The DHS Push to Transform Local Police Into Intelligence Arms

In early 2012, the Department of Homeland Security delivered testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence titled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission.” This came roughly nine months before a Senate subcommittee investigation concluded that DHS fusion centers were costly, redundant bureaucracies that posed serious threats to civil liberties.

The testimony read as a lengthy justification for the department’s continued relevance. Nearly every third sentence appeared to acknowledge — and then desperately counter — the reality that DHS’s intelligence functions largely duplicated work already being done by other agencies. The United States already maintains 17 separate intelligence agencies. The Senate investigation found that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force operations were already carrying out the intelligence mission DHS had spent hundreds of billions to build.

Decentralizing Surveillance to the Local Level

With its core mission under scrutiny, DHS signaled a troubling new direction. The testimony argued that as threats become “more localized,” state and local partners would increasingly generate the first leads on emerging threats. The proposed solution: DHS would train, staff, and embed analysts within major city police departments, effectively decentralizing its surveillance apparatus into local law enforcement.

In practice, this meant transforming local police departments into mini intelligence agencies. Evidence of what this looked like on the ground had already emerged in Boston, where the DHS-funded Boston Regional Intelligence Center had been documented monitoring peaceful protest activities and labeling participants as “Extremists” and domestic security threats in intelligence reports shared with federal agencies.

Why Police Federalization Threatens Communities

The fundamental problem with this approach is straightforward: local police departments exist to respond to local concerns, not to serve as extensions of federal intelligence operations. Terrorism, statistically speaking, is not a significant threat in the vast majority of American cities. Research has shown that Americans face roughly the same probability of being killed by their own furniture as by a terrorist attack.

Despite these statistics, DHS continued to direct substantial funding and surveillance technology to local departments, using terrorism as the justification. The result was a steady militarization and federalization of community policing — a transformation that happened largely outside public view and without democratic input.

Practical Steps for Challenging Police Militarization

Reversing this trend requires organized civic engagement at the local level. Police departments are unlikely to voluntarily surrender access to federal funding for surveillance equipment and data-sharing programs accumulated over the past decade. Citizens in Oakland demonstrated one model of resistance by organizing public opposition to Alameda County’s plans to acquire surveillance drones.

The process begins with information gathering. Residents can visit their local police department’s website for details on federal grants and information-sharing programs, then file public records requests to learn how federal funds have been spent over the preceding five years. Organizations like MuckRock provide tools to streamline this process.

Taking Findings to the Public and Local Government

Once the information is in hand, the next step is public awareness. Writing op-eds for local newspapers, contributing to community news platforms, and spreading findings through available channels all serve to put local officials on notice that residents are paying attention to police department activities.

The final step involves bringing the issue directly to local governing bodies. If research reveals that a police department installed DHS-funded surveillance cameras without public debate, residents can demand that all future federal grants to police be discussed openly, that elected officials have meaningful input on policing procedures, and that clear data-sharing policies govern what information gets passed to outside agencies.

The goal is ensuring communities retain democratic control over local law enforcement rather than allowing federal agencies to quietly reshape policing from the inside out.