A Decisive Step Toward Security
In March 2025, the Department of Homeland Security closed three oversight offices, igniting fierce debate. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman vanished overnight. This bold move, led by Secretary Kristi Noem under President Trump’s administration, aims to refocus DHS on its core mission: securing America’s borders.
These offices, established by Congress, were meant to ensure accountability. But over time, they morphed into bureaucratic barriers, clogging the system with reports and investigations that slowed immigration enforcement. Taxpayers deserve better than funding offices that hinder the very policies they elected leaders to enact. The closures prioritize efficiency and security over endless oversight.
A coalition of 21 state attorneys general, spearheaded by California’s Rob Bonta, has filed an amicus brief in Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. They demand the offices reopen, arguing the closures harm residents and defy congressional mandates. Their real aim, though, is to preserve a system that obstructs border control while cloaking their agenda in moral rhetoric.
Do These Offices Deliver?
On paper, the shuttered offices handled critical tasks: investigating civil rights complaints, assisting with immigration cases, and monitoring detention conditions. But their track record tells a different story. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties often stalled enforcement with excessive scrutiny. The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman bogged down visa and green card applications, frustrating legal immigrants. The Immigration Detention Ombudsman’s reports leaned heavily on narrative over evidence, amplifying anti-detention sentiment.
Historical data raises doubts about their impact. Since their inception—1999 for the CIS Ombudsman, 2002 for CRCL, and 2020 for OIDO—these offices have churned out reports but delivered little change. A May 2025 California report on ICE facilities highlighted issues like medical care gaps and excessive force, yet these issues persisted despite decades of oversight. If these offices were effective, why do the same problems linger?
Bonta’s coalition claims the closures will leave detainees and visa applicants vulnerable. But their case lacks substance. Federal courts have already reinstated inspection mechanisms through injunctions, ensuring oversight of detention facilities. Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office’s 2025 report identified $100 billion in potential agency savings, showing that cutting inefficiencies like these offices frees up resources for priorities like border patrols.
Who Controls the Agencies?
The attorneys general argue that DHS lacked authority to close congressionally created offices. Legally, they have a point—courts, as in INS v. Chadha (1983), have ruled that only Congress can dissolve statutory agencies. But this argument sidesteps a larger truth: the president has a constitutional duty to execute laws efficiently. These offices, by delaying deportations and enforcement, undermined that responsibility.
In March 2025, Congress advanced HR 1295 to expand presidential reorganization powers, allowing agency restructuring with a simple up-or-down vote. This reflects a growing recognition that bureaucratic gridlock hampers effective governance. Why force DHS to maintain offices that complicate its mission? The Constitution grants the president authority to manage the executive branch, a principle upheld in disputes over executive orders and agency control.
The opposition’s demand for oversight ignores a fundamental reality: elected leaders, not unelected bureaucrats, are accountable to voters. Americans who re-elected President Trump in 2024 want stronger borders, not more internal audits. The closures align with that mandate, empowering DHS to act decisively. Why cling to offices that dilute this focus?
Weighing Costs Against Benefits
Critics of the closures predict chaos: detainees neglected, visa applicants stranded, civil rights ignored. These warnings exaggerate the impact. ICE facilities face scrutiny from GAO audits, Inspector General reports, and court-ordered inspections, ensuring accountability without OIDO. Closing the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman eliminates delays, not assistance—streamlining USCIS, as proposed by Project 2025, would better serve legal immigrants.
The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties’ functions, like addressing discrimination complaints, can be managed by DHS’s general counsel, saving millions without compromising protections. The $725 billion in savings from GAO’s past recommendations proves that efficiency drives results. Redirecting funds from oversight to Border Patrol agents strengthens security where it matters most.
Restoring these offices would drain resources from enforcement to sustain bureaucrats who produce paperwork, not progress. The choice is clear: invest in a leaner, more effective DHS or cling to a bloated system that slows down the fight for secure borders. Which serves America better?
Building a Safer Future
The battle over DHS oversight offices is about more than bureaucracy. It’s about defining America’s priorities: secure borders, safe communities, and a government that delivers results. The closures move us closer to that goal, freeing DHS to focus on enforcement rather than navigating internal hurdles.
Bonta’s lawsuit may win temporary victories in court, but the broader fight requires Congress to empower the president to reorganize agencies for efficiency. These offices didn’t fix detention conditions or streamline immigration—they added complexity. The path forward lies in trusting leaders who prioritize action over endless review.
Americans want a nation that protects its sovereignty and prosperity. By closing these offices, DHS is acting on that demand. It’s time to support decisions that strengthen our borders and honor the trust of the people. Who stands for a stronger America?