Problem: How to respond to this discussion post: From a safety and security standpoint, it's clear that the U.S. has become more proactive in identifying threats. The DHS has contributed to a more structured and centralized counterterrorism strategy. Agencies like FEMA, TSA, and Customs and Border Protection now coordinate under one umbrella, which ideally should foster better information sharing. In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report criticized pre-9/11 agency stovepipes and fragmentation, which DHS was meant to fix (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 2004). However, the documentary also illustrates how the emphasis on secrecy, especially regarding NSA surveillance, eroded public trust and led to the unchecked expansion of executive power. Programs like PRISM and mass metadata collection arguably trampled on constitutional rights without clear evidence that such tactics were effective in preventing terrorism (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2015). These revelations suggest that while DHS may have improved structural coordination, the broader intelligence community still struggles with transparency and oversight. In short, DHS has had mixed results. While it may have enhanced inter-agency communication on paper, the broader intelligence apparatus, as shown in the documentary, continued to operate in silos, sometimes bypassing both DHS and constitutional boundaries. This isn't necessarily a waste of taxpayer money, but it does indicate that oversight. Need Assignment Help?