HR-7574-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsored by Gabe Evans (R-CO)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a plan within 120 days to reorganize the Engagement, Liaison, and Outreach (ELO) Office — a unit within DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) — by merging its essential functions into I&A's existing Partner Engagement directorate. The plan must identify redundant or non-essential positions, propose staffing reassignments, and improve coordination and information-sharing with federal, state, and local law enforcement partners. Until the plan is submitted and implementation is certified, the bill would prohibit the Secretary from expanding the ELO Office's staff, budget, or scope, or creating any new office that duplicates its mission without specific congressional authorization.
Who benefits
State, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) law enforcement agencies that would receive more streamlined and accountable intelligence support and outreach from DHS. Federal law enforcement partners who would benefit from reduced duplication and clearer points of contact. DHS personnel whose roles would be clarified through reorganization. Taxpayers if the reorganization produces efficiency savings. Congressional oversight committees that would gain formal reporting and certification requirements over DHS internal structure.
Who is hurt
Current ELO Office employees whose positions could be eliminated or reassigned as "redundant or non-essential." SLTT partners who rely on existing ELO Office relationships and may experience disruption during the transition period. DHS leadership, which would face a statutory freeze on expanding or duplicating the ELO Office's mission until the plan and certification are complete, limiting administrative flexibility. Organizations or communities that currently receive outreach or convenings through the ELO Office if continuity of service is not maintained during the transition.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the ELO Office has operated with insufficient accountability and overlapping functions that duplicate work already performed by I&A's Partner Engagement directorate, wasting resources and creating confusion among law enforcement partners. They contend that consolidating these functions under a single directorate with clear communication protocols, centralized points of contact, and measurable performance metrics would strengthen — not weaken — DHS's relationships with the thousands of SLTT law enforcement agencies that depend on timely intelligence sharing for counterterrorism and emergency response.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating a reorganization plan on a 120-day timeline risks disrupting established relationships between the ELO Office and SLTT partners at a time when those intelligence-sharing networks are operationally critical. They contend that labeling positions "redundant or non-essential" through a legislatively driven process — rather than an organic management review — could result in the loss of specialized expertise and institutional knowledge that took years to build, ultimately degrading the quality of intelligence support to local law enforcement rather than improving it.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to structure executive branch agencies under its Article I powers, including the Appropriations Clause (Art. I, §9, cl. 7) and its general legislative power. The bill does not raise significant constitutional tension, as it directs the Secretary to submit a plan and imposes a temporary freeze on expansion — both well within Congress's authority to oversee and structure the executive branch. No active Supreme Court doctrine directly contests this type of organizational mandate.
Checks and balances
Congress gains oversight authority by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a formal reorganization plan and certification to two congressional committees; the executive branch retains discretion over the content of the plan and implementation details, but is constrained from expanding the ELO Office until those reporting requirements are met.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously directed reorganizations of DHS components through legislation, including the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which restructured FEMA's placement and functions within DHS following identified coordination failures.