FEDERAL BUREAUCRACIES PROMOTE WELFARE AND SECURITY355Federal Agencies Provide for National Security One of the remarkable features of American federalism is that the most vital agencies for providing security for the American people (namely, the police) are located in state and local governments. But some agencies vital to maintaining national security are located in the national government, and they can be grouped into two categories: (1) agencies to confront threats to internal national security and (2) agencies to defend American security from external threats. The depart- ments of greatest influence in these two areas are Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and State. Agencies for Internal Security The task of maintaining domestic security changed dramatically after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002 signaled the high priority that domestic security would now have. The orientation of domes- tic agencies also shifted as agencies geared up to prevent terrorism, a task that differed greatly from their former charge of investigating crime. With this shift in responsibility came broad new powers, many of them controversial—including the power to detain terrorist suspects and to engage in extensive domestic intelligence- gathering about possible terrorists. Since its creation, the DHS has also assumed a large role in domestic security, bringing under its umbrella such responsibilities as border safety and security (including immigration and customs); emergency pre- paredness; science-related concerns pertaining in particular to chemical, biological, and nuclear threats; and information and intelligence analysis and assessment. Growing pains were evident in the DHS’s first years. Different bureaucratic cultures, now part of a single operation, quickly became embroiled in turf battles with one another and with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, which remained in the Justice Department) as the two departments attempted to sort out their respective responsibilities. These early problems signaled deeper challenges that the DHS has continued to face. The DHS has struggled to establish itself as a strong, institutionally coherent presence capable of coordinating government ac- tion. Part of the problem is that the DHS portfolio of responsibilities is both large and vague. In addition, the agency failed to establish strong links with state and
