Civil Liberties Crash: DHS Accused of ‘Unchecked Power Grab’ in New Policy Shift

In 2025, a seismic shift occurred within the U.S. federal security apparatus — one that many civil-rights advocates warn could mark a long-term turning point in the balance between government power and individual liberties. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created in the aftermath of 9/11 to “protect the homeland,” has embarked on a sweeping internal restructuring under the current administration — one that has effectively gutted its own civil-rights oversight mechanisms. Critics describe the move as an “unchecked power grab.”

Where once DHS included internal watchdog agencies designed to monitor and correct abuses, those internal guardrails have been dismantled. Dozens of ongoing investigations into alleged civil and human-rights violations are now frozen or abandoned, and the system for accountability is crumbling. This article explores how and why this shift happened — and what it could mean for civil liberties, immigrant rights, transparency, and the rule of law.

The Institutional Break: What Changed Inside DHS

The Oversight Offices That Were Shuttered

Three key internal offices at DHS were targeted for elimination or drastic downsizing in early 2025:

• The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), which investigated complaints of civil rights and constitutional violations by DHS personnel and its agencies, including immigration enforcement and surveillance practices.

• The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO), responsible for monitoring conditions inside immigration detention facilities and handling detainee complaints.

• The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Office, which helped individuals navigate immigration benefit processes and resolve grievances related to immigration services.

The administration characterized these offices as bureaucratic “roadblocks” to immigration enforcement, suggesting that they inhibited efficient operations. Hundreds of employees — lawyers, investigators, civil-rights staff — lost their jobs either through termination or administrative leave. One insider reportedly texted: “All the oversight in DHS was eliminated today.”

Frozen Investigations and Abandoned Cases

Before the shutdown, CRCL alone handled thousands of complaints involving mistreatment in detention centers, denial of medical care to detainees, invasive surveillance technology, and allegations of abuse within immigration enforcement operations. When the closure happened, roughly 600 active investigations were abruptly frozen. Whistleblower reports submitted to Congress indicated that access to DHS systems was revoked and all ongoing complaint processing was suspended.

Even after legal challenges and partial public pressure, the offices were not restored to their former capacity. Instead, DHS proposed maintaining “skeleton crews” — a fraction of their previous staffing levels — with only a handful of contract investigators and a very limited number of full-time civil-rights investigators at CRCL.

Why This Matters: The Risks of Unchecked Power

Erosion of Accountability and Oversight

At the heart of modern democratic governance lies accountability — mechanisms to ensure that those in power do not abuse it, and that victims of government misconduct have a channel for redress. By dismantling its internal watchdogs, DHS effectively removed one of the very few channels available for oversight of immigration enforcement, detention, and broader security operations.

Without such oversight, abuses — from arbitrary detention to excessive use of force, mistreatment of detainees, and surveillance overreach — risk going unreported, uninvestigated, and unpunished.

Amplified Vulnerability for Immigrants and Marginalized Communities

Many of CRCL’s investigations involved immigrants, asylum seekers, detainees, and non-citizens — populations already vulnerable to discrimination and systemic injustice. With the dismantling of oversight infrastructure, these communities face heightened risk. Advocates warn that the change may enable enforcement operations to proceed with impunity.

Broader Threat to Civil Liberties and Democratic Norms

The problem extends beyond immigration. By eliminating internal checks, DHS is empowered to wield broad discretion over surveillance, policing, detention, deportation, and treatment of asylum seekers. Critics argue this marks a broader trend: the securitization and centralization of power within a single federal agency at the expense of transparency, accountability, and individual rights.

Voices of Concern: What Advocates and Experts Say

Legal Challenges and Activist Pushback

Multiple civil-rights and immigrant-advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit against DHS and its Secretary, demanding the restoration of oversight offices. They argued the closures violated statutory mandates that established these offices. DHS, under court pressure, announced it would maintain minimal staff, but critics argue that this “skeleton crew” is largely symbolic.

Warnings from Former Officials and Human-Rights Organizations

• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned that dismantling oversight could expand DHS’s unchecked power, conflating immigration enforcement, counterterrorism, and domestic policing under a broad, unaccountable umbrella.

• Experts note that reduced staffing removes a deterrent for abuse; the fewer the investigators, the higher the likelihood that misconduct will go unchallenged.

• Immigrant-rights and gender-based violence advocates highlight that vulnerable groups — including women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and asylum seekers — may have “no place to go” if mistreated.

Context & Precedents: History of Concern over DHS Authority

Concerns over excessive power and civil-liberties risks within DHS are not new. Critics have long argued that its broad mandate — combining immigration enforcement, border control, domestic security, counterterrorism, and disaster response — creates structural risks for overreach and abuse.

During past crises and protests, federal agents operating under DHS have faced criticism for using unmarked vehicles, plainclothes operations, and detaining individuals with minimal transparency. The agency’s threat-based security lens has historically disproportionately targeted marginalized communities, including immigrants, racial or religious minorities, and dissidents.

Shutting down internal oversight — at a moment when enforcement operations are expanding — signals a doubling down on this model, without regard for civil-liberties constraints or human-rights protections.

Real-World Impacts: Cases Now in Limbo

Several allegations illustrate the stakes:

• A detained man in Arizona was reportedly forcibly removed from his cell, handcuffed, and sedated under suspicious circumstances. That case was under CRCL investigation when the office was shuttered.

• Detainees at a privately-run detention center in Louisiana allegedly were pepper-sprayed during a hunger strike, and access to power and water was cut for hours. That investigation was frozen.

• A 33-year-old immigrant woman with mental health challenges in Florida was reportedly restrained, subjected to psychological abuse, and left with physical injuries. Her complaint is now unaddressed.

• A student activist arrested for political expression faced potential civil-rights violations, with the investigation frozen due to DHS restructuring.

These are real allegations involving deeply vulnerable people, whose access to oversight has been effectively removed.

The Narrative: Why Some Call It a “Power Grab”

Critics argue the move is more than bureaucratic streamlining:

• The timing coincided with expanded enforcement operations, suggesting oversight offices were seen as obstacles.

• Hundreds of civil-rights and oversight staff were terminated even though the offices performed essential functions.

• Hundreds of investigations were halted with no transparency regarding resumption.

• This pattern mirrors other federal oversight reductions, including mass firings of inspectors general in 2025.

Taken together, this suggests a re-calibration from a system balancing enforcement with oversight to one where enforcement operates with minimal accountability.

Consequences and Warnings: What Could Come Next

Erosion of Civil-Liberties Safeguards

Without oversight, DHS’s expanded role in surveillance, immigration, detention, and domestic security becomes more dangerous. This risks chilling free speech, assembly, privacy, due process, and humane treatment.

Risk to Democratic Institutions and Trust in Government

Oversight agencies not only protect individual rights but reinforce institutional legitimacy and public trust. Their removal signals to the public that credible complaints may not lead to accountability, potentially eroding trust and corroding democratic norms.

Potential for Systemic Abuse and Impunity

Frozen investigations risk being lost permanently. Without watchdogs, there is no mechanism to pursue accountability or reform, potentially incentivizing further abuses.

Threat to Immigrants and Vulnerable Groups

Immigration enforcement involves highly vulnerable populations. The dismantling of oversight leaves these individuals exposed, with limited recourse if mistreated.

Drivers Behind the DHS Restructuring

• Administrative agenda: Prioritizing aggressive immigration enforcement, mass deportations, and reduction of bureaucratic hurdles. Oversight bodies were seen as internal adversaries slowing enforcement.

• Consolidation of power: This mirrors broader federal trends, including the dismissal of multiple inspectors general.

• Legal and political environment: Reducing oversight potentially shields DHS and the administration from legal and public scrutiny.

Responses and Resistance

Lawsuits and Court Challenges

Civil-rights and immigrant-advocacy groups filed suit demanding reinstatement of oversight offices. DHS has responded by maintaining minimal staffing, which critics say is largely cosmetic.

Congressional Pressure and Public Outcry

Some lawmakers and advocacy groups have condemned the move, but the administration’s political alignment makes intervention uncertain.

Calls for Reform

Advocates are urging Congress to establish independent oversight mechanisms outside DHS’s chain of command to monitor enforcement, detention, and immigration operations.

What This Means for Civil Liberties — And the Future

The dismantling of DHS’s civil-rights oversight machinery has profound implications for civil liberties, human rights, and democratic accountability. Fundamental protections — due process, humane treatment, privacy, and the ability to seek redress for government misconduct — are at risk.

If unchecked, this trajectory could institutionalize a system where federal agencies wield sweeping enforcement powers with minimal accountability, raising the potential for systemic abuse and erosion of democratic norms.

Conclusion: The Critical Need for Transparency and Safeguards

At its core, this debate is about trust. A just society demands that its security apparatus operate under law, transparency, and accountability. When oversight offices are dismantled, investigations frozen, and employees who safeguarded civil rights are dismissed, trust erodes.

Democracy rests on the principle that no one — not even the state — is above the law. The dismantling of DHS’s internal watchdogs threatens that principle, undermining the idea that individuals have a right to protection from abuse and arbitrary enforcement.

The coming months and years will be critical. Congress, courts, advocacy groups, and public pressure must ensure robust oversight, or the “Civil Liberties Crash” may permanently reshape the balance of power, relegating human rights and constitutional protections to memory.