Homeland Security’s Legal Loophole

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Cross-posted from The Tortellini:

The Washington Post reported last week that the Department of Homeland Security has shown complete ineptness in contracting for a host of anti-terrorism services and devices. These include everything from airport screening machines to radiation detectors. The Post notes that DHS has wasted billions of dollars on security stuff, much of which doesn’t work.

I find these stories especially disturbing because in creating the department, Congress allowed DHS to grant legal immunity to the manufacturers of anti-terrorism products. That means victims of a terrorist attack would not be able to sue a manufacturer if, say, its gas mask failed to filter out anthrax spores as promised.

The purported logic for the immunity was that fear of liability would keep companies from bringing new technology on to the market. DHS decides which products get “certified” for the immunity, and it can certify just about anything a manufacturer claims could deter terrorism. The legal protections are broad, too, extending all the way from manufacturers to users.

Given DHS’s abysmal record in procuring security equipment that works, I’m not heartened by their ability to “certify” anti-terrorism technology for legal immunity. Security technology seems like a ripe area for fraud given how much federal money is available for it and how infrequently the stuff ever gets tested. But it’s impossible to know exactly which products are getting immunized from lawsuits because the list is classified.

One lobbyist told me the manufacturers were all the usual suspects–Lockheed Martin and big defense contractors who are hardly the upstart innovators who need to be protected from lawsuits. Unfortunately, it looks as though the only way we’ll find out what kind of job DHS is doing is to wait until there is a terrorist attack and watch which products fail.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend