Written by Mathew Silverman, National President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and member of the Law Enforcement Today Board of Advisors.
President Trump has made it clear that one of his main priorities is securing U.S. borders and removing dangerous illegal immigrants from the United States. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her officials have been carrying out that mandate, going so far as deputizing several federal agencies that do not routinely support immigration functions, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), and others.
Despite clear direction from the White House, not all law enforcement agencies have been able to support President Trump’s directive. DSS, the law enforcement and security arm of the U.S. Department of State, has been hampered from assisting with illegal immigration removal operations due to bureaucratic barriers.
Best known for protecting the Secretary of State and securing U.S. embassies abroad, DSS helps secure the immigration system by investigating crimes linked to visa and passport fraud. However, the small, but highly capable agency is buried under layers of State Department bureaucracy. Unlike other federal law enforcement agencies that report directly to department heads, DSS reports to the State Department’s Under Secretary of Management. This dilutes and obstructs the flow of critical security information, creating unnecessary bureaucratic layers that delay decisions that affect national security and the flow of critical security intelligence to the Secretary of State, the inter-agency community, Congress, and the White House.
To modernize its structure, the top two positions—Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—should report directly to the Secretary of State and be reclassified as Director and Deputy Director of DSS. This realignment would establish a clear chain of command, ensuring that DSS leadership holds both strategic policy oversight and operational authority, mirroring best practices in federal law enforcement. Additionally, this change would enhance public understanding of DSS as a federal law enforcement agency, reinforcing its critical role in national security and strengthening its identity among both policymakers and the American people.
Repeated calls for this restructuring have been made to Congress and highlighted in multiple after-action reports. A 1999 Booz Allen Hamilton study, a 2000 memorandum from then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and the 2012 Benghazi Accountability Review Board all endorsed the need for DSS to report directly to the Secretary of State. Despite this strong consensus, no action has been taken.
In 2016, Congress amended the law to require the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security to report directly to the Secretary of State. However, entrenched bureaucratic chains of command have rendered this directive ineffective.
The consequences of inaction are clear. Prior to the Benghazi attack, DSS’ security assessments were ignored or diluted. Similarly, during the Afghanistan Noncombatant Evacuation Operation, DSS’ threat assessments were altered by the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs before reaching Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Political interference has repeatedly undermined DSS’ ability to convey the true severity of security threats, with dire consequences for U.S. personnel and operations. Additionally, the Political-Military Bureau, tasked with coordinating between the State Department and the Department of Defense, was also found to have rewritten critical reports, changing their intended conclusions.
Another major conflict of interest stems from the fact that both DSS and Consular Affairs report to the same Under Secretary of Management. This structure presents a significant issue when DSS investigates passport and visa fraud, as the investigating entity is overseen by the same leadership that refers some of these cases. This setup introduces the potential for undue influence and bias, undermining the integrity of law enforcement operations. Investigations must be driven solely by facts and evidence, free from external pressures or conflicting interests.
To address these challenges, this administration should implement long-standing recommendations from multiple after-action reports and the 2016 public law by formally establishing a direct reporting line between DSS and the Secretary of State, elevating the Director to an Under Secretary. While DSS plays a vital role in supporting the State Department, it also requires the autonomy necessary to execute its investigative and protective responsibilities in a law enforcement-centric environment. Eliminating bureaucratic barriers will enhance accountability, accelerate decision-making, and improve operational efficiency—ensuring diplomatic security remains fully integrated into U.S. foreign policy while operating free from political interference and conflicts of interest.
Additionally, reclassifying DSS' top positions to Director and Deputy Director would align with best practices in federal law enforcement, solidifying the agency’s leadership structure and provide the American people with a clearer understanding of DSS’ role in protecting national security.
President Trump has made it clear that one of his main priorities is securing U.S. borders and removing dangerous illegal immigrants from the United States. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her officials have been carrying out that mandate, going so far as deputizing several federal agencies that do not routinely support immigration functions, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), and others.
Despite clear direction from the White House, not all law enforcement agencies have been able to support President Trump’s directive. DSS, the law enforcement and security arm of the U.S. Department of State, has been hampered from assisting with illegal immigration removal operations due to bureaucratic barriers.
Best known for protecting the Secretary of State and securing U.S. embassies abroad, DSS helps secure the immigration system by investigating crimes linked to visa and passport fraud. However, the small, but highly capable agency is buried under layers of State Department bureaucracy. Unlike other federal law enforcement agencies that report directly to department heads, DSS reports to the State Department’s Under Secretary of Management. This dilutes and obstructs the flow of critical security information, creating unnecessary bureaucratic layers that delay decisions that affect national security and the flow of critical security intelligence to the Secretary of State, the inter-agency community, Congress, and the White House.
To modernize its structure, the top two positions—Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—should report directly to the Secretary of State and be reclassified as Director and Deputy Director of DSS. This realignment would establish a clear chain of command, ensuring that DSS leadership holds both strategic policy oversight and operational authority, mirroring best practices in federal law enforcement. Additionally, this change would enhance public understanding of DSS as a federal law enforcement agency, reinforcing its critical role in national security and strengthening its identity among both policymakers and the American people.
Repeated calls for this restructuring have been made to Congress and highlighted in multiple after-action reports. A 1999 Booz Allen Hamilton study, a 2000 memorandum from then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and the 2012 Benghazi Accountability Review Board all endorsed the need for DSS to report directly to the Secretary of State. Despite this strong consensus, no action has been taken.
In 2016, Congress amended the law to require the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security to report directly to the Secretary of State. However, entrenched bureaucratic chains of command have rendered this directive ineffective.
The consequences of inaction are clear. Prior to the Benghazi attack, DSS’ security assessments were ignored or diluted. Similarly, during the Afghanistan Noncombatant Evacuation Operation, DSS’ threat assessments were altered by the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs before reaching Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Political interference has repeatedly undermined DSS’ ability to convey the true severity of security threats, with dire consequences for U.S. personnel and operations. Additionally, the Political-Military Bureau, tasked with coordinating between the State Department and the Department of Defense, was also found to have rewritten critical reports, changing their intended conclusions.
Another major conflict of interest stems from the fact that both DSS and Consular Affairs report to the same Under Secretary of Management. This structure presents a significant issue when DSS investigates passport and visa fraud, as the investigating entity is overseen by the same leadership that refers some of these cases. This setup introduces the potential for undue influence and bias, undermining the integrity of law enforcement operations. Investigations must be driven solely by facts and evidence, free from external pressures or conflicting interests.
To address these challenges, this administration should implement long-standing recommendations from multiple after-action reports and the 2016 public law by formally establishing a direct reporting line between DSS and the Secretary of State, elevating the Director to an Under Secretary. While DSS plays a vital role in supporting the State Department, it also requires the autonomy necessary to execute its investigative and protective responsibilities in a law enforcement-centric environment. Eliminating bureaucratic barriers will enhance accountability, accelerate decision-making, and improve operational efficiency—ensuring diplomatic security remains fully integrated into U.S. foreign policy while operating free from political interference and conflicts of interest.
Additionally, reclassifying DSS' top positions to Director and Deputy Director would align with best practices in federal law enforcement, solidifying the agency’s leadership structure and provide the American people with a clearer understanding of DSS’ role in protecting national security.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments