Just three years ago, the Left led several efforts to defund the police.
It came as a surprise then, when Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on Monday announced he’s moving the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement out of the small and little-known Office of Partnership and Engagement at DHS and pulling it up into the Secretary’s Office while promoting the head of OSLLE to assistant secretary with direct reporting to the secretary.
Which raises the question: Why now is the Left interested in federalizing police?
The answer is quite simple: Election season is upon us, and it’s time to delve into the tried-and-true playbook of dialing up “white supremacy” and “domestic violent extremism” rhetoric.
Unlike in elections of the past, it’s fair to suspect this cycle will witness overt censorship, arrests, and prosecutions of the Left’s political opponents for 2024. There’s good reason to believe this as the examples have already been laid bare, former President Donald Trump has been indicted three times, and the stark contrast of how the federal government treats Antifa and BLM activists compared with Catholic churches and concerned parents.
This maneuvering by Mayorkas also reeks of political weaponization of federal offices and taxpayer grant dollars.
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on July 26, Mayorkas highlighted the fact that DHS agents receive public attacks on their character and service, threats that extend beyond the agents themselves and encompass their families as well. It seemed as though he had forgotten that it was members of the Left that emboldened the narratives and paved the way for nightly violence against DHS law enforcement officers in 2020.
Throughout the hearing, the clear narrative coordination between Mayorkas and Democratic members of the committee continued, with inquiries of violence, including that of “white supremacy,” made against DHS agents.
It was an interesting contrast with when neither those Democrats nor Mayorkas himself spoke up in defense of the dedicated employees of DHS during the 2020 riots.
The May 24 National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin foreshadowed Mayorkas’ desire to weaponize his office for political gain. The bulletin stated that the nation remained in a heightened threat environment from domestic violent extremists and those who continue to support attacks in the homeland, including potential mobilization of individuals to commit violence due to their perceptions of the 2024 general election cycle and legislative or judicial decisions pertaining to sociopolitical issues.
However, DHS grant funds should be allocated based on legitimate security needs, without being influenced by political agendas or narratives that could drive fear and division within the population.
Amid the concerns surrounding the proposed move of Office of State and Local Law Enforcement under the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security, there is also apprehension about the inclusion of “campuses” within the state, local, tribal and territorial framework.
The addition of “campuses” to the structure raises valid questions regarding the scope and objectives of such an expansion. While state, local, tribal, and territorial governments have established roles and responsibilities, the inclusion of “campuses” will likely blur the lines of authority and introduce ambiguity in the distribution of grant funds and resources.
It’s imperative to acknowledge the role of DHS grant funds in enhancing national security and emergency response capabilities. However, the reorganization of OSLLE represents the Biden administration’s intent to utilize DHS grant funds to further drive a wedge in American society using the narrative of racial and domestic violent extremism.
That raises serious concerns about political bias in the allocation of federal funds — especially funds being managed out of OSLLE, now in the secretary’s office. Grant funds should be allocated based on objective security assessments and priorities, rather than being used to advance a particular political agenda.
In this case, the funds likely will be used to win over the favor of state and local law enforcement and to have them do the administration’s bidding.
Similar to how border security has been managed by the current administration, the security and safety of law enforcement is not an area of interest unless it provides value as a political weapon capable of securing votes.
Election integrity is a foundational aspect of a functioning democracy, and the potential use of DHS grant funds to drive narratives aimed at scaring the voting public should raise questions about the fairness and impartiality of the electoral process.
As citizens, we demand transparency and accountability in government actions to protect the sanctity of our elections.
Mayorkas cannot be trusted to not interfere in the 2024 election. His body of work is comprehensive, given censorship cooperation with Big Tech, the Disinformation Governance Board, adoption of wokeism in grant guidance, and countless failures in securing our borders. The administration has been illegitimately using social grievances to favor Democratic objectives and geographic areas in a way that compromises the integrity of the department’s operations.
The American people value democracy, government accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. It’s essential to safeguard the integrity of DHS and maintain a nonpartisan approach to national security, free from politically driven narratives or actions that compromise the trust of the American people.
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.