WASHINGTON — The chairman of a House Appropriations panel told Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday that he would welcome more justification for the Trump administration’s proposed spending decisions, such as cuts to cybersecurity and transportation security.

Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev. concluded the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee hearing by asking what the plan was for delivering that sort of information, such as for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

“When someone goes, ‘Hey, you guys presided over cutting a half a billion dollars in CISA to do other stuff,’ what was that based on?” Amodei said. “Clearly, we don’t want to be in the position, and won’t be in the position of, ‘Well I don’t know, that’s what they said they needed.’”

Amodei mentioned a further potential cut for the agency in President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2026 so-called skinny budget released May 2, and said the committee would like an answer about how those decisions were made, even if it was by someone at the Office of Management and Budget.

“Well then tell us who at OMB so we can go to them and say, ‘We’d like to know why you did that,’ which I think is a legitimate thing,” Amodei said.

That information is needed, Amodei said, “because when it comes to markup for this committee to transmit it to the bigger committee, we need solid ground for that sort of stuff.”

The comments came at the end of a 2.5-hour hearing where Noem defended the spending by the Trump administration in federal immigration enforcement as well as cuts to initiatives within her department.

Noem took the opportunity to check off the achievements on immigration claimed by the Trump administration, including the drastic reduction in illegal crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border, designation of drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and reinvigoration of the Secret Service.

Noem also asked lawmakers to keep in mind the many missions of DHS when making funding decisions, saying it “is one of the largest agencies in the federal government, but has one of the smallest budgets.”

The skinny version of the White House’s budget blueprint would provide $107.4 billion for DHS in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, an increase of $42.3 billion, or 64.9%, from the $65.1 billion fiscal 2025 enacted level.

That number assumes enactment of a budget reconciliation package Republicans have begun drafting with $175 billion for border security, including $43.8 billion allocated for fiscal 2026, according to the document.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla,, chair of the full House Appropriations Committee, at the hearing lauded the Trump administration for the immigration efforts of its first 100 days.

“From day one, the Trump administration has made clear that protecting America is not negotiable, and this White House has taken immediate action to strengthen the security of our nation’s borders and enforce existing immigration laws,” Cole said.

Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., the acting ranking member of the subcommittee, said the initial budget unveiled by the White House was “instilled more with politics than fact,” taking Noem to task for the policies of the Trump administration.

“America is more vulnerable than it’s ever been,” Underwood said. “Our homeland is not secure.”

Among the initiatives Underwood criticized were rollbacks in cybersecurity, which she said allows Russia, China and Iran to steal “our top-secret and American personal data,” as well as detention and deportations operations she said were illegal.

Underwood said proposals in the budget request may have bipartisan support, but the Trump administration was ramping up its efforts to contain immigration at an expense beyond current appropriations by Congress in hopes future funding will cover it.

“DHS is cashing checks it simply doesn’t have and hopes that reconciliation passes and will cover their shortfall,” Underwood said. “That is an incredibly risky strategy.”

Rep. Ed Case, D-Hawaii, criticized the fiscal 2026 budget request for what he said was “overfunding some efforts, mainly for messaging purposes, at the expense of some other efforts that are really critical, such as cybersecurity, disaster prevention and mitigation, transportation security.”

“And you’re using budget gimmicks to misdirect and conceal your intent,” Case said. “In your budget gimmicks you claim a 65 percent increase in DHS’ overall budget targeted at the border, drugs and the Coast Guard. But all of that increase or more is loaded into your separate reconciliation bill. You have essentially, for the purposes of this committee, level-funded DHS and loaded all of the extra money into reconciliation.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said at the hearing she was “concerned” about Trump’s suggestions he would eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency as well as the proposed $646 million cuts to the agency’s grants in the fiscal 2026 budget proposal.

One example DeLauro cited was the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. Research shows initiatives like BRIC save a minimum of $6 for every dollar invested, DeLauro said, and more than double when including mitigation of economic impact.

“So federal disaster relief should be readily available across the United States, regardless of where you live,” DeLauro said. “Natural disasters have happened everywhere. They should not be concerned about the federal government turning their back on them when they need their help the most.”

When DeLauro pressed her on evidence of failure at FEMA, Noem responded payments are still open from Hurricane Katrina and others are still unpaid that are “seven to eight to 10 years old.”

“So one of the worst things that the federal government can do is say, ‘We will be here. We will walk alongside you in the most horrible time of your life and then never follow through on it,” Noem said.

DeLauro denigrated the plan as a part of the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the federal government and said states will never have the resources to address disaster relief because “the federal government isn’t going to pass that money” to the states to address it.

Rep. John Rutherford, R-Fla., dismissed the idea FEMA was a panacea for natural disasters, saying he worked with them and had trouble getting the agency to pay for bills. Rutherford said some localities have to pay interest for years.

“It’s not if FEMA shows up, and everything’s okay,” Rutherford said. “It’s quite the contrary.”

_____

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.