DHS’s revolving door: The need for experienced leadership in dangerous times

Former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks at a DHS oversight hearing on March 3. On March 5, it was announced that she had been reassigned to a new position. (Senate Judiciary Committee)

By Donell Harvin • Mar 26, 2026

The replacement of a Secretary of Homeland Security should be a moment for reflection and represent an opportunity for improvement. Instead, it has become routine. Kristi Noem is out. Another person, Markwayne Mullin, will now follow. And the country will largely move on as if nothing has happened. And the routineness of this is exactly the problem.

The Department of Homeland Security is the third largest agency in the federal government, with more than 260,000 personnel spanning border security, counterterrorism, disaster response, cybersecurity, maritime safety and intelligence. It was built in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks to unify a fragmented security enterprise into a coherent system capable of detecting, preventing, and responding to threats against the United States. It is not designed to be a reward or title for political allies, subject to a kind of patronage system in which “to the victor belong the spoils,” as described by Senator William Marcy in 1832. The department’s leadership is meant for highly experienced professional excellence foremost. Yet here we are, far down the wrong end of the continuum. Indeed, few past DHS secretaries from either political party meet the real requirements for the job. With that reality, there are steps Congress can take given repeated weaknesses in the Department’s leadership, and steps the Department can take as an organization.

During the first Trump administration, DHS became a revolving door of leadership. Secretaries came and went with remarkable speed. John Kelley was there for a matter of months. Kirstjen Nielsen was pushed out after clashing with the White House over immigration enforcement tactics. Kevin McAleenan and Chad Wolf cycled through in acting roles, raising legal and operational concerns about continuity and authority. Each transition brought new priorities, new political pressures, and new disruptions to an already complex department. And always drama, and plenty of it. That churn was not just a management issue, it was a warning sign.