DHS will statutorily continue to exist, and it needs many reforms. Accord- ingly, we now turn to recommended changes in DHS as it exists now. MISSION STATEMENT The Department of Homeland Security protects the American homeland from and prepares for terrorism and other hazards in both the physical and cyber realms, provides for secure and free movement of trade and travel, and enforces U.S. immi- gration laws impartially. OVERVIEW The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and subsequent mailings of anthrax spores. The Homeland Security Act of 2002,1 which created the department, states that DHS’s primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks within the U.S.; reduce the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism; minimize the damage from and assist in the recovery from any terrorist attacks; prepare and respond to natural and manmade crises and emergencies; and monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, coordinate efforts to sever such connections, and interdict illegal drug trafficking.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Titus, Dina

Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act

119/hr/972

ACPAC Modernization Act

119/hr/5663

RESTRAIN Act

119/hr/5894

Back to All Bills