In his final days as Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas is making one last attempt to shape the narrative around national security and, predictably, deflect blame from the Biden administration’s deeply unpopular border policies. Appearing on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Mayorkas addressed the horrifying terrorist attack in New Orleans carried out by Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a man who declared allegiance to ISIS and took the lives of at least 14 innocent people.
Mayorkas began by acknowledging the persistent threat of foreign terrorism, homegrown extremism, and hostile nation-states. Fair enough—those are real threats, and no one disputes that. But the secretary’s attempt to pivot the conversation toward “homegrown violent extremism” while largely brushing aside the glaring vulnerabilities at the southern border is nothing short of classic political sleight of hand.
Let’s not forget: under Mayorkas’ watch, the U.S. has seen record-breaking illegal border crossings, including individuals on terrorist watchlists slipping through the cracks. The numbers are staggering, and each apprehension raises a chilling question—how many weren’t caught?
Disgraced DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: “The phenomenon of radicalization of individuals is not limited to the military … The military is not immune to it nor is the federal workforce.” pic.twitter.com/Cg0ON1k0qv
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 5, 2025
But instead of addressing the role that border security failures may have played in creating an environment where threats like Jabbar can manifest, Mayorkas shifted gears to address criticism from Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense. Hegseth has been a vocal critic of the Biden administration’s focus on rooting out so-called “extremists” within the U.S. military—a campaign that, many argue, was more about ideological conformity than actual security threats.
Mayorkas countered by saying, “The phenomenon of radicalization of individuals is not limited to the military. It is something that we are very focused upon in society writ large. The military is not immune to it, nor is the federal workforce.”
Well, no one is suggesting that radicalization is exclusive to the military. But Hegseth’s criticism—and the broader Republican frustration—stems from the how and why the Biden administration has pursued this issue. Instead of focusing squarely on clear and present dangers—like monitoring known terror affiliations or addressing vulnerabilities at the border—the administration often seemed more interested in chasing ideological ghosts within the ranks.
And then came Mayorkas’ parting shot: Republicans should “not politicize” the issue but rather focus on “confronting and combatting” extremism.
Oh, the irony. This is the same administration that has spent four years politicizing every aspect of national security, from declaring domestic political opponents as existential threats to democracy to deflecting blame for an increasingly chaotic border.
The truth is, no one wants extremism in the military—or anywhere else in American society. But when an administration spends its time crafting vague, politically charged definitions of “extremism” while ignoring glaring vulnerabilities, it’s hard not to see this as yet another example of misplaced priorities.
