Transcript of On Trump’s “Day One” Promises: Former DHS Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas Talks Immigration, Terrorism, and Cybersecurity Threats

The breaking news is that I've decided to stay.

I'll inform the Trumps. Hi, everyone from New York magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is on with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day and happy inauguration, depending on who you are. Yes, depending on who you are. Keep warm there in Washington. I'm actually in Miami right now taping this. I had to get out of Dodge. Today is, in fact, the first day of President Trump's term, at least starting at noon. I'm not going to say how I feel about this. I think I'll just reflect in the content we create here at On and at Pivot. I have no advice for people except, Hold on. But all incoming presidents make big promises of everything they'll do on day one. Of course, immigration has been at the top of Trump's list. He's promised to close borders, begin mass deportations and more, and reporting on that has already started about actions he could be taking almost immediately. But what does that really mean? My guest today is one of the few people who can answer that question. Outgoing Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. Mayorkas is the first immigrant and first Latino to be confirmed in the position after many years of public service.

In the late 1990s, he became the youngest US attorney in the country in his home state of California. In 2009, President Obama brought him on as director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. In Obama's second term, Mayorkas became Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, and he was President Biden's pick to lead the department. To be clear, DHS is a $115 billion federal agency that oversees a lot: immigration, the border, disaster response, federal protection, cyber security, and anti terrorism. Some have advocated for its dissolution. As a man tasked with overseeing some of the nation's most contentious issues, Mayorkas has been under pressure more than most in Washington, including becoming the first cabinet member to be impeached by the House in nearly 150 years. Our expert question today comes from one of the few Republicans who voted against that impeachment, former Colorado congressman Ken Buck. Just to note, we recorded this interview on Thursday, January 16th, the day before Mayorkas's potential successful successor, South Dakota Governor Christie Noem, had her Senate confirmation hearings. So we didn't get a chance to ask Mayorkas about what he thought of Noem's comments about DHS. For example, her claim that it has a reputation of being broken and dysfunctional.

I'm not sure what to say about Noem, but Mayorkas, as you'll see, was very kind to her and is hoping for the best. There was a lot of ground to cover with the outgoing secretary besides Christie Noem's various and sundry insults, including what he makes of the feasibility of many of Trump's proposals. So stick around. Support for the show comes from The Nerd Wallet. When it comes to finding the best financial products, have you ever wish that someone would do the heavy lifting for you? Take all that research off your plate. Well, with Nerd Wallet's 2025 Best of Awards, that wish has finally come true. The nerds at Nerd Wallet have reviewed more than 700 financial products like credit cards, saving accounts, and more to highlight and bring you only the best of the best. Check out the 2025 Best of Awards today at nerdwallet. Com/awards. What's up, you all? It's Kenny Beacham. On this week's episode of Small Ball, we get into maybe the wildest, craziest, most shocking week in NBA history. The trade deadline came, and it did not disappoint. Some trades I love, some I hated, and some made absolutely no sense at all.

The league has been shaken up, and I'm here to break it all down with you. Man, what a time to be an NBA fan. You can watch Small Ball on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcast. Episodes drop every Friday. This isn't your grandpa's Finance podcast.

It's Vivian Two, your Rich BFF and host of the Networth & Chill podcast. This is money talk that's actually fun, actually relatable, and will actually make you money.

I'm breaking down investments, side hustles, and wealth strategies, No boring spreadsheets, just real talk that will have you leveling up your financial game.

With amazing guests like Glenda Baker. There's never been any house that I've sold in the last 32 years that's not worth more today than it was the day that I sold it. This is a money podcast that you'll actually want to listen to. Follow Networth and Chill wherever you listen to podcasts. Your bank account will thank you later.

Secretary Mayorkas, welcome. Thanks for being on on.

Thank you so much for having me, Cara.

I don't know if you know this, I'm doing all the exit interviews for the Biden administration? No, not necessarily. But I have wanted to talk to you. We met before and we're speaking on January 16th, one of your last few days in office. While other folks may be tying up loose ends as head of DHS, you've had some big events to deal with in your final weeks, including wildfires in Southern California. Los Angeles is your hometown, by the way. I just would love to hear about your thoughts on the fires there. What's it like for you seeing, say, Palisades ablaze?

Kira, it is It is devastating. I know many people who have lost their homes, not only in the Palisades, but in the Eden fire in Pasadena, in the Altadena area. I see and speak with people who've lost all their possessions, their mementos. It is heartbreaking. It is not, though, the first disaster that I have been exposed to in this job. While it is closer to home, if you will, the impacts elsewhere have sometimes been even more devastating.

The fires have been called the most destructive in California history, and we've had some very destructive fires. I recall the ones up in the north a couple of years ago were terrifying. I have a home up there. Incoming President-elect Trump falsely claimed that one of the reasons they're out of control is there's, No money in FEMA. I'd love to know what's your opinion of what's to blame and if you could have done more to buffer this.

Frankly, I'm not aware, Kiera, of anything to blame right now. I will say the following. Historically, tragedies have actually driven unity of a perspective, of care, of effort, and of words. That, unfortunately, has not held true in recent times, and I think it's very, very sad, number one. Number two, it's not the time for inaccurate information that only corrodes confidence in the services that are being provided and can be provided. We really do need a return to a level of unity.

Talk to me a little bit about what you do when you're in an environment. You're in a misinformation environment, a propaganda environment, a basic lies environment, which does erode people, and especially when people are particularly vulnerable.

Yes. We saw that quite powerfully in North Carolina, where there was disinformation. These are the floods. Yes. Where we had to draw FEMA people from the field because they were at risk when in fact they were sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others. What we do is we disseminate accurate information as most effectively as we can so people understand that there is a reliable source of information upon which they can base their important life decisions at a time of tragedy. That is what we can do.

But it doesn't work. I mean, even you've been overwhelmed by social media. I think another cabinet member has said that it's impossible to push back on. Do you find that to be the case?

I would say that it is an imperative to push back on it, to disseminate accurate information. And the effectiveness of our efforts varies considerably according to a number of factors. It is an uphill battle in the social media environment. The digital literacy of the audience, which is obviously not monolithic, but quite, quite varied. There are a number of different factors. It is a tough landscape on which to fight, but we have a responsibility to undertake that fight.

What if the owners of these social media sites are either allowing the information to proliferate or pushing it out themselves? I'm speaking of Elon Musk and X or over at Facebook, which now they've removed all the guardrails.

I have never thought the truth to be an enemy. I have found it to be a tool of progress. I will say within the Department of Homeland Security, what I say is do not shrink from criticism, just work very hard not to deserve it. A criticism that is valid drives accountability. Accountability should drive progress. But to be a vehicle of mis-and disinformation I find it to be irresponsible.

Does the government have any ability not to be in an uphill battle of this? Is it hopeless from your point of view?

I am a relentless optimist, so you will not hear the word hopeless from me too often. This now gets into a broader issue, Cara, but the government needs to more swiftly and effectively harness technology and modern tools in order to be effective in an increasingly technological and modernized world. I do not say it is hopeless. I just think, for example, we to be more nimble and more present on social media, and we need to really discover new ways to reach people who right now we find ourselves not Cesse.

Okay, but someone who's good at this, Governor Gavin Newsom, still, and he's very active, and of course, he's quite nimble at these things. He still, I think, believes he's fighting a losing battle here. He said he's worried the President-elect Trump will withhold disaster relief. Talk about what impact that would have, and a lot of Congress people are talking about it and saying, Well, hurricanes, you can't prevent, but forest fires, you can. They've all kinds of nonsensical ideas around bringing disaster relief in. Can you talk a little about what impact that would have?

Well, if disaster relief is withheld, there is a micro impact and there's a macro impact. The micro impact could be, for example, that individuals do not receive immediate needs funding, whether it's $770 to be able to buy clothes, a baby formula, or whatever the immediate needs are. Then we have the more widespread point of an inability to rebuild entire communities that has an extraordinary human impact as well as a national impact in terms of the economic prosperity of a community and it contributes to a broader economic prosperity of our country. If FEMA does not have the funds, we are not removing, and when I say we, the government, state, local, federal government, the ecosystem is not removing hazardous debris, non-hazardous debris, clearing the areas, and rebuilding entire communities, homes, businesses, schools, institutions of different faith denominations.

What's your reaction to these threats?

I actually don't believe that they will materialize. I think the outstanding question, according to the rhetoric, is, will strings be attached? Then the question is, what are those strings and how responsible are they from a policy perspective? Are they political strings? Are they other strings? I just don't know what to expect.

What if they're political? We don't want you to use they/them anymore. We want it to attach it to whatever.

Relief in response to human tragedy should not be politicized, full stop.

How do you feel about people who do that, personally?

Irresponsible government.

To do to do that.

Yes.

You've also had to deal with potential terrorist attacks on a New Year's Day. 14 people were killed in New Orleans by a US army veteran claiming for his support of ISIS. Dhs is dealing with combined threats from foreign terrorism, adverse nation-states, increasingly over the past 10 years from homegrown violent extremism. Are you concerned about an ISIS resurgent abroad and in the US?

We are. Let me break those two apart. The situation in Syria, for example, has the potential to fuel an ISIS resurgent in that country, and of course, that has a potential to metastasesize. So yes, indeed, we are concerned. Then there the issue, Kara, of individuals already resident in the United States radicalized to violence by the ISIS ideology, which we see evidence in the tragic attack of January first, 2025. And by the way, when we speak of a radicalization to violence domestically, it is not just a foreign terrorist ideologies, as we have observed, most unfortunately and tragically. We see ideologies of hate, anti-government sentiment, false narratives, personal grievance, different motivations that have driven people to radicalize the violence domestically.

In leaving the office right now, how do you assess the danger right now from all these various and sundry directions, essentially?

Extremely high. Extremely high because what we have is a convergence of different threat vectors. In other words, the simultan of them. We have both the persistent threat of foreign terrorism. We have a domestic violent extremism, and we also have the malevolent actions of nation states. Whether it's the cyberattacks emanating from the People's Republic of China, whether it's Iran's persistent effort to avenge the assassination of Solomoni, whether it's Russia's interest in retaliating for American support of Ukraine, an important ally. Those are three, what I would describe as primary, but not certainly exclusive, threat factors coexistent.

Let's not leave out the drones. You've had quite a busy last few months. There's been a large number of mysterious drone sightings, especially in New Jersey in recent months. In December, Trump posted on Truth Social that the drones should be shot down if the government doesn't know where they're from. You've been calling on Congress to expand DHS's authority to deal with drones for years. There's all kinds of issues of people being hurt on the ground, but why hasn't the Biden administration been able to get this done? Do you think Trump is right? Is shooting drones the way to go?

Well, a couple of things. First of all, with respect to the drone sightings in New Jersey. Actually, the existence of drones flying in the airspace is not an anomaly. Drones are being flown all over the country, all the time. And so I think that that was, if you will, a non-event. And I will say that it is a fair question to ask whether the government communicated robustly enough and swiftly enough to tamp down what became- A phenomena. A phenomena.

Right. Yeah.

Number one. Number two, we have advocated to Congress to expand authorities, to align with the expansive use of drones as well as the increasing sophistication of them. Congress has not acted. That is most unfortunate. Third, when one shoots down a drone, one better be sure that one is shooting down a drone in a responsible and safe manner, because, quite frankly, certain drones are heavy, are big, and if they fall to the ground, they can cause a lot of damage, including loss of human life.

So you would not advocate shooting down drones indiscriminately, correct?

I would not advocate shooting down drones indiscriminately.

Why hasn't Congress passed the ability for you to regulate drones in a more responsible way?

Well, we're not at risk of overstating Congress's inability to act in areas that require action. Be that as it may, some concerns have been expressed about an invasion of privacy in our seeking drone authority, and I think that is actually a misperception.

That you want to use the drones to spy on people, presumably. Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct.

I just think it's a mistaken concern.

We'll be back in a minute. Support for this show comes from NerdWallet. Listen Listeners, a new year is finally here, and if you're anything like me, you've got a lot on your plate. New habits to build, travel plans to make, recipes to perfect. Good thing, our sponsor, NerdWallet, is here to take one thing off your plate, finding the best financial products. Introducing NerdWallet's best of awards list, your shortcut to the best credit card, savings accounts, and more. The nerds at NerdWallet have done the work for you, researching and reviewing over 1100 financial products to bring you only the best of the best. Looking for a balanced transfer card with 0% APR, they've got a winner for that. How about a bank account with a top rate to hit your savings goals? They've got a winner for that, too. Now you can know you're getting the best financial products for your specific needs without having to do all that research by yourself. So let NerdWallet do the heavy lifting for your finances this year and head over to their 2025 best of awards at nerdwallet. Com/awards to find the best financial products today. The Republicans have been saying lots of things.

Americans. Just yesterday, their leader said he wants to own Gaza. The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We'll own it. On Monday, the Secretary of State said an entire federal agency was insubordinate.

Usaid, in particular, they refuse to tell us anything. We won't tell you what the money is going to, where the money is for, who has it.

Over the weekend, Vice President Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth, tweeted about the same agency that gives money to the poorest people on Earth?

We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could gone to some great parties. Did that instead.

But what have the Democrats been saying?

People are aroused. I haven't seen people so aroused in a very, very long time. That's a weird way to put it, Senator.

We're going to ask what exactly is the Democrats' strategy to push back on Republicans on Today Explained? Hey, this is Peter Kafka. I'm the of channels, a podcast about technology and media.

Maybe you've noticed that a lot of people are investing a lot of money trying to encourage you to bet on sports right now, right from your phone. That is a huge change, and it's It happens so fast that most of us haven't spent much time thinking about what it means and if it's a good thing. But Michael Lewis, that's the guy who wrote Moneyball and the Big Short and Liars Poker, has been thinking a lot about it, and he tells me that he's pretty worried. I mean, there was never a delivery mechanism for cigarettes as efficient as the phone is for delivering the gambling apps.

It's like the world has created less and less friction for the behavior when what it needs is more and more.

You can hear my chat with Michael Lewis right now on channels.

Wherever you get your podcasts. Let's talk about the elephant in the room, immigration. Throughout your tenure, you were attacked on the right and the left on immigration. You've become this cartoon character in many ways. Liberals complain that you were upholding Trump's immigration policies. Conservatives accused you of not complying with federal immigration laws. Last year, after one failed attempt, the Republican-led house voted to impeach you. It's the first time that's happened to a cabinet secretary in nearly 150 years. Congratulations for that. Immigration has been called the third rail of US politics. You knew how controversial it was going to be going in, but you seem surprised at this pushback. Why?

First of all, immigration has always been an electric a divisive issue politically. So I did know going in that it would be so, that this would not be an anomalous time. I was prepared for a divisive issue. I will say this, that the extent of the divisiveness and how that divisiveness manifested itself did surprise me. But nevertheless, I stayed the course. And I will say that my ability to endure it is predicated on a very simple fact. When one has 100% confidence in the integrity of one's decision making, then one can take the heat.

Take the heat. Was either side bother you more than the other?

That's an interesting question, Cara. I would say that there were times when both sides, if you will, crossed a line of decency.

Any particular thing you would point to?

Well, I think that there were certain things said and propagated on social media that were extremely pernicious and, of course, absolutely false. That has been on one side of the equation. On the other side of the equation, an invasion of my personal life is unacceptable.

Okay. Let's talk about the decision making, though. You've been touting positive immigration numbers in your other exit interviews. That number of migrants at the border have been declining for the past six months, and ICE deportations reportedly jumped to a 10-year high last year, over 278 But President Biden waited until last June to address the broken immigration system through executive's actions after Trump tanked the bipartisan border bill, which Kamala Harris talked about quite a bit. Was it too little too late? Were Were you frustrated it took too long and were you pushing for Biden to act sooner?

First on the number of removals, the term used to be deportations, but the number of removals and returns, 270,000 is from ICE custody. But if one takes a look at- I said ICE, yeah. We had over 700,000 removals and returns of the most in, I think, 14 years. A couple of things. The President took executive action in June of last year, in June of 2024, and we swiftly and effectively executed it. Let's think about where we were in 2021. We were in the midst still of the pandemic, and the public health authority that sprung from that outbreak of the pandemic, a public health authority that President-elect and former President Trump actually instituted was under Title 42. The United States Code, an authority held by Health and Human Services. Everyone was advocating that we continue to enforce that public health authority, and we did so. And we actually lifted that authority in May of 2023. Then we turned immediately to seeking supplemental funding for what everyone agrees as a broken immigration system. We sought supplemental funding for that broken system from Congress. Didn't get it. We tried again, didn't get it. Entered into the bipartisan Senate negotiations, which yielded a transformative piece of legislation that was then politically torpedoed, and the President moved swiftly with the executive action.

That's one leg of the stool, if you will. Secondly, our ability to effectively and swiftly implement the President's the executive order that he took in June of last year was built over time. We did not have, the system did not have the capacity to effectively implement it in 2022. We're speaking of the ability to remove or return individuals to countries all over the world swiftly, the ability to have the transportation assets, the soft-sided facilities that we build, modernizing our systems, building safe and lawful pathways, and why that last part is so important, because as we restrict asylum at the border, we still have to adhere to our country's proud traditions and values of providing humanitarian relief to those in need who qualify under our laws. And so we built those pathways, whether they be labor pathways negotiated with Canada and Spain, whether be parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, whether it be safe mobility offices in a number of countries in Latin America, whether it be rebuilding our refugee system so we can admit a hundred 1,000 refugees into the United States, a system by which I and my family benefited. So it is a mosaic of factors that really have to be considered when one looks at timeline.

So you didn't want him to act sooner? Did you feel like the Biden administration did not see this coming? I mean, Trump tanking the bipartisan border bill should not have been a surprise, I mean, especially in an election year.

I'll leave it to the the political scientists to speak of whether it was too little, too late. The reason I say that is because there are different theories about the importance at the end of the day of the immigration issue in the presidential and other downstream, down-ballet elections. Many pundits believe that the economy was the single most important reason, full stop. But politically, too little, too late, I think it'd be fair to say from a political perspective.

Speaking of that, how interesting you say that because there were three House Republicans that broke ranks to vote no in the final impeachment vote. One of them was former Colorado congressman Ken Buck. He sent us a question for you. Have a listen.

Secretary Mayorkas, during your tenure as the Secretary of Homeland Security, and as a result of your policies regarding border security, the number of migrants crossing our Southern border increased dramatically, and the placement of those migrants into the interior of this country put an enormous burden on cities and states.

The number of migrant children brought into the country by human traffickers increased dramatically. The amount of fentanyl brought across the Southern border increased dramatically, resulting in a severe increase in 18 to 40-year-old deaths. The lack of border security and the related immigration issues were the primary reason that President-elect Trump used to win the November election. Will you accept responsibility for Trump's popular vote victory in November?

Okay. So, Cara, let me- It is Ken Buck, but I think it's a fair question.

I mean, you were saying economy. He's saying, no, it's these migrants in the middle of cities.

I am not going to posit what led to a Republican victory and a Democratic defeat. That is for political scientists. As I mentioned, some have opined that the economy was the most important reason. But let me break down former congressman Bucks statements. First of all, let me put immigration and what we have experienced in its proper context. The world is experiencing the highest level of human displacement since World War II. What our border experienced is not exclusive to our Southern border. It is a phenomenon that countries around the world have experienced and are experiencing, number one. Number two, the trend in displacement did not begin in 2021. In 2018, there were approximately 500,000 individuals encountered at our Southern border. And in 2019, that number almost doubled. The path of increasing displacement because of events in countries of origin was underway. Then, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, which changed human behavior in a myriad of ways, including the behavior of individuals willing to flee their home countries. Number one. Number two, the fentanyl crisis was a crisis that was building for years before our administration. We We have seen more than 70,000 overdose deaths in a single year.

I believe in 2019 or 2020, there were over 50,000 overdose deaths us, and let's not conflate migration with the scourge of fentanyl. Fentanyl is smuggled into our country, predominantly through our ports of entry in vehicles, commercial or passenger. And so let's not conflate the two. That is an inaccurate- Migrants coming over with drugs.

Yes.

And so I take issue with former congressman Bucks' statements in at least those regards.

He is not the only one who, though, wants to hold you personally responsible. I've never quite seen anything like this. On January 14th, the Oklahoma State School Superintendent filed a lawsuit against you and Peter Flores, the Deputy Director Vice for $474 million, which is that he claims failed border policies have cost the state. Any comment on this? Yes. This is somewhat unprecedented. This is somewhat- Look, the rhetoric of politics has been descending for years now.

Regrettably, we continue to see that trend. The reality is that because of my position, I've been out in front as a representative of the administration. Those two forces combine and we see the results. But, Kara, congressman Buck also spoke of what the cities and communities in the interior of the United States experience. Where a focus should be, is and should have been at an increased level, is the fact that a governor of one state- Florida? No, actually Texas.

Texas. Okay, Texas.

It's true of others. You are correct to cite Florida. You're absolutely right. I had one particularly in mind because of unmatched scale and scope of this. Deliberately, refused to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with interior cities and communities, and instead unilaterally used migrants, vulnerable individuals as political ponds, and bus them to those interior cities for the express purpose of wreaking habit. That is not a model of governance.

Did it work?

It seems to have worked to a degree in terms of the political impact that the governor sought. However, when you ask me if it worked from a societal perspective, from the perspective of national interest, from the perspective of responsible and rational governance, a calamity.

Calamity. I don't think that was... I think that was not his concern. Let's look forward. This This episode is airing on the day of President Trump's inauguration. Trump has made a lot of promises for day one, including closing the border, reinstating travel bans, suspending refugee admissions to the country, ending birthright citizenship, beginning mass deportations. Which of these policies is most concerning to you? Are there any you think are good that would have been useful for you?

Well, look, the last pre-pandemic year of President Trump's administration, the numbers at the border are averaging lower on a daily basis than they were in 2019, and at times in 2020, even during a pandemic year. So the border is more secure now than it was then. You referenced a series of policies. I am deeply concerned about all of them in certain regards. I'm unclear as to what actually will materialize.

I was going to ask that next.

Because, for example, I have also heard statements that, for example, they are going to focus their deportation efforts on individuals who pose a public safety or national security concern. Well, that is precisely what we have done. So that would be status quo, and something tells me that the status quo will not prevail.

Right. So Republicans also now control Congress. Last week, the House passed the Lake and Reilly Act. The bill would give states more authority over undocumented immigrants. It would mandate federal detention without bail for immigrants arrested of even petty crimes like theft over $100. This is not what you were talking about, including immigrants who have visas and other authorizations, and it states the ability to bring immigration lawsuits against DHS. What are your thoughts on this bill?

Certain elements I support. As I mentioned, people who present a public safety threat should be removed. Individuals who have committed crimes in certain circumstances should absolutely be detained pending their immigration enforcement proceedings. I have concerns about some of the authorities granted to states in terms of litigation efforts. There's going to have to be additional resourcing of the government to bring this act to life. Otherwise, it could actually create a law enforcement weakness. For example, if individuals who have committed minor offenses have to be detained, unless that is a funded mandate, we are only funded for 35 to 40,000 detention beds. So are we going to displace people who have committed worse crimes?

So this is individuals who are accused but not convicted of petty crimes. Yeah, meaning you're putting non-dangerous people in.

Non-violent people, and perhaps that could displace an individual who has, in fact, committed or is accused of committing a violent crime. It's a zero-sum game with 35 to 40,000 detention beds. And so a mandate to do X must be a funded mandate. And so I expect that Congress will fund the federal government to actually fulfill the mandate, which has not been the case for decades now.

On a personal note, you were the first immigrant to head DHL US. Your mother fled the Nazis to get to Cuba, and your parents then fled the Castro regime to come to US when you were just a baby. My grandfather came here as a baby. Also, from your perspective, what does it meant for you to oversee immigration? Do you empathize with what migrants are going through right now as they wait for these policies to be enacted. Has that been, I hate to say this, has it been a weakness for you because you've been attacked for it, which has been unusual in my estimation.

Kira, it has not been a weakness at at all. I was instilled, my parents instilled in me a deep sense of understanding of what it means to be a refugee, of what it means to be displaced from one's home, what it means to lose everything. I understand that. I will tell you that there are farm workers in my home state of California, parents, that are breaking their backs to earn a living, however modest, to be able to present opportunities for the US citizen-born children, opportunities that the parents never had. Those parents very well may have been doing that back-breaking work for decades. It is they who help put food on our tables. Will those parents now fear returning to the fields and picking crops under arduous conditions and making their modest living to deliver a better life for their children, I have an understanding of that very important human question and the consequences of fear and the materialization of the reason for that fear.

We'll be back in a minute. I want to switch gears a bit. Cisa, this is Cyber Security Infrastructure Security Agency, is one of the agencies is your responsible for as Secretary of Homeland Security. Project 2025 calls for dismantling it. Obviously, the person coming after you is Christie Noem. What impact would that have on our ability to confront cyber threats? Just for people to understand, CISA was widely criticized by Republicans for allegedly colluding with social media companies about disinformation on their platform. This is untrue. They claim that Americans, especially Conservatives, were being censored. This is also untrue. As we talked about, X and Met have basically ended their voluntary third-party fact-checking system and content moderation programs. What is the danger for CISA being dismantled, essentially? To me, it's a critical agency run by professionals.

You are 100% correct. It is a vitally important agency run by professionals. To dismantle that agency now at a time when cyber attacks have only increased in frequency and gravity at a time when the telecommunications industry is trying to climb out of the impacts of salt typhoon.

These are attacks by the Chinese government.

Attacks by the Chinese government that has exposed the personal information of American citizens to when ransomware is on the rise persistently, cyber hacks that are undertaken for profit when our critical infrastructure is under attack, not just from a cyber threat, but a myriad of other threats by adverse nation states. What an irresponsible measure that would be. All predicated, by the way, as you noted, false narratives.

Right. From a national security press is very dangerous because they were helping a lot of state and federal officials also. Speaking of China, as you said, we're recording this on January 16th, as I said, just ahead of the TikTok ban going into its law, and it's going to be in effect, Supposedly, Trump is considering executive order to extend the deadline. To me, that's just a press release on better letterhead. The TikTok CEO plans to attend his inauguration. I think he has very little moves here. It's Allah, and the companies will either abide by the law. Even if he doesn't enforce it, they could be held liable later. Things may take a different turn by the time this airs. The Biden administration is even looking for a way to delay it, at least. You've maintained, I wrote a column five years ago talking about this, that TikTok is national security threat, but a lot of users don't seem to care. They're flocking to another Chinese social media app, Red Note. Is banning TikTok just a game of guacamole? How do you look at the TikTok ban right now? It should have been broader in my estimation, but I think the TikTok ban is a national imperative, a national security imperative.

What will actually materialize? I have heard President-elect Trump's statements that he actually wants to go in a different direction. I don't know what that means for the collision course.

He was against it before he was for it. Go ahead. Yes. To use a John Kerry phrase.

I don't know what will be the outcome of this collision course of intent versus statutory authority. I think to some extent, the pivot to a different Chinese app does seem to reflect a whack a mole phenomenon. Then the question is, do we continue to whack the moles, or do we take a step back and say, Okay, what could we do more holistically to address this challenge? I don't know what the answer is.

You don't have any What would you do if you could wave your wand?

I will need to get back to you on that. I don't want to answer precipitously, but I will tell you for right now, a whackamole it is.

Last few questions. The Department Homeland Security encompasses two dozen agencies with around 260,000 employees. As we already highlighted with all these very different things we're talking about, immigration, drones, everything, emergency services, FEMA, Secret Service, cybersecurity. When you make a call to break up or at least significantly reform the department that are coming from both the right and the left? How would you do it if you had to?

Kara, I disagree with the interest in breaking apart the Department of Homeland Security. It was brought together very quickly in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy. However, what I have spoken of over the past four years has an increased convergence of homeland security and national security, especially in a far more globalized world. I actually think that the Department is more fit for purpose now than ever before. There is increased need for the different agencies to be under one roof because so many different equities are brought to bear when we have to address certain challenges. There's a greater level of symbiosis between and among the different agencies.

Some see it as a turducken. It's too complicated. Of course, before 9/11, they were two separate, right?

That's right. But there's an intertwinement. There's a symbiosis, and there's a cohesion between and among different agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, depending on the events and depending on the evidence.

Like FEMA and Secret Service, I don't necessarily see.

Well, let me give you an example. The hurricanes and tornadoes that have struck different parts of our country. Fema is on point in supporting the state and local authorities as they address extreme weather events. The United States Coast Guard lends tremendous search and rescue capabilities. Tsa is able to pivot as it needs to recalibrate some of the processes it follows in the travel environment. Those are three agencies. Quickly, I just rattle off the bat. When the Secret Service is on point for the security of an incredibly complex international event, the UN General Assembly in New York City. We draw upon different resources from the Department of Homeland Security to secure that effort. Sure. I can continue to describe the cohesiveness of our department. I think these agencies belong under one roof, and I do not support breaking it apart.

Can I ask you one follow up? And then I have a final question. You were under attack after the assassination attempt on then-candidate Trump. An independent panel found there were deep flaws in Agency, the head of Secret Service, Kimberly Cheedle resigned. Do you think, as some said, that FEMA and the Secret Service should report directly to the White House?

First of all, I think those are missions that are not political, and I think the apolitical nature and chain of command should remain, number one. Number two, I do not think it to be efficient for the White House to oversee operational agencies, which those are The Secret Service, by the way, not only has its protective mission, but also has an important investigative, criminal investigative function. I do not think that the further Balkanization of government serves efficiency or justice.

Okay, last question. We talked about a variety of threats facing the US. Let's be clear, they aren't your problem anymore. At the time of this taping, Trump's picked lead DHS is South Dakota governor, Christie Noem. We'll see if she gets approved. Of everything we talked about what are the biggest challenges you're handing off to her? What do you think she should focus on first? Based on your conversations with her, I'd assume you've had them, what do you think she will focus on? And then what are you doing? You spent 30 years in government service on and off under both Obama and Biden. But first the first part and then the last part.

Cara, I would return to where we started. The greatest responsibility of this department is the safety and security of the American people. I think the threat landscape is dynamic and is a heightened one, as we discussed. I think that is a primary area of focus for the incoming administration, not just the new secretary, but the entire federal government, because it's a multi-agency effort. I have been very impressed and encouraged by my conversations with Governor Noem in terms of her substantive engagement on the issues. We have discussed the January first terrorist attack. We have discussed the wildfires in California, and we have spoken a number of times. I am rooting for success. That is not to say that I embrace all of the policies as they have been expressed publicly, but I root for the success of the mission of this department.

And what are you going to do?

I am going to explore my opportunities.

Back to California?

I don't right now have that plan. That is not my plan right now. I will be geographically mobile. We'll see what the future brings, but I'm very proud of what we've done over the past four years.

Okay. Secretary Marikas, thank you so much, and thank you for your service.

Thank you, Cara. Thanks so much.

On with Kara Swischer is produced by Christian Caster-Russell, Ketari Yocam, Jolie Myers, Megan Bernie, and Kaylyn Lynch. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Special thanks to Kate Oligar. Our engineers are Rick Kwan and Fernando Aruda, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you are geographically mobile like the secretary. If not, you're playing Whac-a-Mole on Red Note. Go wherever you listen to your podcast, search for On with Kare Swisher, and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kare Swisher from New York magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.