The Department of Education's Law Enforcement Arm: A Concerning Case of Mission Creep

This serves as a powerful reminder of the need for constant vigilance in maintaining the proper boundaries of government agency authority.

HQ - U.S. Department of Education

In the U.S. government, security and enforcement responsibilities are increasingly common across agencies, a trend that has extended to the Department of Education (ED). The Department of Education’s law enforcement branch, which includes the Personnel Security Intake Branch (PSIB), Personnel Security Adjudication Branch (PSAB), Physical Security and Emergency Preparedness Division (PSEPD), and Protective Service Division (PSD), reflects this shift. Each branch manages critical functions related to personnel security, physical security, and protective services. However, the growth of this security apparatus has brought with it significant concerns, including bureaucratic creep, escalating costs, and potential overreach. These branches form a comprehensive security apparatus that would have been unimaginable to the department's founders. 

Personnel Security Intake Branch (PSIB): Managing Access but Expanding in Reach 

The PSIB is charged with processing and overseeing background investigations of federal employees and contractors within the ED. Their role involves evaluating applicants and employees for access to classified and unclassified information, initiating background checks, reviewing personnel security questionnaires, performing local agency checks, and processing Entry on Duty (EOD) clearances. The Personnel Security Intake Branch also coordinates with the contracting divisions, oversees employee onboarding from a security perspective, and conducts reinvestigations every five years. 

The initial purpose of the PSIB was relatively straightforward: protect the ED's systems, data, and physical spaces from potential insider threats. However, PSIB’s function has expanded over the years to include verifying identity documentation, retrieving credit bureau data, managing cybersecurity training certificates, and assisting with entry processing for all new hires, appointees, and even interns. While these tasks support personnel security, the extent of background data collection on non-sensitive positions, such as interns or non-high-risk contractors, raises questions about mission creep and privacy concerns. Increased scrutiny and investigation for nearly every level of employee seem to go beyond what’s necessary for an agency primarily focused on education. 

Personnel Security Adjudication Branch (PSAB): Expanding Definitions of “Suitability” and Trust 

The Personnel Security Adjudication Branch adjudicates background investigation results and screens applicants for potential security risks. It ensures that employees are fit for roles of trust before final hiring decisions are made. They also assess applicants’ and employees’ trustworthiness in federal positions, especially if they require security clearance. 

While the PSAB’s role is vital in safeguarding sensitive information, the expansion of “suitability” criteria raises concerns. Definitions of trustworthiness can sometimes extend into subjective areas, leading to excessive scrutiny on issues not directly tied to job performance. In some documented cases, minor indiscretions have been flagged as potential red flags for employment suitability, creating additional layers of red tape that can delay hiring and unnecessarily stigmatize candidates. Over time, the department's scope in adjudicating suitability has extended beyond straightforward background checks to involve repeated reinvestigations, ongoing monitoring, and complex evaluation criteria. This raises important questions about the balance between necessary security and excessive oversight, especially in an agency whose primary focus is education rather than national security. 

Physical Security and Emergency Preparedness Division (PSEPD): Shifting Resources to Security Infrastructure 

The Physical Security and Emergency Preparedness Division manages the security of ED’s physical locations, particularly its headquarters and regional offices. This division coordinates with federal agencies such as the Federal Protective Service and the General Services Administration (GSA) to implement robust security protocols, including building access control, identification card programs, and facility guard services. PSEPD’s role has expanded further to include the oversight of guard services, investigations of policy violations, and the protection of visiting dignitaries. 

While workplace safety and emergency preparedness are legitimate functions, the degree to which PSEPD resources are allocated to protect the ED’s facilities and dignitaries represents a significant budgetary outlay. Protecting high-level officials and implementing a military-grade physical security system can be financially demanding. PSEPD’s budget for facility guard services, emergency exercises, and high-security protocols may be difficult to justify given the agency's educational mission. The division’s security programs, and budgetary allocations also illustrate a potential trend toward bureaucratic creep, where security infrastructure expands beyond reasonable levels, placing unnecessary financial and operational burdens on the agency. 

Protective Service Division (PSD): Personal Protection or Overreach? 

The PSD’s responsibility for protecting the Secretary of Education is the most visible aspect of ED’s security arm. This division offers portal-to-portal protection for the Secretary, which includes transportation, advance scouting of all visited locations, and coordination with local law enforcement. The PSD provides additional support for events outside the National Capitol Region and in cases of high-risk travel or events. The PSD also has authority to conduct threat assessments, maintain communication with agencies like FEMA, and help prepare continuity plans (COOP/COG) for national emergencies involving the Secretary. 

However, there are concerns about whether the level of protection provided to the Secretary of Education is commensurate with the position’s actual security risk. Unlike high-profile positions such as the Secretary of Defense, Education officials are typically lower-profile and would be expected to face lower risks. Extending resources to coordinate with law enforcement across jurisdictions, advance teams, and assess security for all events visited by the Secretary points to potential overreach. Moreover, past reports suggest instances where PSD resources were used for personal travel, raising ethical questions and concerns of abuse. The PSD’s independence in assessing “threats” to the Secretary’s safety also illustrates a gray area where bureaucratic expansion can lead to unnecessary or inflated protective measures. 

The Expansion of Department of Education Federal Powers and the Militarization of Civilian Agencies 

In recent years, a troubling transformation has occurred within the U.S. Department of Education (ED) – one that raises serious questions about the expansion of federal power and the militarization of civilian agencies. What began as a cabinet-level department focused on educational policy and administration has evolved to include a sophisticated law enforcement apparatus complete with armed agents, protective details, and extensive security operations. 

The Evolution of Power 

When Congress established the Department of Education in 1979, its primary mission was to strengthen federal commitment to education and coordinate federal education programs. However, like many federal agencies, the ED has gradually expanded its scope and authority far beyond its original mandate. 

The Cost of Security 

The financial implications of maintaining these security operations are substantial. According to a 2017 report by the Office of Inspector General, the ED's security and enforcement operations cost taxpayers millions annually. This includes expenses for armed agents, protective details, background investigations, and security equipment – resources that could potentially be redirected to educational programs. 

Concerning Incidents and Overreach 

Several incidents have highlighted concerns about the ED's law enforcement activities. In 2011, agents from the ED's Office of Inspector General conducted a raid on a California home, breaking down the door and handcuffing residents in an investigation of suspected student aid fraud. The incident, widely reported by the Washington Post and other media outlets, raised questions about the necessity and appropriateness of such tactical operations by education officials. 

In 2015, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) documented cases where ED law enforcement operations exceeded their statutory authority, including instances of surveillance and investigations that could have been handled by traditional law enforcement agencies. 

Bureaucratic Mission Creep 

The expansion of the ED's law enforcement capabilities exemplifies what scholars call "bureaucratic mission creep" – the gradual expansion of an organization's activities beyond its original purpose. Dr. James Q. Wilson, in his seminal work "Bureaucracy," explains how government agencies naturally tend to expand their authority and jurisdiction over time. 

The ED's security apparatus has grown from basic facility protection to include: 

• Armed agents conducting criminal investigations 

• Protective details for department officials 

• Sophisticated surveillance operations 

• Extensive background investigation programs 

• Interagency law enforcement coordination 

Constitutional and Civil Liberty Concerns 

Civil liberties organizations have raised concerns about the militarization of civilian agencies. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented how the proliferation of federal law enforcement authority across civilian agencies can lead to abuse of power and violations of constitutional rights. 

The Heritage Foundation has noted that the expansion of law enforcement authority within civilian agencies creates redundancy in federal law enforcement and can lead to jurisdictional conflicts with traditional law enforcement agencies. 

Regulatory Burden 

The department's security requirements create significant regulatory burden for educational institutions and contractors. The complex background check requirements, security clearance processes, and compliance procedures add layers of bureaucracy that can impede educational initiatives and increase costs for schools and educational service providers. 

Recommendations for Reform 

1. Congressional Oversight: Congress should review and potentially limit the ED's law enforcement authority to activities directly related to education fraud and abuse. 

2. Cost-Benefit Analysis: An independent audit should evaluate the necessity and effectiveness of the ED's security operations compared to utilizing existing law enforcement agencies. 

3. Statutory Clarification: Legislative action should clearly define the boundaries of the ED's law enforcement authority to prevent further mission creep. 

4. Interagency Coordination: Rather than maintaining independent law enforcement capabilities, the ED should coordinate with existing federal law enforcement agencies for necessary security operations. 

Lessons Learned 

The evolution of the Department of Education's law enforcement arm serves as a cautionary tale about the natural tendency of government organizations to expand beyond their original mandate. What began as a focused educational agency has developed into an organization with significant law enforcement capabilities, raising important questions about the appropriate role and scope of federal agencies. 

This expansion reflects a broader pattern in federal governance where agencies gradually accumulate power and authority beyond their statutory requirements. The process often occurs incrementally, with each small addition seeming reasonable in isolation, but the cumulative effect can result in significant mission drift and potential overreach. 

Conclusion 

As we consider the future of the Department of Education and its law enforcement capabilities, it's crucial to remember that the primary mission of this agency is to serve America's educational needs, not to function as a law enforcement entity. The expansion of its security and enforcement operations represents a concerning example of how federal agencies can gradually evolve beyond their intended purposes, potentially compromising their effectiveness in their core mission areas. 

The presence of armed agents, protective details, and extensive security operations within an education-focused agency should prompt serious discussion about the appropriate boundaries of federal power and the efficient use of taxpayer resources. While some level of security operations may be necessary, the current scope of the ED's law enforcement activities suggests a need for reform and realignment with the department's original educational mission. 

Moving forward, policymakers must carefully balance legitimate security needs with the risk of further mission creep. This requires regular assessment of security operations, clear statutory limitations, and a willingness to reform or eliminate unnecessary enforcement capabilities. Only through such vigilance can we ensure that federal agencies remain focused on their core missions and avoid the kind of gradual expansion that has transformed the Department of Education from an educational policy organization into one with significant law enforcement powers. 

The lesson is clear: without proper oversight and clear statutory limitations, government organizations will naturally expand their authority and scope over time, potentially undermining their effectiveness and raising serious questions about the appropriate use of federal power. The Department of Education's law enforcement evolution serves as a powerful reminder of the need for constant vigilance in maintaining the proper boundaries of government agency authority. 

And then, there is the consideration of elimination, whole cloth, of the agency. The elimination of the Department of Education, while representing a seismic shift in federal governance that would require careful unwinding of numerous programs and responsibilities, could potentially restore the constitutional balance of educational authority to individual states as originally intended by the Founders, thereby allowing for more localized control, increased innovation in educational approaches, reduction in bureaucratic overhead, elimination of redundant federal law enforcement functions, and the implementation of educational policies that better reflect the unique needs and values of different regions and communities across America, while simultaneously addressing the concerning mission creep that has transformed what was meant to be a limited federal role in education into an expansive bureaucracy that now encompasses everything from armed enforcement divisions to complex regulatory frameworks that often impede rather than enhance educational outcomes for American students. 

Sources:  

1. The Kenneth Wright Incident (2011) 

• Source: Washington Post article "Education Department SWAT team raids California home" 

• Details: Federal agents broke down the door of Kenneth Wright's home in Stockton, CA, handcuffing him and his children during a student aid fraud investigation. Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/education-department-swat-team-raids-california-home/2011/06/08/AGUxlKMH_blog.html 

2. Project on Government Oversight (POGO) Report (2015) 

• "Watching the Watchdogs: The Good, the Bad, and What We Need from the Inspectors General" 

• Documented cases of overreach in ED investigations Link: https://www.pogo.org/report/2015/07/watching-watchdogs-good-bad-and-what-we-need-from-inspectors-general 

3. Inspector General Reports 

• Department of Education Office of Inspector General Semiannual Reports to Congress 

• Details questionable expenditures and operational concerns Link: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/sarpages.html 

4. Judicial Watch Investigation (2013) 

• "Education Department's Armed Agents Raid Home, Drag Man Out in His Boxers" 

• FOIA requests revealed details about the ED's tactical operations Link: https://www.judicialwatch.org/education-departments-armed-agents-raid-home/ 

5. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Reports 

• "Federal Law Enforcement: Survey of Federal Civilian Law Enforcement Functions and Authorities" (2019) 

• Documents expansion of law enforcement authority across civilian agencies Link: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-216 

6. Senate Oversight Hearings (2016) 

• "Examining the Use of Agency Regulatory Guidance" 

• Testimony regarding ED's expanding enforcement activities Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg21180/pdf/CHRG-114shrg21180.pdf 

7. ACLU Reports 

• "The War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing" 

• Includes analysis of civilian agency law enforcement activities Link: https://www.aclu.org/report/war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-police 

8. Heritage Foundation Analysis 

• "The Rise of the Administrative State and the Growth in Federal Law Enforcement Power" 

• Documents concerns about mission creep in civilian agencies Link: https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-rise-the-administrative-state-and-the-growth-federal-law-enforcement 

9. Cato Institute Research 

• "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture" 

• Includes examination of ED enforcement activities Link: https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture 

10. Congressional Research Service Reports 

• "Federal Law Enforcement Authorities at Executive Branch Agencies" 

• Analysis of law enforcement authority expansion Link:

  https://crsreports.congress.gov.