In the aftermath of 9/11, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was a bold attempt to unify fragmented defenses against terrorism. One of its most forward-thinking — and controversial –– projects was the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), designed as DHS’s bridge to the broader Intelligence Community (IC). The goal was to ensure intelligence flows seamlessly between the Intelligence Community and federal, state, and local law enforcement as well as critical industry partners, to prevent another attack enabled by dots left unconnected.
Unfortunately, over two decades later, I&A stands as the single largest misstep in the formation of DHS, a well-intentioned but bloated bureaucracy that drains resources without delivering proportional value.
Today, I&A functions more as an unnecessary cost center, complicating DHS’s role in intelligence rather than enhancing it. While it boasts talented professionals who make real contributions to national security, its dual role — straddling the IC and supporting DHS law enforcement — creates a perilous risk of politicizing intelligence.
This is not just theoretical; the structure invites a natural suspicion of potential manipulation or bias about intelligence being twisted to fit enforcement of individual agendas or political pressures. After all, the rest of the IC is strictly prohibited from engaging in domestic matters. As the Trump administration seeks to streamline government, reforming I&A offers a prime opportunity to save taxpayer dollars while improving the efficacy and efficiency of our national intelligence apparatus.
Consider the numbers. According to the FY2025 DHS budget overview from congressional records, I&A falls under Analysis and Operations, funded at approximately $348 million. That is a hefty sum for an office that lacks a true area of expertise and primarily integrates and disseminates information from elsewhere. It is too small and ill-positioned to rival the specialized powerhouses of the IC, like the National Security Agency’s signals expertise or the Central Intelligence Agency’s human intelligence networks, but large enough with ambiguous authorities to run the risk of genuine or perceived politicization.
Instead, I&A relies on DHS’s operational components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or the United States Secret Service (USSS) for raw data and analysis. This setup breeds redundancies: frontline experts generate insights, only for I&A to layer on oversight, potentially overriding them before products reach decision-makers like the secretary of homeland security or the president. It is classic middle management bloat, inserting unnecessary steps between specialists and leaders, wasting time and money on duplicated efforts.
Reforming I&A to a leaner, briefing-focused model — mirroring the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) or Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence – could slash costs dramatically. INR’s budget hovers around $84 million annually, while Treasury’s equivalent is about $231 million in the FY2025 request. Scaling I&A down to this level could free up well over $100 million yearly, redirecting funds to frontline operations without cutting corners on security. No new risks emerge because the core work of collating and briefing remains, just more efficient.
I&A’s Fusion Centers are a bright spot worth protecting. These hubs connect federal intelligence with state, local, tribal, and private sector partners, fostering collaboration that is proven vital for counterterrorism and disaster response. They should continue receiving dedicated funding — around $45 million in recent budgets — to maintain this essential functionality.
Secretary Kristi Noem has wisely signaled openness to I&A reform, but it is critical it is conducted in a responsible manner. Reports from July 2025 indicate plans to reduce I&A’s workforce by up to 75 percent, shrinking it to about 275 personnel focused on core analysis. Now is the time for the Trump administration to follow through on this commitment, recognizing that fiscally responsible reform is possible without compromising security.
Ultimately, this reform should involve coordination with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to empower small, specialized teams within CBP, ICE, and the USSS as full IC members. This decentralized approach would leverage those groups’ unique data and expertise without the bureaucratic middle layer I&A currently represents. It is smarter government: saving money, reducing politicization risks, and keeping America secure. By acting now, we honor 9/11’s lessons, not with more red tape, but with precision and purpose.
Chad F. Wolf serves as Executive Vice President, Chief Strategy Officer, and Chair of Homeland Security and Immigration at the America First Policy Institute. He served as acting Secretary of Homeland Security during the first Trump Administration.
Tom Plofchan serves as Senior Fellow for Homeland Security and Immigration at the America First Policy Institute. He is a former counselor to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
