Is an obsession with immigration leaving America exposed?

AS AMERICA WAGES war in Iran, a spate of recent incidents has raised concerns about security at home. Federal officials are investigating shootings in Texas and Virginia as potential acts of terrorism, and an attack on a synagogue in Michigan as targeted violence against Jews. In New York police recently arrested two teenagers—allegedly inspired by Islamic State—for throwing homemade bombs at a protest. In California an FBI warning that Iran could send drones to the west coast made headlines, prompting the governor to deny that there was an imminent threat.

Iran is not accused of sponsoring any of the attacks, but the war has created a sense of unease. The gunman in Texas had an Iranian flag in his apartment; the synagogue attacker had lost relatives in Israeli strikes in Lebanon. Iran itself has a history of backing terrorism abroad, including attacks on American targets. Authorities have linked it to assassination attempts against two of Donald Trump’s former advisers and, later, the president himself.

Mr Trump is projecting calm. On March 9th he was asked whether Iran had activated sleeper cells in America. “They’ve been trying for a long time,” he replied. “We’ve been very much on top of it.” Yet there is growing debate about America’s counterterrorism capabilities—and whether the country is as prepared as it should be.

Much of the criticism centres on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which was created after 9/11 to “secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks”. Under Mr Trump, however, it has become the engine of his mass-deportation campaign. Public records obtained last year by the Cato Institute, a think-tank, show that more than 12,000 of the department’s investigative officers, some of whom surely worked in counterterrorism, were reassigned to immigration enforcement. Roughly 2,000 Border Patrol agents normally tasked with guarding against threats were pulled off their duties to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest and detain migrants.

A former DHS official says counterterrorism received short shrift in senior-level meetings, with terrorism-related correspondence sometimes ignored by colleagues focused on immigration enforcement. A 22-year-old was installed to oversee the dismantling of a DHS agency dedicated to terrorism prevention. When the administration does talk about terrorism, it tends to link it to immigration. Alleged drug-runners in the Caribbean have been branded “narco-terrorists”. The president claims some foreign agents “came in during the Biden open border period”.

The same pattern is evident at the FBI. Early in Mr Trump’s second term, nearly a quarter of the bureau’s agents were reassigned to immigration enforcement, diverting some from counterterrorism. For agents who work with confidential sources, even a few days away from their job can jeopardise investigations, says Michael Feinberg, a former counterintelligence agent. “If a recruited asset tries to get me word that there is an imminent terrorist threat or espionage leak, and I can’t respond because I’m doing perimeter security for ICE for a week, there’s real potential for risk and damage.”

The FBI’s leaders also appear to be prioritising political loyalty over expertise. Days before the Iran war began, the bureau’s director, Kash Patel, fired a dozen staff, including several agents who worked in a unit monitoring threats from Iran. They were reportedly dismissed for investigating Mr Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents found at his Florida resort after his first term. Mr Feinberg, who investigated China’s intelligence services, resigned last year rather than face a demotion and a polygraph test about his friendship with another agent Mr Trump disliked. On March 17th Joe Kent, a senior counterterrorism official outside the FBI, resigned in protest over the Iran war.

The administration denies that any of its actions have made the country less safe. Mr Trump instead argues that the real threat to America’s counterterrorism capabilities comes from the “Democrat shutdown”. Congressional Democrats have refused to fund the DHS unless the bill includes new restraints on ICE. Yet most of the department’s employees are considered essential and are therefore still reporting to work, albeit without pay. One former counterterrorism official reckons the shutdown would not hurt investigative capacity, but could lower morale.

Experts tend to preface any discussion of the current risk with reminders of the superiority of American intelligence. “We could get through this period without much retaliation,” says a former counterterrorism official. Yet the attacks in Texas, Virginia and Michigan highlight the diffuse nature of the threat. Nor should Iran be underestimated. “The Iranian services”, says the former official, “have been known to be capable—and patient.” ■