This chapter is about the department that guards the border. It says the border should come first. It asks for many more officers and many more beds to hold people. It wants several visas ended. It also asks Congress to change a lot of immigration law. And it says parts of the department should be closed.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of Homeland SecurityHow: internal managementp. 137 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Secretary therefore can and should use his or her inherent, discretionary leadership authority to “soft close” ineffective and problematic corners of the department.”
The chapter says this is pending a possible presidential decision to shrink or eliminate DHS itself. The Secretary would shift personnel, funding and operational responsibility away from the offices being closed and into what the chapter calls mission-essential components. It states that doing so would support a legislative move to shrink or dismantle the department by showing the agency can perform critical functions without its current bureaucracy.
What the document actually says
“The Secretary therefore can and should use his or her inherent, discretionary leadership authority to “soft close” ineffective and problematic corners of the department.”
That sentence, in plain words
So the Secretary can and should quietly shut parts of the department down. The parts that do not work.
What this is about
This department is very large. The book says parts of it should be closed down quietly. Staff and money would move to other parts. The book says this would help make the case to shut the whole department later.
The order tells every agency head, the Secretary of Homeland Security included, to prepare large scale reductions in force and to prioritize in them all offices performing functions not mandated by statute, all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and any component the administration suspends or closes, while hiring is held to one for every four departures. Functions related to public safety, immigration enforcement and law enforcement are exempt from both the ratio and the reductions, which is the shift toward operational components the chapter describes. The route is not the chapter's: this is a presidential order applying across the government rather than the Secretary using discretionary leadership authority on particular corners of the department, it names no Homeland Security office, and it does not tie any closure to shrinking or dismantling the department.
In plain English
The order tells every agency to plan deep cuts. Work not required by law goes first, while police and border work is spared. That shift is the one the chapter described. But this order comes from the President and names no office at this agency.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “is critical”Who acts: Secretary of Homeland SecurityHow: internal managementp. 135 in the PDF
What the document says
“Prioritizing border security and immigration enforcement, including detention and deportation, is critical”
The chapter says a conservative Administration needs to return the department to what it calls the right mission, size and budget, reorganizing it and shifting significant resources away from supporting components to operational ones, with border security and immigration enforcement as the priority.
What the document actually says
“Prioritizing border security and immigration enforcement, including detention and deportation, is critical”
That sentence, in plain words
Guarding the border must come first. So must holding and sending back people who broke the rules.
What this is about
This department does many jobs. The book says the border should come first. It wants money moved from other parts to that work.
The order sets the priority the chapter asks for. Section 2 makes total and efficient enforcement of the immigration laws, including detention, the policy of the United States; section 4 directs the Secretary to enable ICE, CBP and USCIS to set enforcement priorities and makes enforcement against illegal entry and unlawful presence the primary mission of Homeland Security Investigations; section 10 directs all legally available resources toward detention facilities. The structural half of the proposal is absent: the order does not reorganize the department, does not change its size or budget, and does not shift resources from supporting components to operational ones.
In plain English
The order puts border law first, and holding people is part of it. Its border and visa units may set their own aims. All lawful funds go to holding space. But the order does not remake the department. Its size, budget and staff mix stay the same.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 143 in the PDF
What the document says
“ICE should be funded for a significant increase in detention space, raising the daily available number of beds to 100,000.”
The chapter asks Congress to mandate and fund additional detention space, raising the number of beds available each day to 100,000, and separately to fund at least 20,000 Enforcement and Removal Operations officers.
What the document actually says
“ICE should be funded for a significant increase in detention space, raising the daily available number of beds to 100,000.”
That sentence, in plain words
Give ICE money for many more beds. It should have 100,000 ready each day.
What this is about
ICE holds people while their cases are decided. It needs beds to do that. The book says it should have 100,000 beds. That is far more than it has now.
Section 90003 appropriates $45,000,000,000 to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for fiscal year 2025, available until September 30, 2029, for single adult detention capacity and family residential center capacity. That is the funded increase in detention space the chapter asked Congress to mandate. The law sets no target: 100,000 daily beds appears nowhere in it, the number of beds the money buys is left to the agency, and the section adds terms for how long families may be held that the proposal does not raise. Executive Order 14159, also among the candidates, directs the Secretary to use all legally available resources for detention facilities but appropriates nothing.
In plain English
The same law gives $45 billion to the immigration agency for detention space. The money can pay for beds for single adults and for family centers. That is the rise in space the chapter wanted. But the law sets no target of 100,000 beds, and the agency decides how many it buys.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 143 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should fund ICE for at least 20,000 ERO officers”
Enforcement and Removal Operations is the ICE division responsible for arresting, detaining and removing people in the country unlawfully. The chapter asks Congress to fund at least 20,000 such officers, alongside 5,000 more in another category.
What the document actually says
“Congress should fund ICE for at least 20,000 ERO officers”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress should pay for at least 20,000 more officers who send people home.
What this is about
Some ICE officers arrest people and send them home. The book says there should be at least 20,000 of them.
Section 100052 of the reconciliation act appropriates $29,850,000,000 to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for fiscal year 2025, available through September 30, 2029, and the first of its eleven named purposes is hiring and training more officers, agents, investigators and support staff, with performance, retention and signing bonuses attached to written service agreements. Congress funded the hiring the chapter asked it to fund. It set no number: the law does not require 20,000 Enforcement and Removal Operations officers, does not single out that division, and leaves the resulting size of the force to how the agency spends the money.
In plain English
The 2025 budget law gives $29.85 billion to the immigration agency. The first use listed is hiring and training more officers and staff. The money runs through 2029. But the law names no number of officers, so the size of the force is up to the agency.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 141 in the PDF
What the document says
“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit.”
T and U visas allow victims of trafficking and of certain crimes to stay in the United States. The chapter says victimisation should not be a basis for an immigration benefit, that the S visa already exists for witnesses actively helping law enforcement, and that until the T and U visas are repealed their eligibility should be significantly restricted to prevent fraud.
What the document actually says
“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit.”
That sentence, in plain words
Get rid of these two visas. Being a victim should not win you the right to stay.
What this is about
Two visas exist for people who were hurt by crime. One is for victims of trafficking. The book says these should end. It says being a victim should not be a reason to stay.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing among the candidates repeals or restricts the T or U visa. The nearest, the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, allows certain convictions of trafficking victims to be vacated and certain arrests expunged. It is a criminal records measure rather than an immigration one and does not touch eligibility for either visa. The two trafficking determinations concern foreign governments' efforts, not visas issued in the United States. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “must”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 148 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress must end the Flores Settlement Agreement by explicitly setting nationwide terms and standards for family and unaccompanied detention and housing.”
The Flores settlement sets limits on how long and in what conditions immigrant children may be held. The chapter asks Congress to end it by setting nationwide standards instead, and says those standards should allow large-scale use of temporary facilities such as tents.
What the document actually says
“Congress must end the Flores Settlement Agreement by explicitly setting nationwide terms and standards for family and unaccompanied detention and housing.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress must end this old court deal. It should set its own rules for holding families and children.
What this is about
A court deal limits how children can be held. It sets how long and in what conditions. The book says Congress should end it. It says tents could then be used.
Section 90003 provides that aliens may be detained at family residential centers pending a decision on removal and, where removal is ordered, until they are removed; defines a family residential center as a facility used to detain family units including children who are not unaccompanied; and leaves detention standards for single adult capacity to the Secretary. That is Congress setting a term for family detention in statute, which is the route the chapter proposes. It is not the end of the settlement the chapter asks for: the Flores Settlement Agreement is not named or terminated, no nationwide housing standards are set, unaccompanied children are not covered, and the large scale temporary facilities the chapter has in mind are not mentioned.
In plain English
The law lets families be held at family centers while a removal case runs. The agency chief sets the rules for adult sites. That puts a term for family holding into law, as the chapter asked. But it does not name or end the Flores deal, and it leaves out lone children.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 145 in the PDF
What the document says
“the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family”
The chapter asks for a merit-based immigration system rewarding high-skilled applicants in place of what it calls a system favoring extended family and luck of the draw. It proposes repealing the diversity visa lottery, ending extended-family migration in favor of the nuclear family, and replacing the employment visa program with one awarding visas only to what it calls the best and brightest.
What the document actually says
“the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family”
That sentence, in plain words
End the visa lottery. End the rule that lets wider family follow. Keep it to close family only.
What this is about
Some visas are handed out by lottery. Others let family members follow. The book wants both changed. It wants visas given for skills instead.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The rule tightens the diversity visa lottery, requiring an entrant to provide valid unexpired passport information and upload the biographic and signature page unless exempt, and makes wording changes for consular officers. It makes the program harder to enter and harder to defraud, and leaves it in place. Nothing among the candidates repeals the lottery, ends extended family migration, or replaces the employment visa categories. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 149 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should also permanently authorize E-Verify and make it mandatory.”
E-Verify is the federal system employers use to check whether a new hire may lawfully work in the United States. It is currently voluntary for most employers. The chapter asks Congress to make it permanent and mandatory, alongside narrowing who is statutorily eligible to work.
What the document actually says
“Congress should also permanently authorize E-Verify and make it mandatory.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress should keep E-Verify for good. It should make every employer use it.
What this is about
Employers can check if a new hire may work here. The system is called E-Verify. Most do not have to use it. The book says all of them should.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing among the candidates concerns E-Verify. None of them authorizes the system permanently, makes it mandatory for employers, or narrows who is statutorily eligible to work in the United States. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 148 in the PDF
What the document says
“The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum.”
Credible fear is the initial screening a person must pass to have an asylum claim heard, and its threshold is lower than the standard for winning asylum. The chapter asks that the two be aligned and that the screening account specifically for credibility determinations.
What the document actually says
“The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum.”
That sentence, in plain words
Raise the first test people must pass. Make it as hard as the full asylum test.
What this is about
People who ask for asylum face a first check. It is easier than the full test. The book says the first check should be just as hard.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The rule confirms the effective date of a 2020 rule that made aliens who pose a public health risk ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal and revised credible fear screening for those cases, while withdrawing parts of it that later amendments had overtaken. It changes screening for one category of bar. It does not raise the credible fear threshold generally, does not align it with the standard for winning asylum, and does not add a credibility determination to the screening. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 148 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad”
Asylum law protects people persecuted on five grounds, one of which is membership of a particular social group. The chapter says that ground is vague and overbroad and should be eliminated, or else given a clear definition that at a minimum codifies the holding that gang violence and domestic violence are not grounds for asylum.
What the document actually says
“Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad”
That sentence, in plain words
One reason for asylum is being part of a group. The book says that reason is too broad. It says Congress should remove it.
What this is about
Asylum is given for five reasons. One is belonging to a certain group. Courts have argued about what that means. The book says it is too vague and should go.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. That rule confirms the effective date of a 2020 rule making aliens who pose a public health risk ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal, and withdraws parts of it that later amendments had overtaken. It changes who is barred on public health grounds and how credible fear screening treats those cases. The five protected grounds are set by statute, and nothing among the candidates removes membership of a particular social group or writes a definition for it. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 149 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should halt funds given to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to process and transport illegal aliens into and throughout the United States.”
The chapter asks that such funds and infrastructure, including the department's joint processing centers, be redirected to securing the border, detaining people and providing space for immigration court proceedings.
What the document actually says
“Congress should halt funds given to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to process and transport illegal aliens into and throughout the United States.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress should stop paying charities to move people through the country.
What this is about
Charities help process and move people at the border. Some get federal money for it. The book says that money should stop. It should go to the border instead.
Section 19 directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to review and, if appropriate, audit all contracts, grants and other agreements providing federal funding to non-governmental organizations supporting or providing services, directly or indirectly, to removable or illegal aliens, to pause distribution of all further funds under those agreements pending the review, to terminate any found to violate law or to be sources of waste, fraud or abuse, to prohibit future ones, to coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget so that no such funding appears in appropriations requests, and to start clawback where appropriate. The chapter asks Congress to halt the funds. This is executive action inside existing appropriations, and the terminations turn on a finding about a particular agreement rather than on the processing or transport of aliens as such. The order also does not redirect the money to border security, detention or space for immigration court proceedings, and it does not mention the department's joint processing centers.
In plain English
The order tells two cabinet heads to review all federal grants to groups that help aliens here illegally. Money stops during the review. Deals found to break the law end, and new ones are barred. But the book asked Congress to cut the funds. This is action inside money already granted, and each cut turns on one deal. The funds are not moved to border work.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 150 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should eliminate ambiguous discretionary language in Title 8 that aliens “may” be detained and clarify that aliens “shall” be detained.”
The chapter says the word may creates ambiguity that lets the executive branch ignore the will of Congress, and asks for it to be replaced with shall so that detention is mandatory rather than discretionary.
What the document actually says
“Congress should eliminate ambiguous discretionary language in Title 8 that aliens “may” be detained and clarify that aliens “shall” be detained.”
That sentence, in plain words
The law says people may be held. The book says change it to must be held.
What this is about
One word in the law matters here. It says people may be held. That leaves a choice. The book says it should say must.
Section 5 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain, to the fullest extent permitted by law, aliens apprehended for immigration violations until their removal, and to issue policy guidance or propose regulations on consistent use of detention authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, including terminating the practice commonly known as catch and release. Section 2(c) states the same as policy. The result sought is the same as the passage seeks, but by the route the passage identifies as the problem: the direction operates inside existing discretion, is expressly bounded by what the law permits, and amends no statute, so the discretionary language the passage wants replaced remains and a later Secretary could read it differently.
In plain English
The order tells the Homeland head to hold aliens caught for immigration breaches until they leave, as far as the law allows. It ends the practice known as catch and release. The end sought is the same as the book's. But it works inside the same loose wording the book wants changed. No law is amended, so a later head could read it another way.
Section 2 adds a new subparagraph (E) to section 236(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the list of aliens who must be taken into custody, covering those inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A), (6)(C) or (7) who are charged with, arrested for, convicted of or admit burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or a crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury, and provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a detainer and take custody. Section 3 strikes the words or release from section 236(e). Congress is replacing discretion with a duty, by statute, which is the instrument and the direction the passage names. It is one added class rather than the general change described: the discretionary language of section 236(a) stands, and the rest of Title 8 is untouched.
In plain English
The law adds one group that must be held, not merely may be held. It covers people charged with theft, burglary, or badly hurting someone. Congress made this a duty, as the chapter wanted. But the rest of the law still leaves most cases to choice.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 150 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should require compliance with immigration detainers to the maximum extent consistent with the Tenth Amendment and set financial disincentives for jurisdictions that implement either official or unofficial sanctuary policies.”
A detainer is a request from ICE that a local jail hold someone past their release date. The chapter asks Congress to require compliance as far as the Tenth Amendment allows and to set financial penalties for places with official or unofficial sanctuary policies. It also asks Congress to authorize state and local police to take part in immigration enforcement.
What the document actually says
“Congress should require compliance with immigration detainers to the maximum extent consistent with the Tenth Amendment and set financial disincentives for jurisdictions that implement either official or unofficial sanctuary policies.”
That sentence, in plain words
Make local jails hold people for ICE. Cut money to the places that refuse.
What this is about
ICE can ask a local jail to hold someone. Some cities refuse to do it. The book says the law should make them. It says those that refuse should lose money.
The order does the financial part by executive action. Section 2 requires the Attorney General, with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to publish and update a list of states and local jurisdictions that obstruct enforcement of federal immigration law and to notify each of them; section 3 requires every agency head, working with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to identify federal funds going to those jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension or termination, and directs legal remedies against jurisdictions that do not comply. What the chapter asks Congress to do is not done: nothing here requires compliance with immigration detainers, the penalties rest on agency discretion under existing law rather than on a statute that sets them, and the authorization of state and local police to enforce immigration law is not in this order, though Executive Order 14159 separately expands agreements under section 287(g).
In plain English
The order names places that block immigration work. It moves to cut their federal funds. That is the money penalty the chapter wanted. But the chapter asked Congress to act, and this is an order. Nothing here forces a city to hold people for federal agents.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Congress, Secretary of Homeland SecurityHow: legislationp. 152 in the PDF
What the document says
“Such rule and regulation making shall not be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.”
The chapter proposes statutory language letting the Secretary, on determining that an actual or anticipated mass migration presents urgent circumstances, and with the President's approval, make rules barring the entry of people from designated countries and expelling them. The quoted sentence exempts those rules from the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets the normal notice and comment requirements. The chapter further proposes that the Secretary be able to waive any requirement of Title 8 he or she judges necessary.
What the document actually says
“Such rule and regulation making shall not be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.”
That sentence, in plain words
These new rules would not have to follow the usual law for making rules.
What this is about
There is a law about how rules get made. It requires notice and public comment. The book asks for a new power that skips it. It would be used when many people arrive at once.
The proclamation finds an ongoing invasion at the southern border and, under sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act together with claimed inherent Article II authority, suspends the entry of aliens engaged in it, restricts those aliens from invoking provisions of the Act that would permit their continued presence including the asylum provision at section 208, and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to repel, repatriate or remove them, none of it through notice and comment. That is close to the substance of the power the chapter drafts. It is not the statute the chapter asks Congress to pass: the determination and the power sit with the President rather than the Secretary, the trigger is an invasion at the southern border rather than a mass migration en route to or arriving off the coast, no countries or places are designated, nothing authorizes waiver of any requirement of Title 8, and because the instrument is a proclamation rather than a rule there is no rulemaking for the Administrative Procedure Act exemption to apply to.
In plain English
The order finds an invasion at the southern border and blocks entry of those in it. They may not use the asylum rules, and the Homeland head must turn them back. None of it goes through public notice and comment. But it is not the law the book asked Congress to pass. The power sits with the President, and no countries are named. It is not a rule at all, so the book's carve out has nothing to apply to.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of Homeland SecurityHow: internal managementp. 147 in the PDF
What the document says
“USCIS should be classified as a national security–sensitive agency, and all of its employees should be classified as holding national security–sensitive positions.”
The chapter says leaks must be investigated and punished as in a national security agency, that the union should be decertified, and that employees who cannot conform to those standards should be separated. It adds that the agency's Washington presence should be skeletal and that staff should be rotated out to offices around the country.
What the document actually says
“USCIS should be classified as a national security–sensitive agency, and all of its employees should be classified as holding national security–sensitive positions.”
That sentence, in plain words
Treat this agency as one that guards national safety. Treat every worker there the same way.
What this is about
This agency handles visas and citizenship. The book says it should count as a security agency. Its staff would lose their union. Leaks would be punished.
Executive Order 14251 determines that a list of agencies and subdivisions, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services among them, have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work, and that chapter 71 of title 5 cannot be applied to them consistently with national security requirements. It adds the agency to the exclusions from the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program, which ends collective bargaining there. That is the national security classification and the end of union representation the chapter asks for, reached through the labor relations statute rather than through decertification, and the determination attaches to the agency rather than to each employee's position. The rest of the proposal is untouched: nothing about investigating and punishing leaks, nothing about separating employees who cannot meet those standards, and nothing about keeping the Washington presence skeletal or rotating staff to field offices. Among the listed candidates, Executive Order 14343 makes further exclusions of the same kind but does not reach this agency, and the codification rule gives certain of its officers arrest and firearms authority without changing its classification.
In plain English
The order treats the immigration agency as national security work. That ends union bargaining there. The chapter wanted that. But the label lands on the agency, not on each job. Nothing here deals with leaks or staff moves.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 154 in the PDF
What the document says
“The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program.”
The National Flood Insurance Program provides federally backed flood cover where private insurers generally will not. The chapter says its subsidies encourage development in flood zones and increase potential losses to the program and the taxpayer, and asks for it to be wound down and replaced by private insurance, starting with the least risky areas.
What the document actually says
“The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program.”
That sentence, in plain words
Close down the federal flood insurance plan. Let private firms cover those homes instead. Start with the safest areas.
What this is about
Homes in flood areas are hard to insure. So the government sells the cover itself. The book says that helps people build in risky places. It wants private firms to take over.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing among the candidates concerns the National Flood Insurance Program. None of them winds it down, moves any part of its book to private insurers, or changes how flood risk zones are treated. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 154 in the PDF
What the document says
“DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated.”
The chapter argues from federalism that states better understand their own needs and should bear the costs of their own programs, and says the department's grants to states and localities should be ended. It notes that doing so requires Congress, which it says repeatedly votes to fund the grants for political reasons.
What the document actually says
“DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated.”
That sentence, in plain words
This department should not hand out money. These grants should end.
What this is about
The department gives money to states and towns. It pays for things like police training. The book says that should stop. It says states should pay for their own needs.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing among the candidates ends the department's grant programs. Public Law 119-21 moves money the other way, appropriating $10,000,000,000 to reimburse costs of activities supporting the border mission and $2,055,000,000 for immigration enforcement work, and it creates a reimbursement fund that pays states and local governments, though that fund sits in the Department of Justice rather than in Homeland Security. The Title VI rescission rules narrow civil rights conditions attached to federally assisted programs; they leave the grants themselves in place. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of Homeland Security, CBPHow: internal managementp. 139 in the PDF
What the document says
“CBP should restart and expand use of the horseback-mounted Border Patrol.”
The chapter asks that the mounted Border Patrol be restarted and expanded, and that as part of the announcement the Secretary clear the records and personnel files of agents the chapter says were falsely accused by Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of whipping migrants, and issue a formal apology on behalf of the department and CBP.
What the document actually says
“CBP should restart and expand use of the horseback-mounted Border Patrol.”
That sentence, in plain words
Bring back the border agents who ride horses. Use more of them.
What this is about
Some border agents patrol on horseback. Their use was cut back after a dispute. The book says to bring them back. It also asks for an apology to those agents.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Proclamation 10946 marks the 101st anniversary of the Border Patrol and recounts the administration's border actions. It is commemorative: it does not restart or expand the mounted patrol, does not clear the records or personnel files of the agents the chapter names, and contains no apology from the department or from Customs and Border Protection. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: USCISHow: internal managementp. 146 in the PDF
What the document says
“all applicants rejected for any benefit or status adjudication should be required to leave the U.S. immediately.”
The chapter frames this as lasting at least until the agency has cleared its case backlogs. It separately proposes pausing intake of applications in any category where backlogs become excessive, until the caseload is manageable again.
What the document actually says
“all applicants rejected for any benefit or status adjudication should be required to leave the U.S. immediately.”
That sentence, in plain words
Anyone turned down for a visa or status should have to leave at once.
What this is about
People apply to stay in the country. Some are turned down. The book says they should leave right away.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing among the candidates requires an applicant refused a benefit or a status adjustment to leave the country. The nearest, the visa bond rule, lets consular officers require a bond of up to $20,000 from some business and tourist visa applicants to secure their departure, which reaches people who were granted a visa rather than people who were refused one. Executive Order 14351 creates a paid Gold Card route to an immigrant visa. Neither attaches a departure requirement to a denial, and nothing among the candidates pauses intake in backlogged categories. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, Secretary of Homeland SecurityHow: internal managementp. 135 in the PDF
What the document says
“A conservative Administration should return CISA to its statutory and important but narrow mission.”
The chapter states that CISA has been, in its words, weaponised by the Left to censor speech and affect elections. It asks that the agency's funding align narrowly with cyber defense and critical infrastructure, that its emergency communications and chemical facility roles move to FEMA, that its school security functions move to state offices, and that it not duplicate work done at Defense, the FBI and the National Security Agency.
What the document actually says
“A conservative Administration should return CISA to its statutory and important but narrow mission.”
That sentence, in plain words
Give this agency back its first job. Keep it small and clear.
What this is about
This agency protects computer systems from attack. The book says it went beyond that job. It says the agency should go back to its first task and do nothing else.
Section 3(b) orders a review of all critical infrastructure policies and states that for purposes of the order those policies do not include any related to purported misinformation, disinformation or malinformation, nor so-called cognitive infrastructure, which is the work the chapter says drew the agency away from its statutory mission, and the order's stated policy is that preparedness be owned at the state, local and individual level. The order never names the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. It reaches critical infrastructure policy across the government rather than one agency's mission and funding, it moves no emergency communications, chemical facility or school security function to the Federal Emergency Management Agency or to the states as the chapter proposes, it says nothing about duplication of work at the Defense Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the National Security Agency, and it commissions recommendations to the President rather than making the change itself.
In plain English
The order says its policy leaves out work on what it calls false information. The chapter said that work pulled the cyber agency off task. But the order never names that agency. It asks for advice rather than making the change.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of Homeland SecurityHow: internal managementp. 155 in the PDF
What the document says
“Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinformation efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth.”
The chapter says the agency began this work over alleged Russian misinformation in the 2016 election, which it describes as in fact a Clinton campaign dirty trick, and that the Twitter Files show the agency has become what it calls an unconstitutional censoring and election engineering apparatus of the political Left. It says foreign actors should be countered by the Intelligence Community instead, that the entire Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on day one, and that on elections the agency should help states check their cyber hygiene and do nothing more.
What the document actually says
“Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinformation efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth.”
That sentence, in plain words
Stop this agency's work on false information at once. The government should not decide what is true.
What this is about
This agency worked on false claims spread online. The book says that is not the government's job. It says the work should stop at once.
The order bars every federal department, agency, officer, employee and agent from acting or using federal resources in a way that would unconstitutionally abridge an American citizen's speech, names work carried out under the heading of misinformation, disinformation and malinformation as what it is reversing, and directs the Attorney General to investigate the previous four years of such activity and recommend remedies. It reaches the cyber agency only as one agency among all of them: CISA is never named, no program of the agency is closed by the order, the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee is not dismissed, work against foreign actors is not moved to the Intelligence Community, and what is prohibited is conduct that would be unconstitutional rather than the subject matter itself.
In plain English
The order bars all federal staff from using funds to cut off free speech. It names work against false news as what it undoes. But the cyber agency is never named and no program of it is closed. Only acts that break the Constitution are barred, not the subject itself.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of Homeland SecurityHow: internal managementp. 138 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Secretary should make it clear that he or she will not use the Secretary’s existing discretionary authority to increase the number of H-2B”
The H-2B visa covers seasonal non-agricultural workers and the Secretary may raise its cap. The chapter asks the Secretary to state that this authority will not be used, and separately that no regulation be issued in support of the eligible country list, so that applicants are not favored by nationality. It frames both as supporting American workers.
What the document actually says
“The Secretary should make it clear that he or she will not use the Secretary’s existing discretionary authority to increase the number of H-2B”
That sentence, in plain words
The Secretary can let in more seasonal workers. The book says he should say he will not.
What this is about
Some visas are for seasonal jobs. There is a cap on how many. The Secretary is allowed to raise it. The book says he should promise not to.
The chapter asks the Secretary to state that the discretionary authority to raise the H-2B cap will not be used. This rule uses it: the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, made up to 64,716 supplemental visas available for fiscal year 2026, released in three allocations by the employer's start date of need. The reversal is bounded rather than total: the supplemental visas go only to businesses attesting that they face permanent and severe financial loss, the authority is time limited to one fiscal year and must be exercised again to have effect the next, and the chapter's separate request that no regulation support the eligible country list is not addressed here.
In plain English
The chapter asked the Secretary to promise not to raise the H-2B visa cap. This rule raises it. Up to 64,716 extra visas were made available for 2026, in three batches by start date. The rise is bounded: only firms claiming severe loss may use it, and the power must be used again next year.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationp. 134 in the PDF
What the document says
“Alternatively, USCG should be moved to DOD for all purposes.”
The chapter raises moving the Coast Guard out of Homeland Security and into the Defense Department as an alternative option. It separately asks that the Coast Guard fleet be sized for great-power competition, that it focus on home waters and the Pacific to counter Chinese influence, and that personnel dismissed for refusing the COVID vaccine be brought back with time in service credited.
What the document actually says
“Alternatively, USCG should be moved to DOD for all purposes.”
That sentence, in plain words
Or else the Coast Guard should move to the Defense Department for good.
What this is about
The Coast Guard guards American waters. It sits inside the homeland department now. The book says it could move to the defense department instead.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing among the candidates moves the Coast Guard out of the Department of Homeland Security, which the chapter itself notes would take Congress. Executive Order 14185 reaches the service, but only to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to abolish its diversity offices, and Executive Order 14183 concerns gender identity and standards for military service. Neither changes which department the Coast Guard belongs to, and neither addresses sizing its fleet for great power competition or crediting time in service to personnel dismissed over the COVID vaccine. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
Ken Cuccinelli, “Department of Homeland Security,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 133-170. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of Homeland Security,” Project 2025, chapter 5. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-5/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Recommendations across the Office of the Secretary, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the legislative agenda, FEMA, the Coast Guard, the cyber agency and the Secret Service.
The chapter's account of conditions at the border, its characterizations of the Biden Administration, and a large number of operational and procedural items such as internal memoranda, staffing arrangements and case-processing mechanics. Many detailed proposals are not recorded here.
This chapter contains more discrete recommendations than any indexed so far. What is here is a selection of the substantive policy changes. The chapter also proposes shrinking or dismantling the department itself, which is recorded, but its many component-level reorganizations are only partly covered.
