Latest news with #homelandsecurity
Fox News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
New York Dems make shocking terror claim about Trump's budget cut proposal
A group of House Democrats from New York are claiming President Donald Trump's annual government funding proposal, if enacted, could leave big cities vulnerable to massive terror attacks. "We are writing to express the gravest concerns about the existential threat that the Trump Administration's proposed budget poses to the homeland security of New York City," the Democrats wrote. "Here is the bottom line: the Trump budget, if enacted, would leave America's largest city woefully unprepared to prevent and respond to a second 9/11." The bold new accusation comes as left-wing lawmakers continue to criticize Republicans' efforts at slashing federal spending. The national debt, meanwhile, is climbing toward $37 trillion. The letter was signed by New York City Democratic Reps. Ritchie Torres, Yvette Clarke, Gregory Meeks, Dan Goldman and Jerry Nadler. They argued that "Draconian cuts" to homeland security grants "would all but dismantle the FDNY's capacity for emergency management and would reduce the NYPD's post-9/11 counterterrorism apparatus to a shell of its former self." The letter is addressed to the top Republican and Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, which has already begun work on the next fiscal year's federal budget in time for the Sept. 30 deadline. The White House has released a "skinny" budget proposal for fiscal year (FY) 2026, which, if passed, would make good on Republicans' promise to slash government spending that they say has gotten out of control. The proposal would cut $163 billion in non-defense discretionary government spending – meaning the federal funding that Congress controls every year, rather than mandatory funding, which is largely comprised of government safety net programs that are amended through a separate process called budget reconciliation. The nonprofit International Association of Fire Chiefs' analysis of the budget said the State Homeland Security Grant program (SHSGP) would be cut from $468 million to $351 million, and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) would be cut from $553.5 million to $415.5 million – two programs highlighted by the New Yorkers. The lawmakers' letter said New York City could see $45 million in homeland security grants cut under Trump's budget. "The Trump budget is an act of national self-sabotage," they said. "In just the first half of 2025, we have seen seven terrorist plots—roughly one per month. 24 years following 9/11 terror attacks, the threat of terrorism remains as real as it has ever been." The Democrats noted that New York's police and fire departments "routinely provide reinforcements and technical assistance to jurisdictions across the United States." "The homeland security grants for NYC enables a national network of mutual aid between and among states," they argued. The White House FY26 budget proposal is traditionally just an initial plan that undergoes changes as lawmakers negotiate what's feasible. With a Republican trifecta in Washington, however, Republicans will likely be under added pressure to deliver on a vision as close to Trump's as possible. Separately, GOP lawmakers are also working on the sweeping tax and immigration legislation that Trump dubbed his "big, beautiful bill," with a goal of getting that bill to Trump's desk by Fourth of July. When reached for comment on the letter, the White House referred Fox News Digital to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A DHS spokesperson said, "Claims that DHS is reducing focus on terrorism prevention are unequivocally false." "Allegations of weakening these programs are baseless. DHS is enhancing intelligence and infrastructure protection to keep cities secure. We remain fully dedicated to preventing another 9/11 with robust, targeted investments," the DHS spokesperson said. But Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News Digital, "We do not even have President Trump's full 2026 budget request yet, but from what we have seen, the cuts he is proposing across the federal government threaten our national security." "House Republicans are tasked with drafting these bills and Democrats stand ready to work in a bipartisan manner, but we will not support final 2026 funding bills that fail to keep our communities safe," DeLauro said. A spokesperson for House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., did not return a request for comment on the letter.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
We Better Pray That No Unexpected Crisis Hits While Trump Is President
If you live in the United States, you are in greater jeopardy today than you were six months ago. So is your family. So are your friends and neighbors. Virtually all of the most important parts of the U.S. government that were created to protect the U.S. from the greatest risks we face are being shut down, gutted, or marginalized. What is more, plans and statements of the president and his advisers suggest further cuts are contemplated that increase the likelihood that one or more crises will catch us unawares and that when that happens, we will be much less equipped to handle it than we have been in decades. Our early warning capabilities, our planning tools, our interagency coordinating mechanisms, and the resources available to the government to respond to crises have all been greatly diminished. This will remain true despite planned increases in defense and homeland security spending—especially as those resources are directed at illusory 'invasions' and nonexistent 'insurrections.' It will remain true despite—and even to a degree because of—costly and distracting displays of military and law enforcement muscle-flexing. Area after area of the government with responsibility for anticipating, preparing for, and handling major national security threats has been affected. Despite news reports addressing some of these developments individually, the scope of the changes to institutions, personnel, budgets, and policy, and the interrelated and cumulative consequences of those changes, must be better understood and reversed. This should not be a partisan issue. It impacts red states and blue, Democrats and Republicans, cities and rural areas, rich and poor, all of us. Furthermore, this is not an abstraction. Every area impacted is demonstrably one that recent history has shown should be of urgent concern to us. At the core of this critical situation is the effective lobotomization of our government's national security 'brain' and 'nervous system.' We have not had a dedicated national security adviser to the president since May 1 when Mike Waltz resigned. In the intervening six weeks, this critical role has ostensibly been filled by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But not only does Rubio have a massively challenging job as secretary of state, he is also serving as interim head of the U.S. Agency for International Development and as acting archivist of the United States—head of the agency responsible for preserving all the government's records. None of these tasks is minor. None can be performed on a part-time basis. Although it has been observed that Henry Kissinger once held both the top State and National Security Council positions, that was considered such an error that President Gerald Ford told me when I interviewed him for my history of the NSC, Running the World, that undoing the arrangement was one of his most important decisions as president. The State Department is undergoing a major reorganization while dealing with the complex and volatile world situation. USAID, a crucial tool of U.S. foreign policy and one with a vital role to play in helping to contain disease and conflict worldwide, is effectively being dismantled. Rubio is also taking on roles that many former secretaries of state did not get deeply engaged in, like determining who should be granted or denied visa status. In addition, his burdens are increased because there is no confirmed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and more than 70 other ambassadorial positions remain open. Rubio simply could not effectively do what he is being asked to do even were he not also being given the most critical national security policy development and coordinating role in the White House. Making matters dramatically more challenging, on May 23, the White House announced the elimination of 100 jobs within the National Security Council, reducing its professional staff to its smallest size in decades. Furthermore, there are credible reports that further cuts are likely, with some estimates suggesting the president is considering reducing the NSC staff to half of its over 350 positions or even further to 'just a few dozen people.' This would make the NSC smaller than it has been in decades. But for an entity that is responsible for monitoring the world and threats to our national well-being and then coordinating the development of policies and the implementation of the plans approved by the president, as big a blow as the cuts are, more important is that the entire NSC process is being marginalized by a president who has repeatedly and recklessly made it clear he does not feel he needs advice. His refusal to hold regular intelligence briefings and reports of his resistance to consuming written intelligence illustrate this point. So do his decisions to appoint top aides to national security posts like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who are among the least experienced ever to hold their jobs. As events surrounding the military deployment in Los Angeles illustrate, Trump has sought aides not for their counsel but for the willingness to do unquestioningly what they are told. (This point is supported by contrasting the resistance Trump received from his secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs to plans to deploy the military against Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 with the reflexive support of Hegseth for the legally questionable moves against protesters in California.) Rubio has indicated that the NSC cuts target it as a stronghold of the 'deep state.' But of course, the president can appoint anyone he wants to the NSC staff; therefore, drastically reducing the agency's role is not the only way of addressing the issue of the loyalties of staffers. Cuts in its bloated staffing were certainly justifiable. What is not defensible is so drastically weakening the advice available to the president, the quality of that advice, or the ability to coordinate interagency actions in support of presidential decisions. The diminution of the NSC's role might not increase the risks faced by the U.S. so drastically if at the same time the NSC was shrunk and sidelined other national security agencies were strengthened—especially those associated with critical crisis areas. But that is clearly not the case either. Essentially all overseas roles in USAID are being eliminated. The State Department plans to do away with nearly one out of five employees. Thousands are expected to be cut from the U.S. intelligence community. The president has expressed a desire to disengage from the United Nations and minimize other alliances and international institutions that have played a multilateral crisis management role in the past. NATO in particular, our most important alliance, has been weakened even as the position of our enemies and rivals has been strengthened by changes to our policies and priorities. The president's 2026 budgets calls for over $500 million in cuts at the FBI—which plays a crucial role in U.S. counterintelligence activities. Some of the FBI's most experienced professionals have been removed from their offices. The Department of Justice has cut U.S. efforts to stop foreign interference in our elections. Chillingly, the government's main coordinating mechanism with the Department of Homeland Security for managing counterterrorism threats has been downgraded dramatically, with the appointment of a 22-year-old with virtually no experience of any sort to head it. The president has announced he is considering eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency and handling all disaster response decisions personally. The ability to anticipate hurricanes and help people prepare for other environmental disasters will be harmed by cuts to the parts of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that handle those duties. Even cuts to public broadcasting will make it harder for information about natural disasters to get to rural areas. Elevating individuals who don't believe in climate science certainly also makes matters worse. Cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services have hobbled our ability to predict or respond to pandemics or bioterrorism. Cuts to Medicaid will hinder our ability to prevent or respond to disease outbreaks—once again with impact on rural communities being most negative. Programs to develop and promote vaccines that could help prevent such health disasters have been eliminated, as has vital expertise in epidemiology and immunology, among other key areas. Even the parts of the government that help us avoid and control financial crises have been weakened dramatically, and financial institutions have been given more latitude to repeat past or invent new forms of risky behavior. Rather than learning from the experiences of our own lifetime, from terror attacks to wars to financial crises to the pandemic, we are actually increasing the chances we relive them or worse in the near future. We cannot anticipate what will come next. With the volatility in the Middle East at the moment, increasing violent extremism at home and abroad, bird flu, measles and tuberculosis cases regularly being reported, market volatility due to trade uncertainty, and the start of hurricane season, what we do know is that serious risks are everywhere. But what is clear is that whatever the next crisis may be, we will be less able to handle it, and our citizens, our economy, our allies, and our country will suffer. It is time for the Congress to live up to its oaths and reverse these trends. It is essential voters recognize the dangers that are accruing to their own communities and lives. Furthermore, those who may aspire to be responsible for the national security decisions in any future government should be developing plans over the next couple of years that can be quickly implemented to reverse the damage that is being done to our ability to protect our citizens.
New York Times
13-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Live Updates: Order on Use of Guard Is Blow to Trump Before Weekend Protests
Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, speaking at a news conference in West Los Angeles. Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, was forcibly removed from the event after trying to ask her questions. Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, was forcibly removed on Thursday from a news conference being held by Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, and handcuffed after he interrupted Ms. Noem at a federal building in West Los Angeles. 'Sir! Sir! Hands off!' Mr. Padilla, 52, shouted as federal agents tried to muscle him out of the room inside a government office building about 15 miles west of downtown Los Angeles where Ms. Noem was speaking. 'I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.' As Mr. Padilla — an M.I.T. graduate, the son of Mexican immigrants and a Los Angeles native — began asking about a bank of mug shots behind Ms. Noem, agents shoved him out of the room, told him to drop to his knees in a hallway and handcuffed him, based on videos taken by Mr. Padilla's office and a Fox News reporter. Video transcript Back bars 0:00 / 1:25 - 0:00 transcript Senator Padilla Forcibly Removed After Confronting Noem Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, was forced to the floor, handcuffed and removed by federal agents after interrupting a news conference by the homeland security secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday. 'Sir, sir.' 'Hands up. Hands up. 'I'm Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary because the fact of the matter is, a half a dozen violent criminals that should —' 'On the ground. Hands behind your back. Hands behind your back.' 'If you let me — 'All right. Cool — lay flat, lay flat.' 'Other hand, sir. Other hand.' 'I was there peacefully. At one point, I had a question. And so I began to ask a question. I was almost immediately forcibly removed from the room. I was forced to the ground and I was handcuffed.' 'We had a great conversation.' 'We're all set up over there.' 'Well, we will give you a few comments.' 'Yeah let's go.' 'I know the Senator — we had a great conversation. Sat down and talked for 10, 15 minutes about operations in L.A., some activities of the Department of Homeland Security. And so I thought it was very productive. And I wish that he would have reached out and identified himself, and let us know who he was and that he wanted to talk. I'll let the law enforcement speak to how this situation was handled, but I will say that its — people need to identify themselves before they start lunging at people that are doing press conferences.' Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, was forced to the floor, handcuffed and removed by federal agents after interrupting a news conference by the homeland security secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday. Credit Credit... Patrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images A small group of reporters pivoted their cameras toward the disruption. Other national and local journalists were forced to wait outside the building after officials blocked access to the news conference shortly before the event began. On the videos, Mr. Padilla appeared stunned but repeatedly said he was a U.S. senator. In an interview hours later, Mr. Padilla said that he had demanded to know why he had been detained and where he was being escorted 'when of all people, Corey Lewandowski' — a combative former Trump campaign aide and adviser to Ms. Noem — 'comes running down the hall and he starts yelling, 'Let him go! Let him go!'' In the tense hyperpartisanship of the moment, the episode quickly swelled into a cause célèbre for both parties. Democratic senators, House members and governors rushed to denounce the treatment of a sitting senator, framing it as the latest escalation in authoritarian actions by the Trump administration. It followed the indictment on Tuesday of Representative LaMonica McIver of New Jersey and the arrest of Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark, after the officials, both Democrats, tried to visit a new immigration detention facility in the city. Republicans just as eagerly tried to frame Mr. Padilla's behavior as in line with what they have called the lawlessness of the political left as President Trump tries to combat illegal immigration. Ms. Noem had been at a lectern thanking the Army, Marines and National Guard for providing 'security' when Mr. Padilla made his entrance. While some protests have erupted in downtown Los Angeles, the towering white federal building where her news conference occurred was more than 15 miles away from the action and had no protesters outside. Mr. Padilla said in the interview on Thursday evening that he learned of Ms. Noem's news conference while he was waiting for a scheduled briefing down the hall. He said he had asked for answers about the administration's 'increasingly extreme' immigration actions since January and had not been able to get them. When he saw Ms. Noem and her entourage pass him, he said, he asked the National Guard member and an F.B.I. agent who had escorted him whether they would also take him into the news conference. They did, he said, and he initially stood at the back of the room, silently observing behind the cameras. But when Ms. Noem said that federal agents were in Los Angeles 'to liberate this city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership' of the Democratic leaders of California and Los Angeles, he conceded he could no longer stay silent. The footage shows Mr. Padilla stepping to one side, introducing himself and starting to call out a question about mug shots that federal authorities had said were of violent undocumented criminals. He said he hoped to ask about others who have been detained with no criminal record, but, as he spoke, agents swarmed him and forcibly removed him from the room. Ms. Noem and other Trump administration officials asserted that Mr. Padilla had failed to identify himself and had assumed a threatening demeanor. 'I will say that people need to identify themselves before they start lunging at people,' she said. But Mr. Padilla said that he had not only identified himself in the room, as shown in the footage, but had also introduced himself to the agents who had escorted him from the lobby. Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said that he had not been wearing his Senate security pin and that the Secret Service had taken him for an attacker. She accused Mr. Padilla of engaging in 'disrespectful political theater.' In a social media post, the F.B.I.'s deputy director, Dan Bongino, said that the bureau's agents 'acted completely appropriately while assisting Secret Service' agents and echoed the claim by other federal agencies that Mr. Padilla had physically resisted law enforcement and had failed to wear a security pin. The F.B.I.'s chief spokesman, Ben Williamson, was unapologetic. 'When an unrecognized Senator in plain clothes and wearing no security pin became disruptive and subsequently resisted law enforcement, our F.B.I. L.A. personnel responded in support of Secret Service completely appropriately,' he wrote on social media. 'We stand by them and appreciate their swift action.' The Secret Service members involved in the encounter will not face discipline, said Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman. Afterward, Mr. Padilla and Ms. Noem met for about 15 minutes, both said. Mr. Padilla said that before Mr. Lewandowski instructed the agents to uncuff him, he had no idea whether he was about to be jailed or simply removed from the building. He said he had never been arrested or even handcuffed before. Mr. Padilla said that the way he was treated as a sitting member of Congress had raised his level of concern for how the federal government has begun to treat everyday people. 'If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, if this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they're doing to farm workers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country,' he said at a news conference, appearing to briefly be overcome with emotion. The middle child of a short-order cook from Jalisco, Mexico, and a housekeeper from Chihuahua, Mr. Padilla was earning his way through school with janitorial jobs and work-study programs when his plan to become an aerospace engineer was derailed by the anti-immigrant politics that gripped California during the 1990s. Galvanized by Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative that would have barred undocumented immigrants from public services, including schools and nonemergency health care, he became involved in politics. Though they represent the nation's largest state in Congress's high chamber, Mr. Padilla and the newly elected Adam Schiff still cut a low profile in the Senate. Thursday's events could provide a political boost to Mr. Padilla, who was initially appointed to his seat by Gov. Gavin Newsom to replace Kamala Harris when she became vice president in 2021. The episode stoked intense outrage in Los Angeles, where the ordinarily soft-spoken and slow-talking Mr. Padilla has long been a popular figure. On social media, the city's mayor, Karen Bass, called his treatment 'absolutely abhorrent and outrageous' and reiterated a demand she has made since a series of militarized immigration enforcement actions started in Southern California last Friday: 'This administration's violent attacks on our city must end.' Mr. Newsom jumped in, calling the senator 'one of the most decent people I know.' 'This is outrageous, dictatorial, and shameful,' Mr. Newsom wrote in a social media post. 'Trump and his shock troops are out of control. This must end now.' Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, broke ranks with her party, calling what happened 'very disturbing,' though she acknowledged she was unsure of what had led to the confrontation. 'It looks like he is being manhandled and physically removed. It is hard to imagine a justification for that.' Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, another Republican moderate, called the incident 'horrible' and 'shocking at every level.' She continued: 'It's not the America I know.' More in line with the mainstream Republican reaction was Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House majority leader, who told reporters in the Capitol that Mr. Padilla was in Los Angeles trying to 'make the situation worse' and 'stir angst against the federal agents who were coming to help' the city. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, addressed the Senate floor regarding the treatment of Mr. Padilla. 'I just saw something that sickened my stomach,' he said. 'The manhandling of a United States senator. We need immediate answers to what the hell went on.' Carl Hulse , Eileen Sullivan and Glenn Thrush contributed reporting from Washington.
Telegraph
05-06-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Trump is right to protect American citizens. We should protect ours
Sometimes the best policies are the ones that produce the shrillest wails from the Left. Such may be the case with Trump's latest travel ban, which by rights should spark serious soul-searching in Britain. Overnight, the President announced restrictions on the citizens of 12 countries. This was a response to the recent terror attack on Boulder, Colorado, in which an Egyptian national, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, is alleged to have thrown firebombs and sprayed burning petrol at a Jewish vigil on Sunday in support of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Although Egypt is not on the list, Homeland Security officials said Mr Soliman was in the country illegally, having overstayed a tourist visa, but that he had applied for asylum in September 2022. So far, so Trumpian. (He took similar measures during his first term, after all, and they were repealed by Joe Biden who called them 'a stain on our national conscience'.) But then came the kicker. 'We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America,' Trump said. Ouch. If the months of Trump 2.0 have so far shifted the Overton window across the West, allowing even the likes of Sir Keir Starmer to contemplate – at least rhetorically – tackling immigration, then such a travel ban should be welcomed on these shores as well. Already, the usual suspects are accusing Trump of being 'racist'. But a glance at the range of countries on the list shows that this is not a question of race, or even religion. Rather, it is a question of homeland security, and that holds a stark lesson for Britain. A few months back, official data revealed that though foreigners comprise just 15 per cent of the population of our country, they commit 41 per cent of all crime and up to a quarter of sex crimes. In the first nine months of 2024, almost 14 per cent of grooming suspects were Pakistani, five times their share of the population. Two nationalities – Afghans and Eritreans – were more than 20 times more likely to account for sexual offence convictions than British citizens, according to the data. Overall, foreign nationals were 71 per cent more likely than Britons to be responsible for sex crime convictions. Based on convictions per 10,000 of the population, Afghans with 77 convictions topped the table with a rate of 59 per 10,000, 22.3 times that of Britons. They were followed by Eritreans, who accounted for 59 convictions at a rate of 53.6 per 10,000 of their population. In March 2025, data from the Ministry of Justice revealed that foreigners, who claim £1 billion a month in benefits, were also responsible for large proportions of violence, robbery, fraud and drug offences, between 2021 and 2023. There was no data for terrorism offences or acts of anti-Semitism. But does anybody want to hazard a guess? Which brings us to a fundamental question. Why? Why does Britain need to allow the criminals of the world to come to our shores to abuse women and girls, run criminal enterprises, foster terrorism and anti-Semitism, and claim benefits in the process? Obviously not all foreigners from these countries behave in this way. But facts aren't racist. Large numbers are pulling down our pants, spanking our buttocks and pulling them up again. In fact, the problem is not one of race but one of politics and culture. In my new book, Never Again? How the West Betrayed the Jews and Itself, which is coming out at the end of September, I look at groundbreaking research published in April by cognitive scientists Scott Barry Kaufman and Craig Neumann. They found that 'citizens in democratic countries have more benevolent traits, fewer malevolent traits, and greater well-being' than those living under autocratic regimes. Based on a study of 200,000 people from 75 countries, people living under autocracies were found to be much more likely to exhibit the 'Dark Triad' of negative personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. In democracies, by contrast, more people displayed the 'Light Triad' of humanism, faith in humanity and 'Kantianism', or treating people with dignity in their own right rather than viewing them as a means to an end. Obviously, this is not related to race. Russians are hardly black, but they hardly live in a democracy either. It is a case of cognitive development. The problem occurs when, in an age of global travel, 'Dark Triad' migrants who grew up in despotic regimes encounter gullible 'Light Triad' officials in the democracies, whose empathies are easily played upon. That is why we find British judges ruling that an Albanian convict should avoid deportation because his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, a Pakistani drug dealer could stay so he could teach his son about Islam, and a paedophile of the same nationality should not be sent home since it would be 'unduly harsh' on his own children. These real-life cases, reported by the Telegraph, provide a clear collision of the 'Dark Triad' traits in the criminals and the 'Light Triad' tendencies in the judges. It is a chemical reaction waiting to happen, and the vast majority of the population, wherever they are born, are suffering the consequences. In other words, we are being taken for fools. No foreign criminal has a God-given right to set up home in Britain just because he fancies it. This is our home, and although we are delighted to welcome strangers, that generosity should be withdrawn from those who nick our television and threaten our children – even if their own happen to like the chicken nuggets in our fridge. Trump has now thrown down the gauntlet. What is the British Government going to do to set our own house in order? Will it take an anti-Semitic outrage like the firebombing in Colorado before the Prime Minister takes action? Will he take action even then?
Arab News
31-05-2025
- General
- Arab News
Global threat report reveals Trump's strategic priorities
The US Defense Intelligence Agency recently released its annual threat assessment report. While these official government documents are often bland and filled with bureaucratic language, this year's publication stands out — both for its substance and what it reveals about how the new administration views today's geopolitical challenges. This is the first threat assessment of President Donald Trump's second term, and it offers an early insight into the administration's strategic priorities. A few things jump out right away. This year's threat assessment is longer than last year's, and offers a more detailed and nuanced analysis across multiple sections. But two major changes in this year's report, when compared with the final assessment produced under the Biden administration, are particularly striking. The most notable difference is the inclusion of a dedicated section on US homeland defense and border security — placed not as an afterthought but as the first item in the report. This marks a sharp departure from last year's assessment, which focused almost exclusively on global threats and challenges. The placement and tone of the new homeland security section clearly bear Trump's personal stamp. One of his most effective political narratives has been that US policymakers focus too much on problems abroad, while neglecting the security of Americans at home. This report reflects that view. The homeland security section places particular emphasis on the national security implications of illegal immigration, transnational organized crime, and the influx of deadly narcotics by drug cartels into small American communities. These are not just political talking points; they represent real and growing threats to the safety and well-being of Americans. But the political savvy of the framing should not be overlooked. While the average American may not be deeply familiar with issues such as Taiwan's security or freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, they are certainly familiar with the devastating impact of fentanyl or cartel violence. Including homeland security at the top of the Defense Intelligence Agency's global threat assessment makes the report more relevant to the American public and highlights Trump's emphasis on border security as a matter of national defense. The second striking difference is the prominent section, entitled 'Growing Cooperation Among US Competitors and Adversaries,' which comes immediately after the homeland security section. For the first time, a US threat assessment explicitly links and highlights the emerging coordination among America's adversaries and competitors. The report states: 'Building on activities over the past two years, leaders in Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang will strengthen their nations' ties in their drive to undermine the influence of the US and its allies.' This is an important — and overdue — acknowledgment of a multipolar and interconnected world. For years, much of the US foreign policy establishment has resisted the concept of multipolarity, preferring to see the world in unipolar or bipolar terms. This resistance is rooted in Cold War-era thinking, when power was viewed through a US-versus-Soviet lens. But a new generation of American strategists understands that multiple centers of power exist — and are increasingly coordinating with one another to challenge US interests around the globe. The coming months will be critical for the future of America's role in the world. Luke Coffey Recognizing the reality of this multipolar environment does not mean conceding that all powers are equal. It simply acknowledges the complexity of today's geopolitical landscape. The inclusion of this section in the threat assessment is a necessary step toward grappling with the way these regimes are learning from each other, cooperating diplomatically, militarily, and economically, and exploiting US vulnerabilities. To illustrate the shift, if you took a diplomat from 1980 and one from 1880 and brought them both to 2025, it might be the latter — accustomed to a world of competing empires and power centers — who would better recognize the dynamics at play today. Recognizing these trends is one thing, acting on them another. Within the new administration, there are competing schools of thought on how to respond. Some believe China is the primary threat and argue that all instruments of US power should be directed toward countering Beijing. Others, often aligned with more isolationist instincts, believe the US should focus exclusively on homeland security and reduce its global footprint. Then there are more traditional Republican voices who argue that the US must be able to address multiple threats simultaneously and maintain its global leadership role. Though the administration is still filling out its national security team, the contents of the Defense Intelligence Agency report suggest that the latter group is gaining the upper hand, at least for now. That could signal a more balanced approach in future, one that prioritizes US security at home, while maintaining engagement and vigilance abroad. In the coming months, the Department of Defense is expected to publish a new National Defense Strategy, which should provide additional clarity on how the US plans to counter the threats identified in the Defense Intelligence Agency assessment. Likewise, the National Security Council is likely to release a similar document outlining a more comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to these challenges. Importantly, all these strategies must be backed by resources. The White House will need to work with Congress to ensure that the budget aligns with these stated priorities. It is one thing to acknowledge that America's adversaries are coordinating their efforts, but quite another to craft a strategy — and appropriate the funds — to counter them effectively. Some in the Biden administration may have understood that this emerging coordination by America's competitors posed a threat, but were reluctant to spotlight it publicly for fear of being forced to act. The Trump administration, by contrast, has put these challenges front and center. But in doing so, it has also raised the stakes. Having declared that homeland defense is national security — and that America's adversaries are working together — the administration will now be judged on how it responds. The coming months will be critical, not only for America's national security and that of its allies, but also for the future of America's role in the world.
