We are former senior Department of Homeland Security officials with experience in immigration enforcement, counterterrorism, and national security. Our public service was shaped by September 11, 2001, grounding us in the twin obligations of security and constitutional restraint. Today, we are deeply alarmed by what we are seeing from our former department.

Let us be clear at the outset: we support strong borders and lawful immigration enforcement. Law enforcement deserves respect; society cannot function without it. But enforcement that treats the public as the enemy and abandons constitutional limits does not make us safer. It puts the entire system at risk — legally, operationally, and morally.

Over the past year, we have watched repeated violations of Americans’ First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights.

Free expression and peaceful protest are core to our Constitution, and the government has a duty to protect those rights even — especially — when speech is uncomfortable or critical of authority. At the same time, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures must be honored;  law enforcement should not bypass judicial oversight when entering private homes or conducting operations.

And in just the last three weeks, federal immigration officers have been involved in three shootings, resulting in two deaths — an unprecedented pattern in modern immigration enforcement. Any serious law enforcement institution confronted with that record would pause operations and reassess training and tactics.

That has not happened, and it raises legitimate questions about proportionality, judgment, and respect for constitutional limits.

These outcomes did not occur in a vacuum. Over the past year, DHS leadership has driven a dramatic shift in tone and culture. Federal officials publicly labeled Renee Good — a mother and U.S. citizen — and Alex Pretti — a nurse who cared for U.S. veterans and also a U.S. citizen — as “terrorists” before investigations were initiated and without evidence of terrorist ideology or motive.

Official DHS social media accounts routinely post inflammatory content glorifying paramilitary enforcement. This rhetoric has influenced operations, encouraging escalation rather than restraint against American citizens.

When senior officials treat Americans as adversaries — not as neighbors and citizens with rights — it poisons the workforce. Officers are taught to see the public they serve through the prism of fear rather than duty, and that mindset can become self-fulfilling. Law enforcement that views the public as the enemy, rather than as fellow citizens to protect, and that abandons constitutional limits, does not make us safer. It normalizes escalation, erodes legitimacy, and increases the risk of violence for civilians and officers alike.

History offers a cautionary lesson: when enforcement institutions lose accountability and are insulated from meaningful oversight, their use of power tends to expand rather than contract. That reality should concern all Americans, regardless of where they stand politically.

Equally concerning is the lack of independent accountability. The administration declined to open an investigation into the shooting of Ms. Good and indicated it would investigate the shooting of Pretti internally. Across the country — in red states and blue states alike — officer-involved shootings are reviewed by independent authorities for a reason: public trust depends on it.

As tensions with protesters have escalated, it is essential to remember where responsibility lies in a constitutional democracy. Citizens have a duty to exercise their First Amendment rights peacefully. But the greater burden of restraint rests with the state. Whistling, shouting, filming arrests, or verbally criticizing officers is not violence. It is annoying — but it is protected speech. Courts have been clear for decades: speech does not become violence simply because it provokes irritation, anger, or discomfort in law enforcement. The public has a right to expect that officers will respond to lawful protest with professionalism and restraint, not force.

Mission of Homeland Security

DHS argues that officers are simply doing their duty by enforcing immigration laws during these operations nationwide to detain immigrants; that they have no choice. That framing is misleading. The executive branch exercises discretion in whom it prioritizes and how operations are conducted. Their choices are directly tied to the outcomes we are seeing. Officials also claim these operations target “criminals,” yet as of late November, roughly 73% of those detained had no criminal conviction, according to an analysis of publicly available ICE data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

Having immigration officers walk residential or commercial streets in broad daylight is not how violent criminals are apprehended. Rapists, murderers, and drug traffickers do not announce themselves or surrender voluntarily. Identifying dangerous offenders requires investigative work, intelligence, and coordination — capabilities ICE already possesses. If the objective were to focus on genuinely dangerous individuals, the executive branch could do so. The outcomes suggest something else: an emphasis on meeting numerical targets, regardless of the human or constitutional cost.

Congress recently approved an unprecedented expansion of ICE — a 120% increase in workforce and a tripling of their budget – making it the largest federal law enforcement agency, with a budget larger than many other nation’s militaries. Rapid growth at this scale carries predictable risks, including reduced vetting of new hires and weakened institutional culture. According to an investigation by Government Executive, training for new hires has been cut by nearly 77%.

Colorado could be a target for enforcement

Some may wonder why events unfolding hundreds of miles away should matter to Coloradans. The truth is that federal enforcement priorities and tactics that are normalized in one place tend to spread unless checked. Throughout history, unchecked power has expanded and carried out similar or worse activities elsewhere — first here, then there. Colorado already sits among the metropolitan areas experiencing one of the highest rates of immigrant arrivals per capita behind only a handful of  U.S. cities.

Colorado’s state and local policies have also drawn federal scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice has targeted Colorado and Denver in litigation challenging local immigration-related laws, framing them as inconsistent with federal enforcement priorities.

This combination of factors means that Colorado could be next on the list. If so, it is critical that protestors and citizens do two things:  document law enforcement actions in line with the law and remain peaceful.  The latter, in particular, is absolutely vital.  There can be no violence against law enforcement.  That will undo all that has been sacrificed.

The executive branch does not have unfettered power, and Congress is not a bystander. It is a co-equal branch with a constitutional duty to conduct oversight and set limits.

Members of Congress must act. Yes, they should immediately hold oversight hearings, demanding accountability from DHS leadership, and using the power of the purse to impose conditions tied to constitutional compliance. But we need more. CBP, ICE, and DHS are no longer agencies with the credibility to keep the nation safe. Congress should create a blue ribbon commission to both hold them accountable and issue recommendations of how the agency should be reconstituted. Nothing short of that will be trusted by the American people.

We continue to care deeply about the mission of DHS and the professionals who serve there — many of whom cannot speak publicly without risking their careers. When leaders promote escalation over restraint, they endanger both civilians and officers.

To our fellow Coloradans: If this can happen in Minneapolis, Chicago and Portland, it can happen in Denver, Durango and the Western Slope. Call your senators and representative and demand that Congress insist on the rule of law. Law enforcement and liberty are not opposing values. In America, they must stand together.

Eric Balliet is a retired Homeland Security Investigations special agent who spent over 15 years on the Arizona/Mexico border combatting international drug and human smuggling organizations, he worked under five administrations and served as the law enforcement advisor to Department of Homeland Security secretaries Jeh Johnson and John Kelly. Elizabeth Neumann is a former DHS assistant secretary for counterterrorism and deputy chief of staff who served in national security roles across three administrations, including the Trump administration. 

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.