ELO Realignment and Strategic Engagement Reform Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill requires DHS to streamline its ELO Office by reorganizing it under I&A to enhance efficiency and coordination with law enforcement partners, while preventing its expansion during the transition.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a comprehensive plan within 120 days to reorganize and realign the Department's Engagement, Liaison, and Outreach (ELO) Office. The plan must identify redundancies, move essential functions and personnel to the Partner Engagement directorate of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), and improve coordination with priority law enforcement agencies. It also places a moratorium on the ELO Office's expansion until the plan is submitted and certified.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is essential for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security's outreach and intelligence sharing functions. They contend that by eliminating redundancies and centralizing key operations, the bill will lead to better coordination with law enforcement agencies, stronger national security, and more responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that mandating a reorganization could disrupt existing, effective relationships and intelligence flows, potentially creating temporary operational gaps. They might also argue that the moratorium on expansion could hinder the ELO Office's ability to adapt to unforeseen challenges or critical needs during the transition period.
The bill is very short and can be read and understood quickly, allowing ample time for evaluation.
Section 2(a)
Mandate for DHS Reorganization Plan
This provision requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a comprehensive plan to Congress within 120 days. The plan must identify and address redundant positions and programs within the Engagement, Liaison, and Outreach (ELO) Office, and realign its essential functions and personnel into the Partner Engagement directorate of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). It also aims to improve strategic relationships with priority law enforcement agencies by establishing clear communication protocols, centralizing contacts, enhancing information sharing, reducing outreach duplication, and improving accountability.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for modernizing DHS's engagement strategy, ensuring resources are used efficiently, and strengthening vital partnerships with law enforcement by eliminating bureaucratic hurdles and improving information flow.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that such a top-down reorganization could disrupt established, effective working relationships and create new bureaucratic challenges, potentially hindering the ELO Office's current mission and responsiveness.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for greater efficiency and reduced redundancy within DHS against the potential for temporary disruption to existing operations and relationships during a significant organizational change.
Section 2(b)
Detailed Plan Requirements
This section specifies the detailed components that must be included in the reorganization plan. These include an organizational analysis with cost-benefit estimates, detailed staffing proposals and reassignment plans, a transition timeline, internal oversight mechanisms, recommendations for future engagement models, and an assurance that intelligence support and convenings for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) entity partners will continue without interruption, including HSIN-INTEL access.
This provision prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from expanding the staffing, budget, or programmatic scope of the ELO Office, or establishing new offices that duplicate its mission or that of the Partner Engagement directorate of I&A, until the reorganization plan is submitted and its implementation certified.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to include limitations or conditions that enforce compliance with the primary directives of the bill. It serves as a mechanism to prevent executive actions that could undermine the bill's intent before the mandated plan is in place.
Case for: Supporters argue this moratorium is essential to prevent further growth of an office targeted for realignment and to ensure that resources are not misallocated or new redundancies created while the reorganization is pending.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a restriction could limit DHS's ability to respond dynamically to evolving threats or critical operational needs during the transition period, potentially hindering national security efforts.
Estimated impact: Prevents potential increases in expenditure on ELO Office expansion and avoids the creation of new bureaucratic redundancies within DHS during the planning phase.