Politics

Fact Check: What Are the Risks if Homeland Security Shuts Down?

Published

12 years ago

February 9, 2015

Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville, Jr., Director of Operations J3, speaks about the operations in Syria, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2014, during a news conference at the Pentagon. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

Erica Werner and Alicia A. Caldwell, ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Spending for the Department of Homeland Security hangs in the balance as Congress fights over immigration matters in the agency’s annual funding bill. Without action by Feb. 27, the department’s budget will shut off.

To hear Democrats and many Republicans tell it, the result would be unacceptable risks to U.S. security at a time of grave threats worldwide. In reality, though, most people will see little change if the department’s money flow is halted, and some of the warnings of doom are as exaggerated as they are striking.

“There are ghoulish, grim predators out there who would love to kill us or do us harm,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. “We should not be dillydallying and playing parliamentary pingpong with national security.”

In the view of some House conservatives, though, shutting off the agency’s $40 billion budget for a time “is obviously not the end of the world,” as Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., put it, because many agency employees would stay at work through a shutdown.

Who’s right, and what would the impact be if Congress were to let money for the department lapse?

Salmon and a few other conservatives are the only ones saying it publicly so far, but the reality is that a department shutdown would have a very limited impact on national security.

That’s because most department employees fall into exempted categories of workers who stay on the job in a shutdown because they perform work considered necessary to protect human life and property. Even in a shutdown, most workers across agencies, including the Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Customs and Border Protection, would continue to report to work.

Airport security checkpoints would remain staffed, the Secret Service would continue to protect the president and other dignitaries, the Coast Guard would stay on patrol, and immigration agents would still be on the job.

Indeed, of the agency’s approximately 230,000 employees, some 200,000 of them would keep working even if Congress fails to fund their agency. It’s a reality that was on display during the 16-day government-wide shutdown in the fall of 2013, when national parks and monuments closed but essential government functions kept running, albeit sometimes on reduced staff.

So what of the sometimes overheated rhetoric, often from Democrats?

“If this goes to shutdown,” Mikulski said, “this could close down ports up and down the East Coast, because if you don’t have a Coast Guard, you don’t have the ports. You don’t have the ports, you don’t have an economy.”

But if the department loses its money, the Coast Guard will stay in operation and so will the ports.

There would be one big change, though. Most workers would not get paid until the shutdown ends, a circumstance guaranteed to put pressure on members of Congress hearing from constituents angry about going without their paychecks.

Making employees come to work without pay is “a real challenge” for them, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Workers at agencies funded by fees, instead of by congressional appropriations, would continue their functions while still drawing a paycheck.

It so happens that applies to the very employees charged with putting in place the immigration programs at the heart of the political dispute.

Fees pay the salaries of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services workers who would process applications from immigrants eligible to work lawfully in the country under President Barack Obama’s immigration policies. Even though Republicans are so determined to shut down Obama’s program that some are willing to risk Homeland Security money to do it, it would stay up and running with little impact in the event of a shutdown.

So who would stop working in a shutdown? Mostly administrative staff, including support workers at headquarters and personnel who do training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, employees involved in research and development, and those responsible for operating and maintaining the E-Verify system that allows businesses to check the immigration status of new hires.

In addition, all personnel involved in administering grants would be furloughed, including Federal Emergency Management Agency workers who make grants to state and local governments, fire departments, and others to help them prepare for or respond to various threats and emergencies. That has led to pleas to Congress from the mayors, among others, to keep Homeland Security Department funding going.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

###

Reporter II

Posts by Reporter II

Related Topics:defense budget Government Shutdown Homeland Security

Up Next

Assemblyman Tony Thurmond Introduces Staff

Don't Miss

Top Black Dems to Skip Netanyahu Speech

Reporter II

Click to comment

Business

Newsom Signs Addictive Social Media Law to Protect Kids

Newsom said California’s approach focuses on the features that can encourage excessive social media use rather than taking the broader step of banning teenagers from the platforms altogether. He contrasted the measure with restrictions adopted in Australia and Malaysia that prevent teenagers from accessing social media or creating accounts.

Published

5 days ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Word Count: 391

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a new California law targeting addictive social media features that can keep children scrolling, giving the state new authority to restrict how platforms engage young users.

AB 1709, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) prohibits social media companies from giving children under 16 access to personalized feeds, including “For You” pages, as well as other features designed to maximize screen time, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay.

The law does not prevent children under 16 from using social media. Instead, platforms must deactivate the covered features for those users.

“This is about actually addressing the problem, the scrolling, the algorithms,” Newsom said Sept. 10 during a bill-signing event in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The law comes amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on children’s mental health and well-being. California lawmakers have increasingly focused on the design and business practices of technology platforms as part of efforts to protect young users.

AB 1709 is one of 13 youth online safety and privacy laws Newsom signed Sept.10. The package also includes measures regulating AI chatbots, increasing potential penalties for technology companies and establishing additional protections for children using digital services.

Lowenthal said the new rules represent a shift toward greater accountability for technology companies.

“We want oversight. We want accountability. We’re done asking nicely, and we’re demanding that there is a duty of care across these platforms — a duty that puts the wellness of our children ahead of profits,” Lowenthal said.

The law builds on California’s broader effort to regulate children’s online experiences. A separate law, AB 1043, will require users to provide their birth dates when setting up new phones or laptops beginning in January, with device manufacturers required to share users’ ages with apps.

Some youth online safety advocates have supported AB 1709 as a more targeted alternative to outright social media bans. Others have warned that the restrictions could make it harder for some LGBTQ+ young people to find support online and questioned how effectively age requirements can be enforced.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Featured

On Your November Ballot: Prop 38 Would Allocate $8.4 Billion to Immunology and Immunotherapy Funding

“Yes on 38”, with the tagline “Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures,” is leading the campaign for the support side of the proposition.

Published

5 days ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

By Austin Gage, California Black Media

California voters will decide in November whether Proposition (Prop) 38 should authorize substantial state funding for immunology and immunotherapy research.

The initiative would fund immunology and immunotherapy research aimed at harnessing the body’s immune system to develop new treatments, medical procedures and potential cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

More specifically, Prop 38, titled the Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Funding Initiative, is split into three main components that would go into effect if passed.

First, the initiative would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to support immunology and immunotherapy research. At least half of the bond proceeds, or $4.2 billion, would be dedicated exclusively to research.

Additionally, Prop 38 would make it mandatory for the state to enter into an agreement with a qualified nonprofit institute focused and dedicated to researching immunology and immunotherapy within 90 days of the initiative’s effective date. The research institute must be affiliated with the University of California.

The third component mandates that the remaining bond revenue must be directed to California-based public and nonprofit medical institutions through a peer-reviewed grant process.

“Yes on 38”, with the tagline “Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures,” is leading the campaign for the support side of the proposition.

Along with the campaign, organizations that have publicly supported the ballot initiative include the California Democratic Party, The ALS Association, Alzheimer’s treatment and advocacy organizations, California Black Health Network, Parkinson Association of Northern California and Reform California among others.

“California has an opportunity to accelerate lifesaving medical breakthroughs. Immunotherapies work differently than traditional treatments. Instead of attacking cells directly, they empower the body’s own immune system to recognize and stop disease. Today, these therapies are already treating certain cancers and chronic conditions — and researchers continue to expand what’s possible. This initiative invests in proven science so cures can move from the lab to patients faster,” said the campaign.

No on Proposition 38 is leading the campaign against the measure, with support from the League of Women Voters of California. Opponents argue that California cannot afford to assume $8.4 billion in debt for medical research that may not produce definitive results. They also object to directing more than half of the bond proceeds — $4.2 billion — to a single qualifying nonprofit research institute, arguing that funding decisions of this magnitude should be made through the state’s regular budget process.

“Medical research can save lives, but Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund it. It would authorize $8.4 billion in borrowing for immunology and immunotherapy research and require the state to make $500 million to $600 million in annual debt payments for about 20 years. Those payments would come from the General Fund, which also pays for schools, health care, and other public services,” the League of Women Voters of California said.

A “yes” vote would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy medical research.

A “no” vote would reject the proposed bond funding.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Community

Asm. Isaac Bryan’s Bill Banning California Police From ICE Side Jobs Reaches Newsom’s Desk

The legislation comes as ICE ramps up efforts to recruit law enforcement personnel under the Trump administration. Bryan said the federal agency is offering financial incentives to attract officers, raising concerns about the impact on local law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.

Published

5 days ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

A bill by California Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights) that would prevent state and local police officers from taking second jobs with federal immigration enforcement agencies is headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom after clearing the Legislature.

AB 1537 would bar California peace officers from accepting secondary employment related to immigration enforcement, including work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The measure also would require officers to report offers for immigration enforcement-related outside employment to their employing agencies.

“They are trying to recruit our law enforcement personnel. They are offering these insane bonuses,” Bryan said.

Bryan said he is particularly concerned about efforts to recruit experienced law enforcement personnel while questions have been raised about ICE’s hiring standards.

“They want better skilled, better trained folks because their untrained and uneducated goons go through a very low threshold,” Bryan added.

The legislation would create consequences for California officers who violate its restrictions. Officers who fail to report offers of secondary employment related to immigration enforcement could face decertification as peace officers in California.

Bryan has framed the bill as a measure to establish boundaries between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement, particularly as immigration enforcement has become a major source of conflict between the Trump administration and California.

“This is a rogue agency that is harming the American people,” said Bryan. “It should be abolished, but in the meantime, we’ve got to do everything we can to put guardrails around our communities and protect our neighbors.”

AB 1537 previously received approval from the Assembly Public Safety Committee in March before advancing through the Legislature. The bill now awaits Newsom’s decision. The Governor can sign it into law, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.