From Washington: DHS Shutdown Persists as Domestic Threats Rise

How can we help make stronger communities happen?

Well, at JPMorgan Chase, we invest in what's working

in businesses that create more jobs

in hospitals delivering care where it's needed the most

in workers building new buildings, bridges and roads

connecting what we need to where we live.

Make the green grass grow all around all around

Make the green grass grow all around

Make momentum happen

Learn more at jpmorganchase.com slash impact

Saturday March 7th, 2026, I'm Jessica Brosenthal.

President Trump fired his Homeland Security Secretary

this week as funding for that agency remains on hold

over Democrats demands for immigration reforms.

Republicans say war with Iran means resources need to be in place.

I think the department needs to be fully funded immediately,

especially now with the movement by the president

with Secretary known.

And downstream geopolitical impacts of U.S. strikes on Iran,

how might hostilities impact other global hot spots?

I think that ultimately what the president's doing here

which is based on Iran as a threat in its own right

is going to allow us to divert our attention

to the paramount threat of China in the long run.

This is the Fox News rundown from Washington.

This week President Trump fired Homeland Security Secretary Christy Nome

after she testified at two congressional hearings.

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said good riddance

but he wouldn't commit to the president's next pick to run DHS,

Oklahoma Senator Mark Wayne Mullin,

or move to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

The agency's funding lapsed last month

and Schumer said it's up to Republicans to commit to changes

to immigration enforcement.

They've been stonewalling us on the most important issues

and those have to change and they have to change them.

We have to change them by legislation.

Because anyone person, I don't trust anyone person

being in charge of this agency as long as Trump is president.

Given the policies he's espoused,

given how ICE has been structured, the rot is deep.

But Republicans, like Senate Majority Leader John Thune,

said a failure to fund the Department of Homeland Security right now,

especially during war with Iran, is irresponsible.

With enhanced terror threat from Iran

and Iran-funded terrorist groups,

it is vital that we ensure the Department of Homeland Security

is fully funded and fully functioning.

But Democratic senators have said there's no linking the two.

Virginia Senator Tim Cain said there is no correlation

between the funding fight and the emerging war in Tehran.

Maine, Independent Senator Angus King,

asked one reporter,

what does TSA have to do with Iran or FEMA?

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed Schumer,

though while the House has voted to fund DHS,

he said ICE must be reformed,

whether Christy Noem is out as Secretary or not.

It's unfortunate that the Department and the American people

have to go through this right now.

Charles Marino was a senior adviser

at the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration.

Given the importance of the threat environment right now,

especially with the war against Iran,

but I think Secretary Noem unfortunately lost the confidence

of the president due to a series of unforced errors

and distractions entirely caused by her.

It sounded like, according to Louisiana Senator John Kennedy,

the thing that might have put him over the top

was this discussion during a Senate hearing this past week

in which he questioned her about the millions of dollars

spent on an advertising campaign featuring herself,

prominently, and she had told the committee

that the president knew about this ad campaign

and the president apparently called Senator Kennedy

and said he did not know about this.

When you look at the totality of things going on at DHS,

what do you think were maybe some of the other things

that really stuck out that may have caused a problem

the president no longer was interested in dealing with?

Yeah, I think it goes further back than that, Jessica.

You know, the Secretary of Homeland Security

I think is on a daily basis the hardest cabinet position

in any administration.

And so typically you're going to get the opposite parties

that are constantly giving you grief,

whether it's about the president's policies

on things like immigration or border security.

But when you start to anger those in the same party,

that's where it becomes problematic.

And where I think it started with Secretary Known

was for some reason really slowing down the process

to get emergency disaster relief in the hands

of these local and state officials.

And I think this is where we saw the frustration come

from Tom Tillis when he was talking about FEMA aid

getting to North Carolina more rapidly

based on the disaster that they had,

specifically in Asheville, North Carolina

as a result of the storms.

So when the White House's phones start ringing

and it's ringing from Republicans complaining,

that's where things start to get flagged very early on.

And I think it continued to get bad for the Secretary from there.

The selection of Senator Mark Weinmullen from Oklahoma,

he's going to be peppered with questions

at any confirmation hearing about making changes,

of course, to ICE.

Democrats are demanding things like needing a judicial warrant

to go after someone on private property,

no more masks, an ID number or name on an ICE uniform.

Are any of the demands of ICE from Democrats non-starters?

Yeah, I think what you just named

are non-starters because they either require action by Congress

with respect to things like administrative warrants,

which ICE does have the authority to utilize.

And then there's going to be some issues that,

you know, related to the doxing of federal agents

and their use of masks.

You know, the use of masks is not limited solely to ICE

or federal law enforcement.

There are state and local law enforcement agencies,

especially on teams that are engaged

with many of the same issues like drugs and gangs

that also utilize masks.

So at some point in time,

it's got to be, you know, spoken about in the context of being honest

and in the context of the safety and security

of the officers and agents that are executing the duties.

So Senator Mullin will have many of the same decisions

to make that secretary known had to make.

What are your thoughts?

You've already referenced it.

The hostilities with Iran.

What are your thoughts about the impacts of this shutdown

over DHS funding right now in light of our situation with Iran?

Well, it's tragic.

And I think the operating assumption here by everybody

should be that the country was allowed to be infiltrated

with a wide variety of threats from around the world

during the Biden administration.

I don't think there's any disputing that based on the examples

that we've seen, whether it's at the criminal level

or the interception of suspected terrorists

or the arrest of suspected terrorists

within the interior of the United States.

And as a result,

I think the department needs to be fully funded immediately,

especially now with the movement by the president

with secretary known.

I think now with Senator Mullin being designated

as the incoming secretary with bipartisan support based on one.

I think his approach to the job will be much more lower visibility

as opposed to secretary known that rubbed a lot of people

the wrong way.

We heard about that with this $220 million PR contract

which I think was the icing on the cake for her removal.

But Senator Mullin really has a good shot at coming here,

refocusing the department.

We still have operational personnel working

at the department without pay.

And their morale and their focus is essential

during this elevated threat environment.

You know, to that point,

there are TSA, Border Patrol, Coast Guard civilian employees

not being paid or experiencing partial pay,

but also CISA, our cybersecurity force is being impacted.

Apparently less than half the CISA force is working right now

due to furloughs.

Iran's a big hacker.

How important is it that we are operating, you know,

on next to empty when it comes to cybersecurity force?

Yeah, that needs to be full speed for CISA,

especially based on their statutory requirements

that they work closely with the private sector.

They are the private sector engagement

from the entirety of the U.S. government

when it comes to thwarting cyber attacks

and responding to them.

So I'm not happy.

And I think this also goes towards secretary knowns management

and how that was questioned by the White House internally

as far as externally internally.

I think there was a lot of decisions that were made,

CISA being one of them,

that the White House wasn't exactly happy about once they heard

related to the gutting of CISA

and the downsizing of it,

given the role that cyber attacks are playing now

in almost every element of our society.

When you hear somebody like independent senator Angus King say

we should fund everything at DHS except ICE,

but then at the same time he says,

but what does TSA or FEMA have to do with Iran?

What do you say to that?

Well, that's just naive

and it tells me that he doesn't have a full understanding

or grasp of what it takes to protect the homeland

and what's involved in that.

I mean, ICE was brought to the Department of Homeland Security

in 2002 under the Homeland Security Act

because of what occurred on September 11th, 2001.

As a matter of fact,

every agency was brought over there

because of that,

including my old agency,

the Secret Service regarding protection of officials

and large events

and the investigations of financial crimes

which oftentimes are used to fund terrorists.

So the Department of Homeland Security

has a very important mission.

Now, do I think since 2002,

the Department could stand a review

to make sure that it's operating effectively

and efficiently as intended

under the Homeland Security Act?

Yes, I think a review is due.

There is some streamlining

that certainly can be done.

And you may want to revisit

whether a certain entity belongs

under the Department or not.

We know police in Austin are still investigating whether

the shooting this past weekend

by a man wearing a shirt

that said property of Allah has a nexus to terrorism.

But you referenced this earlier,

what do we know about threats inside the homeland

from Iran, especially given their threats

to our own officials like President Trump,

Mike Pompeo,

Iranian-American journalists and activists

over the years.

I mean, you referenced the border was wide open for a time.

I haven't...

I know I've heard references to likely cells,

but do we have anything more concrete

that we're aware of?

Well, we have statistics in terms of the terrorist encounters,

which is almost a thousand of the Southwest border.

We have the metrics regarding other adversaries

coming into the United States,

like Chinese males ages 18 to 35

over 2000 percent under the Biden administration.

So when you start to talk about it by the numbers,

you know that we have a problem.

And the quote, Donald Rumsfeld,

we have a lot of unknown unknowns right now

in the United States, right?

We don't know the true number of illegal immigrants

that came into the country.

We don't know the total honest number of Godaways.

We put it around two million.

So with the borders wide open,

why would people go to the great extent

and cost to evade law enforcement as a Godwin?

You've got to ask that question.

Yeah.

That's...

If you don't...

It's really important to know.

What you don't know, you need to be prepared.

You have to assume the worst, right?

You have to assume...

Well, yeah, based on the way...

Based on the way we were set up.

Again, you know, people always ask Democrat or Republicans

on issues of immigration

and you and I have spoken about this before.

If you look throughout the history

as I do in my book of Democrats and Republicans,

they were pretty close on their beliefs

regarding the importance of border security

and immigration enforcement.

We are further to look than the Obama administration

on the Democratic side

and the Trump administration now.

And so the anomaly in all of this throughout history

was the Biden administration

who decided to completely walk away

from both responsibilities of securing border

and the immigration loss.

So that's the anomaly.

That's why we're in the position that we're in right now.

And that's why law enforcement and intelligence agencies

have to operate here within our own borders

the way they are now.

Finally, Charles, Israeli officials have told Israelis

around the world to conceal Jewish symbols

avoid going through the UAE

and exercise heightened caution around the world

as Iranian threats target Jewish sites in North America.

Jewish people are being told by Israel

do not go to Habbad synagogues

after some anti-Semitic influencers slandered Habbad.

I'm not sure I've ever heard Israel issue

such a global warning to Jewish people before.

How significant is that?

I mean, they reference North America.

Yeah, no, neither of I, I agree.

There is a influx of anti-Semitic

not only rhetoric,

but direct actions that we have seen

that are overt.

And this really takes us to radicalization

that used to be external to the United States

in the sense that to become radicalized

we always needed to look for suspicious travel

to a special interest location.

So the FBI was looking for the purchase of plane tickets

where were they going or cyber activity

where they going to flag websites for radicalization.

Now based again on the immigration influx

under the Biden administration,

radicalization now takes place each and every day

within our own borders.

Whether it's a march supporting

Hezbollah Abbas on Fifth Avenue in New York City,

whether it's what we see in segregated communities

in places like Dearborn, Michigan and in Texas.

And this is a problem because what you have now

as you now have these segregated cultures

that have no intention on

on acclimating and adapting US culture and values.

And this is the shielded locations

that radicalization is taking place.

And a lot of this, unfortunately,

applies and is directed to the Jewish population

around the world.

Yeah, wow.

Charles Moreno, thank you so much for joining us

in those insights.

What's the name of the book again?

Terrace on the border and in our country.

Excellent.

Thank you again for joining us.

Appreciate it.

Thanks, Jessica.

How can we help make stronger communities happen?

Well, at JP Morgan Chase,

we invest in what's working.

We invest in businesses that create more jobs

in hospitals delivering care where it's needed the most,

in workers building new buildings, bridges and roads,

connecting what we need to where we live.

Make the green grass grow all around all around.

Make the green grass grow all around.

Make momentum happen.

Learn more at JP Morgan Chase.com's Lash Impact.

This week, we spoke to the former chief of staff

to the National Security Council during the first Trump administration.

About the ways the war in Iran could impact other countries

like Russia and China.

European countries have had mixed reaction,

while Spain has rejected US requests to use any

Spanish military bases.

The UK said they'd be flying jets to protect Bahrain.

The German Chancellor was in the Oval Office this past week,

saying he and President Trump were on the same page

when it came to Iran and he wanted to talk about Ukraine and Russia.

While Democrats demanded more explanation and justification

from the Trump administration about these strikes on Iran,

several officials reminded that Iran's been attacking US assets

and troops overseas, along with allies,

while funding terrorism for decades.

I think it really started with the strike on Kossum Soleimani.

Alex Gray was the chief of staff to the National Security Council

during the first Trump administration.

When I had really the privilege of being with the president

during that strike and watching his leadership

and what at the time was a pretty historic strike at Iran's

air-sponsoring regime and someone who had really been

the mastermind of the murder and the maiming

of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq.

And the president at the time made a very strategic calculation

that contrary to the conventional wisdom in Washington,

striking Kossum Soleimani, the head of the coup's force

of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps

would actually be stabilizing for the Middle East.

It would not be destabilizing.

It would actually send the right message to Iran

and deter future bad behavior.

That was obviously something even people within his own administration

argued vehemently against.

The president really chose to take the decision

that that was the right thing for the country and it worked out.

It was a very important move for reestablishing deterrence

in the region.

And now fast forward to today,

the president's essentially doing that, but on steroids.

The president is saying that we're going

after the entire apparatus of terror that the Iranian regime

has propagated for 45 plus years.

And I think the same effect is going to apply

as what we saw with the Soleimani strike in 2019,

where you're going to see the president define conventional wisdom

and resetting the global chess board in a profoundly impactful way.

Before this operation, the president said about negotiations

that Iran just wouldn't utter the words,

we will not develop a nuclear weapon.

I know some of the democratic side of the aisle say,

well, Iran did say those words when they signed that nuclear deal under President Obama, right?

The JCPOA, what do you say to that?

I would say that the JCPOA was a deal that was basically designed

to look the other way when Iran ultimately violated that agreement.

I mean, the JCPOA, if you have to understand

and go back to 2014, 2015, what was the strategic thinking

by the Obama administration?

The strategic thinking was that Iran getting a nuclear weapon

eventually really wasn't that big of a deal.

That's why they allowed, they paid them these pallets of cash.

That's why the verification mechanisms were so loose.

That's why they were able to have civil nuclear programs

that could very easily turn into militarized nuclear programs.

Essentially, they were making a strategic gamble

that a nuclear Iran actually wouldn't be that destabilizing for the region.

Otherwise, the JCPOA would have been done in such a way

as to be much tougher and more difficult on Iran.

I would say to anyone who argues that the JCPOA was containing Iran's nuclear ambitions,

they obviously never looked at the same intelligence

that President Trump and his team looked at in the first term

when we made the decision to get out of that agreement.

There's just no, in my view, there's no arguing

that that JCPOA did anything to restrain Iran's march toward a nuclear weapon.

Now, some of the commentary here, and I know you're seeing it,

is this is about China.

The China relies on Iran for oil,

and so this undercuts them as we, you know,

in this race for AI.

Was this about China or is the impact to China secondary?

Well, as someone who spent my whole career arguing

that China is the paramount threat to the United States,

it pains me to say, you know, I do think this is probably secondarily about China.

At the same time, I think that ultimately what the President's doing here,

which is based on Iran as a threat in its own right,

is going to allow us to divert our attention

to the paramount threat of China in the long run,

by changing the strategic chessboard

and taking the Iranian theocracy off the table.

I mean, this is the thing I think we have to remember.

Hillary Clinton in 2010, Secretary of State,

said we're pivoting to Asia.

And 16 years later, we still have not moved the preponderance

of America's focus to Asia.

Why? I would argue because of Iran.

Iran in various forms through its proxies,

through its missile program, through its nuclear program,

has managed to ensnare us in the Middle East

in various forms for 15-plus years.

Alex, what if it doesn't go the way you hope?

What if the Iranian people, it's up to them, as the President says?

What if this doesn't go the way the administration hopes?

Well, look, that's always the risk.

And the President was given the best military advice

about the risk and reward.

And he chose, I think, very courageously to take the gamble.

The good news here is the President,

I would call it now the Venezuela model.

The President is not trying to be a nation-built.

He's not trying to do a rock 2.0.

He's not trying to go around and do the rock thing

where you hold up your purple finger to show that you voted.

It's very admirable that we should want,

but ultimately, the Iranians get a liberal democracy.

But the reality is, that's not the interest of the United States.

The interest of the United States is to get rid of the theocracy

that was spreading terror and killing Americans

and destabilizing the region,

and whatever, as in Venezuela, whatever follows,

assuming that it's not the clerics, you know,

the red lines that we have about the type of people

that would follow the clerics.

As long as that's not crossed,

I think the President is relatively agnostic

about what type of regime comes next.

He's not, you know, all the people who said he's an isolationist.

Donald Trump's the farthest thing from an isolationist.

But what he's doing is he's fixing the mistakes of the Iraq war

where we overextended ourselves.

We were focused on this very aggressive

and ambitious agenda for democracy.

Instead, he's focused very narrowly on what are the core

national interests of the United States.

No nooks, no missiles, no proxies.

And as long as he keeps that very narrow focus,

I think this will work out the way the President's hoping.

I asked you about China.

Let's go to Russia.

Vladimir Putin has praised the Ayatollah now to cease

to Ayatollah Hamanay as being a personal force

in improving Iranian-Russian relations.

What does this situation mean for Russia's abilities in Ukraine,

especially their drone capabilities, if anything?

Well, that's only a slightly less falling tribute

than the New York Times gave them.

But, you know, look, the Russians, the Chinese,

the Iranians, the North Koreans,

the common cause for a long time.

And the Iranians were certainly enabling Russia's war

against the Ukrainians.

They've been enabling North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

There's been a tremendous, you know, the axis of authoritarianism,

I think, is a good term.

Having the destruction of the theocracy benefits stability globally.

It benefits all who want peace and freedom.

And I think that, you know, Russia is finding itself increasingly isolated

and the collapse of the Iranian-theocracy

is just another example of that.

When the president says, and he said it Monday,

everyone was behind us.

They just didn't have the courage to say so.

Given your role in international affairs

and your interests in geopolitics and the context you've made,

what did you make of that comment?

What sort of reaction do you think he may be getting privately?

Well, it's often the case that when the United States does things,

whether it's against ISIS, whether it's against the Iranian-theocracy,

whether it's against the Houthis,

you will get broad support, whether it's in Western Europe,

whether it's in East Asia, whether it's in the Gulf Arab states,

privately, I can tell you from my personal experience in government,

you will privately have senior officials from those types of countries

calling and congratulating their American counterparts on a job well done.

The reality is most of the people who operate at the elite level

of foreign policy in these countries share a similar worldview

to the United States. They want stability.

They don't want this type of bad actors, like Iran, like North Korea.

And so, whatever they may need to say in public for their domestic consumption,

privately, they're very much in most ways aligned with the United States.

And finally, France's president says they're increasing nuclear warheads,

their stockpile.

He apparently decided before the operation in Iran,

but he also announced this week that he will allow temporary deployment

of nuclear-armed aircraft to allied countries.

What is the impact of all of this on Europe?

I know that's a big question, but I'm asking especially in light

of the president saying that Iran already has long-range missiles that can reach Europe.

Look, I think that Europe is very conflicted on this.

And you look at Spain, which denied America the right to use the bases

that we've jointly operated on Spanish soil to conduct this operation.

You look at Britain, which has been all over the map on this.

You look at France, again, which has been all over the map.

Western Europe is in an identity crisis domestically,

and they are in a strategic abyss.

They don't know where their loyalties lie.

They don't know where their future is headed.

They have extraordinary domestic and social problems.

The reality is Donald Trump in his national security strategy.

Explained our relationship with Europe exactly right.

Europe is in many ways Western Europe, particularly not Central Europe,

not Hungary, not Poland, but Western Europe is in many ways

in significant cultural, political, and economic decline.

And while we have great historic relations with those countries,

they are increasingly moving in a direction that is not an alignment

with American interests.

And I hope that changes.

We have a lot of great governments that are more aligned with US interests

than the US way of thinking about the world.

But right now we need to accept the fact that the current governments at least

in countries like Spain, like France, like Germany, like the United Kingdom

are in so many ways they just don't look at the world and see what we see.

Alex Gray, former National Security Council Chief of Staff, thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

Tomorrow on the Fox News rundown from Washington,

we speak with retired US Army officer Robert McGinnis about how AI

is transforming war.

The Pentagon stand off with anthropic and the debate over how artificial intelligence

should be used by the military.

I'm Jessica Rosenthal, and this is the Fox News rundown from Washington.

Prime members can listen to the show Add Free on Amazon Music.

And for up to the minute news, go to FoxNews.com.