Staff Reports
Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin fired a clear warning in an exclusive interview this week: calls from some Democrats to abolish the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) show a dangerous misunderstanding of what happened on 9/11 and why DHS exists. Mullin used the Breitbart sit-down to defend DHS components like CBP, ICE, TSA, Secret Service, CISA and the Coast Guard — and to argue that dismantling the department would weaken border security, aviation safety, cyber defense and everyday law enforcement.
Mullin’s blunt rebuke: “They didn’t understand”
Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin did not mince words. He told the interviewer that critics who want to abolish DHS “didn’t understand what happened 25 years ago and why DHS was stood up.” He then rattled off the agencies DHS holds together — Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Secret Service, CISA for cyber, and the Coast Guard — and asked plainly: how would we keep flights safe, protect our waterways, or guard visiting dignitaries without those pieces in place?
What started the flap: Rep. Delia Ramirez’s bill
The immediate spark for Mullin’s comments was Rep. Delia Ramirez’s Reimagining Safety Act, which would dismantle DHS and abolish ICE and CBP as part of a broader reimagining of public safety. That proposal is a policy statement more than a practical plan. It faces a steep path in a Republican‑controlled Congress and has almost no chance of becoming law the way it’s written. Still, the rhetoric matters: it forces a fight over budgets, mission priorities, and who is seen as protecting the homeland.
Why breaking DHS would be risky for border security and everyday safety
This is not a debate about labels — it’s about missions. CBP processes travelers and protects ports of entry. TSA screens planes. The Secret Service protects our leaders. CISA watches our critical networks for cyberattacks. The Federal Protective Service secures federal buildings. DHS is the glue that keeps those functions aligned. Pulling them apart would create seams that bad actors can exploit — from smugglers at ports to hackers probing government systems to gaps in event security. That’s the real-world risk Mullin is warning about, and it’s easy to see why he says abolishing DHS would open vulnerabilities.
Politics, patrols, and the next fight
Mullin framed the issue as more than policy — he called those pushing abolition “anti‑law enforcement” and suggested chaos is often used as a political lever to remake a country’s laws and culture. Whether you like Secretary Mullin’s tone or not, the substance is clear: any serious move to tear apart DHS would force Republicans to defend border security, aviation safety, and cyber defenses in public and on the appropriation floor. Expect this argument to show up in committee hearings, budget fights, and campaign messaging. And if anyone thinks national security is a trivia question, Mullin’s interview is a reminder that safety has real, practical costs — and the voters will notice who wants to pay them.
