Federal Protective Service: A Tool for Trump’s Controversial Policies?
President-elect Donald Trump has announced plans for several contentious policies in his upcoming term, including military action against Mexican drug cartels, abortion pill restrictions, a new Muslim travel ban, immigration raids, and mass deportations. These proposals are anticipated to trigger widespread protests, and Trump has indicated he will counter opposition decisively. Central to this response will be the Federal Protective Service (FPS), which a Heritage Foundation report highlights as crucial for managing dissent.
The FPS, under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), functions similarly to other police forces, with the unique ability for Congress to deploy additional forces from the department’s 90,000 law enforcement personnel. The homeland security secretary can swiftly allocate these officers to assist the FPS, enhancing its capacity with personnel who have minimal training for domestic law enforcement duties.
In 2020, the FPS was instrumental in the federal response to racial-justice protests in Portland, Oregon. The Trump administration dispatched hundreds of officers, including 300 Border Patrol special forces agents, to control what were largely peaceful demonstrations. Federal officers were reported to have used unmarked vehicles to detain protesters, compiled dossiers on individuals, and conducted surveillance on journalists, as reported by various sources.
Former DHS attorney, who advised on these operations, noted in a report for the Brennan Center for Justice that the FPS’s role in Portland deviated significantly from its primary mission to protect federal buildings and facilities. These facilities include courthouses and agencies that provide essential services, requiring safe and secure access for millions daily.
The FPS’s scope has expanded considerably post-9/11, a shift underpinned by the 2002 Homeland Security Act, which allows its officers off-site operations deemed “necessary” to protect federal property. However, the definition of “necessary” remains vague, allowing for potential overreach. The FPS has also been engaged in other politically sensitive actions, such as policing Black Lives Matter demonstrations in Baltimore in 2015 and taking actions against individuals expressing political views online.
Concerns are mounting that Trump’s second term could see increased use of the FPS to suppress protests. The Project 2025 outlines plans to align the FPS closer to DHS’s political leadership, increasing its susceptibility to being used for political purposes.
To guard against potential misuse, Congress could legislate against the deployment of specialized units like Border Patrol for domestic law enforcement. Additionally, they might restrict FPS activities to prevent undefined mandates under the guise of “promoting” homeland security. The Biden administration is urged to disclose policies governing FPS operations to ensure transparency.
State and local governments can also mitigate federal overreach by limiting cooperation with DHS, particularly in sharing resources like databases and intelligence facilities. The Brennan Center offers principles for local governments to adopt as a framework for these restrictions.
While the FPS serves a vital role in safeguarding federal properties, its potential for politically charged actions remains a concern. Trump has explicitly stated intentions to target “enemies from within” and has previously endorsed police crackdowns on protests. The FPS’s broad authority and limited safeguards position it prominently for potential overreach, necessitating urgent reforms.
