September 11th 2001 is a day that changed national security policy around the world. Before the attacks Americans felt invincible because while there had been events such as Pearl Harbor, there had never been a successful terrorist attack on soft targets in the homeland – such as the employees at the World Trade Center. Following the event the Bush administration was pressured to carry out new policies that would ensure Americans safety and address issues that let this attack happen. When analyzing history, the Bush administration is often criticized for not doing enough, and worse – making homeland security more convoluted yet still less effective – but is this true? Polls were conducted through several major news networks from September 2003 to September 2010 to see how the American people actually felt about the effectiveness of security changes after 9/11. The findings concluded, “on average, three of every ten Americans think that their country is less safe than it was before the 9/11 attacks” (Çelikpala and Öztürk 58). These results do not seem to place much confidence in the United States government and its ability to keep the country safe. Although through different administrations the importance is placed on different issues, it has become apparent that the current efforts in regards to homeland security are not enough and that major coordination and communication gaps still prevent the United States’ response from being as effective as it can be. 

After September 11th, the major question was: How could this have been prevented? Unfortunately it was later found that: “various U.S. government agencies had had evidence that Al Qaeda was planning a major attack involving hijacked airplanes. However the information was scattered among different organizations and was never put together in such a way as to present a clear picture of danger” (D’Anieri 164). Due to this reason it was clear that something needed to be done to prevent a catastrophe like the attacks from occurring again. After surveying problems to be resolved the Bush administration figured the best solution was at first the Office of Homeland Security in October 2001 but this “underscored the federal agency coordination problems and highlighted the political and real needs to take dramatic action” (May, et al 287). Instead the administration later proposed the Department of Homeland Security which created different organizations such as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. Additionally, it merged existing organizations together such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US Coast Guard. It was established by the Homeland Security Act by Congress in November 2002 and became a reality in March 2003. Significant actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security include:

Strengthened and expanded information-sharing between the federal government and state, local, tribal, territorial and private sector partners; creation of an expanded information and communication networks which included individuals with public campaigns by raising awareness of the indicators of terrorism and crime…strengthened national and international intelligence networks…[enhanced] the security of crtical physical and cybernet works. Additionally, visa applications were tightened and more collaboration was established with the airport security authorities (Çelikpala and Öztürk  56). 

While all these measures were implemented it was remained to be seen how effective they would be. Ideally it would make the government stronger and thus the American people safer, however, there were concerns that this would not be the result. 

Hurricane Katrina was the first event post-9/11 that highlighted the lack of communication within the Department of Homeland Security. While people typically think strictly of terrorism and national security when thinking of the Department of Homeland Security it is important to consider FEMA which is organized under the DHS. Due to the nature of the event it required that the emergency response be quick and effective to help the over fifteen million people who were affected. However, the result was a botched implementation of the new Homeland Security constructed by the Bush administration and thus a failure to aid the victims of Katrina immediately. While one of the important functions of the Department of Homeland Security was to clarify roles of organizations, it unfortunately made it more complicated by failing to follow a hierarchical structure. The hierarchal structure was important to implement because it would ensure information would be shared between the higher ups as well as the lower level officials instead of only going to the top. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, Brattberg states “the existence of parallel command structures between federal and state personnel operating in the state of Louisiana had given rise to questions such as ‘who is in charge’, complicating responsibility and accountability” (qtd. Daniels et. al pg. 251). Unfortunately it was uncertain what everyone’s job was and this caused time to be wasted. The natural disaster was the first true test of the new homeland security methods put into place by the Bush administration and it flunked. Additionally, there was shown to be issues with using the resources issued by the federal government. The state and local governments receive federal grants to use for prevention purposes and aid after the fact but the “problems [exist] with regard to applying risk methodology and the distribution of assistance” (Brattberg 87). Money cannot be of help to anyone if it is not used for the purpose in which it is intended. 

Disappointed by the results of the supposedly safer policy, policymakers sought out to further improve the system. The main emphasis was on bettering communication and disaster planning because the thought was if you have to respond to a crisis you have already failed (Fernholz). If there is an effective plan put in place beforehand and people are educated about it then it will help drastically in efficiency after a disaster. Additionally the improvements “also clarified the command hierarchy from the FEMA administrator to the homeland security secretary and the president” a problem that wasted time during Katrina (Fernholz). When tragedy strikes it is not the time to be discussing who should be doing what or figuring out who has authority. Fernholz later claimed that the responses have been more “competent” in recent situations although it is still not enough. Fernholz also draws attention to the way the Bush administration let the September 11th attacks skew the focus of the Department of Homeland Security. He claims that although it is of course a pertinent issue terrorism cannot be focused on so much so that it depletes resources from other areas specifically response to natural disasters (Fernholz). For a more effective system, the resources should be coordinated roughly equally or departments within Homeland Security are going to be neglected. Turkish authors, Mitat Çelikpala and Duygu Öztürk, go as far to say the fear Americans feel is “more a mixture of real and unreal threats, imagined and actual risks, arising from the 9/11 experience and the awareness of the vulnerability of modern society to unknown and uncontrollable risks” (53-54). While it is recognized that the September 11th attacks were a turning point in history it cannot affect American policy so much that it in essence become ineffective. The hope of Fernholz’s article, written in 2009, was that policy would change under the Obama administration to further improve the Department of Homeland Security. Looking back on it eight years later it is hard to say that much progress has been made under Obama. 

The Obama administration mimicked many of the Bush administration’s policies but changed slightly – while the lack coordination and communication improved it remains an issue to be solved. According to “Constructing Homeland Security: An Anemic Policy Regime” in 2009 Janet Napolitano, then Secretary of Homeland Security, released that while terrorism would remain “the number one mission” border and immigration enforcement climbed to much higher importance than in previous administrations, ranking second and third respectively (May et al). This prioritization still left natural disasters by the wayside not classifying it as important as other tasks. However, the Obama administration recognized “survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches…[and that] such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience” (Obama 1). Without effective communication established every other safety measure put into place is rendered useless. Coordination and communication continues to be highlighted several times in “Executive Order 13618” stressing that the United States government understands the importance of this concept. Additionally it seems the Obama administrations has “tried to shift away from Bush era promise of ‘never again’ toward an acceptance that some attacks will inevitably succeed…[his] political opponents criticized this as throwing in the towel” while homeland security officials believe it is best for the country (Brill). When interviewed with this information President Obama rejected the idea that his policy is to simply give up on prevention but rather focus on the aftermath and the quick response by first responders. President Obama although proud to admit the response to events such as the Boston Marathon bombing or San Bernardino improved due to communication still has some focus on protecting the country from these incidents in the first place (Brill). The problem remains that there are issues of coordination due to changing tactics.

Although the Department of Homeland Security is trying to adapt in a world of ever-changing terrorist threats it is hard to overcome the change. During the Bush administration terrorist threats came from large organizations such as Al Qaeda and they had no way of gaining a large network base besides recruitment in foreign countries. However, during the Obama administration many of the recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by lone-wolf perpetrators or homegrown terrorists. The strategy must then be changed to cope with the different tactics. As evidence by the Boston Marathon and San Bernardino communication between first responders and federal, state and local governments has vastly improved, however, there remains coordination issues that lead to threats going unnoticed. It is not until after the attacks that the pieces are put together and foreshadowing events are realized. 

Unfortunately with the Trump administration it seems that improvements in communication and coordination are reverting to the likes of the Bush era. A hotly debated current event was and still is the travel ban set forth by President Trump through an executive order. It is no secret that this event has angered many Americans after seeing many protests and overall chaos on the news. This executive order was enacted the first week of Trump’s presidency and has caused major controversy. There is no doubt, this is a “sharp turn in the debate underpinning national security policy since the 9/11 attacks -- how to best keep Americans safe and battle extremism at home and abroad without alienating Muslims in a way that could foster more radicalism” (Collinson). While this essay does not aim to agree or disagree with the travel ban, the lack of coordination is apparent in this instance. The chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Coker, criticized the policy because it “had been poorly implemented, especially with regard to green card holders” (Collinson). Several stories released the same week told stories of American citizens or those with green cards being rejected and not being able to return to their home from other countries. Through photographs and other news stories it also became clear that TSA agents were not clearly informed of procedures to be carried out. Thus mass confusion ensued because there was no coordination between the White House and lower level officials. Due to Trump’s decision to use an Executive Order rather than get an act passed by Congress it is also apparent that there was a lack of communication. According to the article written by Collinson, congressmen and woman were outraged at the ban believing that it was untrue of American beliefs and values. Since the public outcry and increased communication the executive order has been modified slightly but if the lack thereof continues, the progress made in previous administrations to improve the Department of Homeland Security will have been for naught. 

More recently, President Trump has revised the immigration policy used under the Obama administration. The Obama administration was often criticized for being more relaxed in regards to illegal immigration. In fact the orders given more or less meant that federal agents should not pursue illegal immigrants unless they have committed a serious or dangerous crime. However, President Trump is now taking a hardline response to illegal immigrants deporting them by the masses. Memos sent out to further the executive order written on January 25th explains the plans to “[set] the groundwork for Mr.Trump’s border wall, maintaining more detention beds to hold illegal immigrants, adding 5,000 agents to Border Patrol, adding 10,000 agents to ICE…and hiring 500 more officers for the Air and marine operations at Customs and Border Protection” (Dinan). Yet it is questionable whether Congress will even pass the funding for these plans. Again communication is seen lacking and may affect the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to do the job the President is asking. “White House unleashes federal agents against illegal immigrants” Furthermore, the article later mentions how the new administration plans to handle accepting immigrants and special cases. After explaining the idealistic plans Trump has mapped out the author states “but many of those details remain to be worked out” showing a lack of coordination (Dinan). How is the Department of Homeland Security supposed to carry out tasks that are unrealistic and are great in theory but have no real backing? In order to make this plan effective there needs to be clarification between the White House and the DHS.  

While communication is a major issue within the Department of Homeland Security still many point to the problem as a lack of focus. There remains no single definition for homeland security although it is a phrase that has been commonly used since the September 11th attacks.  According to a Congressional report written in 2012, “Varied homeland security definitions and missions may impede the development of a coherent national homeland security strategy, and may hamper the effectiveness of congressional oversight” (Reese 1). If there cannot be a general consensus of what homeland security is, it becomes quite difficult to decide how to best resolve issues. While this is a fair point it all stems from the lack of coordination and communication that has been discussed in this paper. Departments within homeland security need to coordinate on who is responsible for what and how situations should be handled to avoid incidents like Hurricane Katrina. Of course, there needs to be a strengthening of a focus but having a strict definition of what Homeland Security is may not be necessary. There are many definitions within the United States that vary from generation to generation or with changing administrations. For instance, the US Constitution is up to interpretation and rulings change over time. However this is not seen as a problem but rather how the United States’ government works. The focus should be to assign clear roles and ensure effective communication because with coordination and communication any task within the Department of Homeland Security can be achieved. 

Overall, though communication and coordination has improved within the Department of Homeland Security there are still problems with the current situation. Over time the DHS has improved from the basic idea it was when it first started during the Bush administration. From the September 11th attacks it was clear that something needed to be done and again after Hurricane Katrina. While the Obama administration has worked hard to improve communication and coordination issues to handle recent terrorist attacks it seems as though the Trump administration is reverting the progress. From the two major changes in homeland security enacted by the new administration fear and misunderstanding has ensued due to lack of information. In order to make Americans as safe as possible there needs to be clear understanding and communication within the Department of Homeland Security and its policies or all of its efforts will be rendered useless. 
