A New York Times article, “Takeaways for the Times’ Look Inside DHS” (www.nytimes.com › 2026/04/14 › magazine), was critical of that federal agency’s operations including those under current Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin. (“For the past 15 months, the Department of Homeland Security has carried out the harshest crackdown on illegal immigration since the 1950s.”). It was one of many pieces, published before and since, against the agency. It reflects what seems to be liberal media’s ever-opposition to conservative administrations and policies enforcing legitimate laws such as those carried out by DHS.
However, an exception to that normal resistance occurred during the Obama administration in 2009 when Janet Napolitano was Secretary of Homeland Security. It involved a DHS-issued document styled, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” That report made overly broad characterizations of those whom it labeled “rightwing extremists.” But it turned out that the “extremists” were largely a category of individuals and institutions (including Christian churches) opposed to administration policies on abortion, free trade agreements, gun control, and same-sex marriage, in addition to lax immigration enforcement. Among other falsehoods, the agency report depicted military veterans as being “vulnerable to radical extremism” and “recruits for terrorists.” (U.S. Congress House Resolution 404, June 4, 2009, at congress.gov/committee-report/111th-congress/house-report.)
There resulted a widespread national outcry reported by the media, liberal and conservative.
In the Democrat controlled House of Representatives, Republicans filed a resolution of inquiry which is “a direct request or demand of the President and/or the head of an executive department to provide the House specific factual information [on the matter being inquired about] in the Administration’s possession.” (Congressional Research Service, at congress.gov.) That kind of resolution is given a privileged parliamentary status if properly drafted.
Although it softened its criticism by describing the DHS report as “intended [for] limited distribution” to law enforcement, the House Committee on Homeland Security issued a resolution of inquiry which stated: “The Committee believes that the report, as released, raises significant privacy and civil liberties issues for many Americans -- including veterans.” (Unless otherwise indicated, all further quotes are from U.S. Congress House Resolution 404, June 4, 2009.)
What was unique is that the resolution was made with bipartisan support, magnified by the introductory paragraph in the Minority Report. It read: “The Republican Members of the Committee on Homeland Security. . . are pleased that the Committee reported favorably (as amended) to the full House H. Res. 404, the Resolution of Inquiry. We appreciate this nearly unprecedented display of cooperation on a Resolution of Inquiry, and we commend the Majority for their support.”
Just as remarkable, under the heading “Background,” Republican members praised the committee’s chairman: “The Chairman's Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute recognizes the merits of H. Res. 404 and aims to address the serious issues raised by the Department's ‘Rightwing Extremism’ report.” The committee was chaired by Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi.
The 2009 resolution directed “the Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of all documents relating to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) Intelligence Assessment entitled ‘Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,’ including [a categorical list of documents to be produced].”
Secretary Napolitano complied, and there was no legislation that came out of what was produced (or my research has been inadequate in finding none).
Targeting opponents of administration policy as DHS did against “radical extremists” in 2009 seems to have become the norm as the century has progressed, starting under the Obama administration and continuing under the Biden and Trump administrations. Worse, as reflected in the prosecutions of pro-life advocates on the right and political enemies on both sides, it seems that every branch of government, executive, legislative and judicial, is susceptible to sometimes blind partisanship. This means that power of those in charge has become more important than nonpartisan good government, a circumstance which is not good for liberty. It brings to mind Cambridge Professor Lord Acton’s familiar warning, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Also proverbial, Acton observed, “Liberty is a question of morals more than of politics.” In 21st century America, it is the moral question that is missing and threatening liberty.
The predominant majority of the nation’s founders were practicing members of Christian churches; three were Deists Although they did not share the same doctrinal beliefs, they all shared the same set of principles and values based on Western Civilization philosophy and religion. So that no one church would prevail, their values included religious liberty which the writers made the first liberty recognized in the Bill of Rights.
Like the practice of religion itself, moral questioning has become almost absent in modern government. The reason, in my opinion, is for a present lack of standards, standards taken for granted by those who founded and fought to confirm and maintain the United States. Standards rooted in Christianity.
Chip Williams is a Northsider.
