**
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has faced significant upheaval and intimidation tactics in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, leading to a troubling environment for both employees and vulnerable immigrant communities. An extensive investigation reveals that under former Secretary Kristi Noem and her successor Markwayne Mullin, the DHS has been marked by forced reassignments, polygraph examinations, and a systematic dismantling of oversight bodies, creating a pervasive atmosphere of fear among staff.
A Campaign of Intimidation
In the final months of Kristi Noem’s leadership, federal officials within the DHS who were responsible for implementing the “mass deportation” programme reported a climate of intimidation driven by Trump loyalists occupying senior roles. Interviews with over three dozen current and former officials illuminated a troubling reality, where dissent was met with threats of termination or arrest, particularly aimed at those who questioned potentially unlawful practices.
Harun Ahmed, a former deputy chief at the refugee affairs law division of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), described a shift from a mission centred on refugee assistance to one that prioritised compliance with directives he deemed immoral. “They wanted employees to sign off on efforts even when we believed they were immoral, illegal or ahistorical,” Ahmed remarked, reflecting the growing pressure on career officials to compromise their professional ethics.
Drastic Changes and Policy Reversals
During Noem’s tenure, the DHS executed over 675,000 deportations and drastically expanded immigration detention. The administration’s actions included a near-total halt on refugee resettlement while prioritising the admission of certain groups, such as white South Africans. The return of family separation practices and transferring deportees to third countries marked a significant regression in the department’s approach to humanitarian issues.
Despite objections from career staff, the leadership ignored calls to reconsider these policies. Ahmed noted that many who pushed back were sidelined or removed from projects, leading him to accept a buyout offer from the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (Doge), reluctantly leaving a career dedicated to public service.
Polygraph Tests: A Tool of Intimidation
Several DHS officials reported being subjected to polygraph tests not for standard security screenings, but as a means of intimidation. These examinations, administered by military personnel, created a chilling effect within the department. Employees recounted being read their Miranda rights before questioning, a procedure typically reserved for criminal investigations, underscoring the gravity of the situation. Many felt coerced into compliance, fearing that refusal could result in job loss or termination of security clearance.
The polygraph sessions, some lasting up to six hours, were described by participants as psychologically distressing. Officials were often instructed to remain still and calm, with one recalling the uncomfortable experience of a blood-pressure cuff being inflated for extended periods. This level of scrutiny contributed to an already tense workplace environment, with staff experiencing significant anxiety over their professional futures.
Forced Reassignments and Their Consequences
The atmosphere at the DHS was further exacerbated by forced reassignments, which were utilised as a pressure tactic against career employees. Those affected were often given minimal time to accept new positions in different locations and roles that were outside their expertise. Reports revealed that many employees felt compelled to resign or accept buyouts rather than relocate or abandon their careers.
Ron Rosenberg, a former USCIS executive, highlighted the previous administration’s use of reassignment as a method to oust career staff. He described an environment increasingly characterised by internal strife and political loyalty tests, a trend that intensified during Noem’s term. According to Rosenberg, the pace of change was unprecedented, likening it to “lighting a canister of jet fuel on day one,” where daily operations became a battleground for ideological conflicts.
New Leadership, Same Challenges
Following Noem’s dismissal in March 2026 amid public backlash over her policies, Markwayne Mullin was confirmed as the new DHS Secretary. While Mullin expressed a commitment to stabilising the department and reducing negative media attention, insiders suggest that the underlying issues remain unaddressed. His ability to enact meaningful change is constrained by an administration that continues to dictate immigration policy from the White House.
Critics argue that Mullin’s leadership, while perhaps less overtly confrontational, has not fundamentally altered the department’s trajectory. Dorothea Lay, a former senior attorney at USCIS, pointed out that a focus on avoiding bad publicity does not equate to a genuine commitment to reform. The influence of figures like Stephen Miller, a prominent architect of the administration’s immigration strategy, raises concerns about the continuity of harmful practices.
Why it Matters
The internal dynamics at the DHS under the Trump administration raise critical questions about the treatment of civil servants and the implications for vulnerable immigrant populations. As policies shift and new leaders take charge, the legacy of fear and repression continues to cast a long shadow over the department. The erosion of oversight and the chilling effect on staff can have profound consequences on the lives of countless individuals seeking refuge and safety. As the DHS grapples with its identity and mission, the ongoing struggle for humane immigration policies remains at the forefront of national discourse, demanding accountability and a reevaluation of priorities.