Border Security:

Analysis of Vulnerabilities Identified by 

Frontline Agents

UNITED STATES SENATE

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

MINORITY STAFF REPORT 

March 22, 2018
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On January 25, 2017, in one of his first acts as President, Donald Trump ordered “the 

immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border[.]”

1 As the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) has taken steps to comply with this presidential directive, it has 

repeatedly offered the needs of frontline Border Patrol agents as its justification for building the 

border wall. Then-DHS Secretary John Kelly agreed during April 2017 testimony that the 

border wall proposal would be derived by asking every Border Patrol sector chief, “How many 

miles do you need and where?”2 During her confirmation process, Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen 

stated that additional infrastructure needs “should be identified by our operators[.]”

3 On

February 27, 2018, DHS issued a statement that it “looks forward to building the wall where our 

frontline operators say it is needed.”4 

An investigation by the Democratic staff of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs has uncovered that Border Patrol agents have rarely recommended 

building a wall to address the most commonly identified vulnerabilities – or “capability gaps” –

along the southwest border. More often, agents recommended additional technology and 

personnel as solutions for securing the border.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) collects data annually from frontline Border 

Patrol agents and chiefs for each of the nine Border Patrol sectors along the southwest border. 

These data (1) identify vulnerabilities – or “capability gaps” – that inhibit agents from securing

the border and (2) catalog preliminary requests for solutions that would address each capability 

gap using infrastructure, technology, personnel, or other resources. The tool CBP uses to capture 

its vulnerability assessments and initial resource requests is known as the Capability Gap 

Analysis Process (CGAP).

5

The following report summarizes the results of the Democratic Committee staff’s review

of nonpublic data contained in CGAP in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. Based on information provided 

by DHS, Democratic Committee staff assumed that all requests for border wall would be 

 

1

Exec. Order No. 13767, 82 Fed. Reg. 8793 (Jan. 25, 2017).

2

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on 

Improving Border Security and Public Safety, 115th Cong. (Apr. 5, 2017).

3

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Pre-hearing 

Questionnaire, Hearing on the Nomination of Kirstjen Nielsen to be Secretary, Department of 

Homeland Security, 115th Cong. (Nov. 8, 2017).

4 Department of Homeland Security, DHS Acting Press Secretary Statement on Border 

Wall Ruling (Feb. 27, 2018).

5 Democratic staff also learned of another relevant CBP data source during the course of 

this investigation. Subsequent to the President’s January 25 executive order, CBP developed a 

Wall Decision Support Tool (WDST), which has been used to identify the relative priority of

various segments along the border for the President’s proposed border wall. Among other 

inputs, the WDST is based on feedback from sector chiefs along the border. Democratic staff 

have repeatedly requested the production of specific WDST data but have yet to receive it.
2

associated with “Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution” capability gaps – a category of 

capability gaps that would typically be addressed “through the use of man-made infrastructure,” 

including physical barriers, patrol roads, or lighting.

6

 Staff reviewed all 230 Deterrence, 

Impedance, and Resolution capability gaps CBP provided. Democratic Committee staff also 

reviewed all of the Border Patrol’s highest priority vulnerabilities, regardless of the category of 

capability gap they related to. Key findings include:

 Border Patrol agents and sector chiefs rarely requested a “wall.” Less than onehalf of 1% of the solutions Border Patrol agents and sector chiefs proposed for 

closing capability gaps along the southwest border in FY 2017 referenced a “wall.” 

The Border Patrol identified a total of 902 southwest border capability gaps through 

its FY 2017 CGAP process. The word “wall” was suggested as a possible solution 

for just three of those gaps. 

 Border Patrol agents and sector chiefs infrequently requested fencing. Border 

Patrol agents referenced “fence” or “fencing” as a possible solution to just 34, or less 

than 4%, of the 902 capability gaps identified.

 Only one “Urgent and Compelling” request mentioned either a wall or fencing. 

Fourteen southwest border capability gaps received an Urgent and Compelling 

ranking at both the station and sector level; only one included a reference to a wall or 

fencing as one of a variety of possible solutions. More often, these Urgent and 

Compelling capability gaps were associated with technological or personnel needs, 

such as insufficient manpower, poor training, or inadequate surveillance equipment. 

 The Border Patrol classified just one in four vulnerabilities as ones that could be 

addressed using man-made infrastructure of any type. Of the 902 capability gaps 

agents and sector chiefs identified along the southwest border in FY 2017, just 230 

received a “Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution” designation. Another 672 gaps 

were classified under other “master capabilities,” such as “Domain Awareness” or 

“Mission Readiness” – two categories of vulnerabilities that typically indicate a need 

for technological and personnel approaches to securing the border.

These findings are in line with public statements made by senior CBP and DHS officials 

regarding the importance of technology and personnel in securing the southwest border. David 

Aguilar, former Acting Commissioner of CBP, told the Committee at an April 4, 2017 hearing, 

“The ranking now is technology definitively first just about anywhere along the border. 

Infrastructure and personnel will be going back and forth depending on the area.”7Former DHS 

Secretary Kelly, who now serves as White House Chief of Staff, testified on January 10, 2017 

that a “physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job.” He added, “If you are to build a wall 

from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, you’d still have to back that wall up with patrolling by 

 

6 Department of Homeland Security, Border Security Improvement Plan: Fiscal Year 

2017 Report to Congress (Jan. 4, 2018).

7

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on 

Fencing Along the Southwest Border, 115th Cong. (April 4, 2017).
3

human beings, by sensors, by observation devices.”

8

Secretary Nielsen agreed with Kelly’s 

assessment during her November 8, 2017 confirmation hearing. “I look forward, should I be 

confirmed, to working with the folks at CBP, understanding their operational needs on the 

border,” she told the Committee. “It is a combination of both personnel and technology. We also 

have to remember that technology can always serve also as a force multiplier if implemented and 

executed correctly.”9 

Despite these statements and despite the capability gaps Border Patrol agents themselves 

identified through the annual CGAP process, the Trump Administration has requested funding 

for a wall along the southwest border in amounts that far exceed requests for border security 

technology and personnel. Furthermore, Democratic staff for the Committee have been 

presented with evidence that the President’s funding requests for border wall construction do not 

align with the Department’s own budget priorities. In a prior report, Democratic Committee staff 

revealed that an internal budget document from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

instructed DHS to dramatically increase its request to Congress for border wall funding in FY 

2019 while decreasing its request for specific technology and equipment.

10

 The OMB document

made no reference to operational requirements. Rather, it stated that the office’s 

recommendations were a result of “Presidential priorities.”11

I. CAPABILITY GAP ANALYSIS PROCESS 

The Capability Gap Analysis Process (CGAP) is one component of the Border Patrol’s 

Requirements Management Process, which was launched in 2014 as a method for identifying 

vulnerabilities along our nation’s borders and for planning and executing future deployment of 

infrastructure, technology, personnel, and other requirements to address those vulnerabilities.

12

 

According to a document published by DHS in January 2018:

CGAP is intended to provide [the Border Patrol’s] field personnel with an easy to follow, 

scenario-driven process that aids in standardizing requirements management and ensures 

requirements are derived from a “bottom up approach.” USBP accomplishes this by 

 

8

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on the 

Nomination of General John F. Kelly, USMC (Ret.), to be Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, 115th Cong. (Jan. 10, 2017).

9

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on the 

Nomination of Kirstjen M. Nielsen to be Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Nov. 

8, 2017).

10 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Overruled: White 

House Overrules Department of Homeland Security Budget Request on Border Security 

Priorities (Dec. 2017).

11 Office of Management and Budget, Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 

2019 Budget and Policy Guidance (Nov. 28, 2017).

12 Customs and Border Protection, Briefing with Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs Staff (Oct. 26, 2017).
4

surveying the field to determine the shortfall between a Sector’s baseline capabilities and 

the required set of capabilities needed to perform mission essential tasks.13

Frontline agents are encouraged to participate in the CGAP process each year by 

identifying limitations they routinely face and then proposing possible solutions to address those 

limitations. The capability gaps that agents identify are consolidated at the station level and are 

further refined by Border Patrol sector chiefs before being transmitted to Border Patrol Strategic 

Planning and Analysis staff at CBP headquarters in Washington, D.C. According to the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), CGAP documentation is required before any 

requirements can be approved, funded, and, ultimately deployed through subsequent steps in the 

Requirements Management Process.14

BORDER PATROL SECTORS AND STATIONS ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

The Border Patrol divides the southwest border geographically into nine “sectors”: San Diego, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson, El Paso, Big 

Bend, Del Rio, Laredo, and the Rio Grande Valley. Each sector has its own headquarters and sector chief. Sectors are further divided into a 

number of different “stations” and “zones.” The head of each station is known as the Patrol Agent in Charge. (Source: Government 

Accountability Office)

 

13 Department of Homeland Security, Border Security Improvement Plan: Fiscal Year 

2017 Report to Congress (Jan. 4, 2018).

14 Government Accountability Office, Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions 

Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for 

Identifying Capability Gaps (GAO-17-331) (February 2017).
5

II. CGAP DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Through the FY 2017 CGAP process, frontline agents and Border Patrol sector chiefs 

identified 902 capability gaps along the southwest border. The Border Patrol sorted these gaps 

according to various criteria. One classification was type of capability gap: for instance, whether 

the gap was related to “Domain Awareness,” “Mission Readiness,” or “Deterrence, Impedance, 

and Resolution,” among other “master capabilities.” Another classification ranked capability 

gaps by urgency – either “Urgent and Compelling,” “High,” “Medium,” or “Low.” The 

Democratic staff of the Committee requested that CBP provide all FY 2017 capability gaps along 

the southwest border that were classified as “Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution” —

vulnerabilities that would typically be addressed with an infrastructure-based solution. The 

Democratic staff also requested that CBP provide all of its FY 2017 “Urgent and Compelling” 

gaps along the southwest border — vulnerabilities that were rated as CBP’s highest priorities.

Through two separate review sessions, on February 5, 2018 and February 12, 2018, Democratic 

Committee staff reviewed this data at CBP Headquarters.

15

 

A. Border Patrol agents and sector chiefs rarely requested a “wall.” 

Less than one-half of 1% of the solutions Border Patrol agents and sector chiefs proposed 

for closing capability gaps along the southwest border in FY 2017 referenced a “wall.” The

Border Patrol identified a total of 902 southwest border capability gaps through its FY 2017 

CGAP process. The word “wall” was suggested as a possible solution for just three of those 

gaps. In one of these instances where the word “wall” was explicitly used, the Border Patrol also

recommended fence construction, along with surveillance technology, lighting, and access roads, 

as a means of mitigating a capability gap – “quick vanishing time for adversary” – in the Rio

Grande Valley sector in South Texas. 

B. Border Patrol agents and sector chiefs infrequently requested fencing.

Border Patrol agents referenced “fence” or “fencing” as a possible solution to just 34, or 

less than 4%, of the 902 capability gaps identified. For example, in one area of the El Centro 

sector in southern California, Border Patrol suggested replacing existing “landing mat” fencing –

barriers that were built with steel panels used to create landing strips during the Vietnam War –

with “a fencing style that allows visibility south of the fence.” For this particular capability gap, 

Border Patrol also listed enhanced technology, such as a greater radar presence, as a possible 

solution. 

In the Del Rio and Laredo sectors – two Border Patrol sectors with a combined 381 miles 

of frontage along the Texas-Mexico border16– “wall,” “fence,” and “fencing” were not 

suggested as methods for mitigating any of the sectors’ 63 capability gaps. “Tactical 

 

15 Because CGAP identifies vulnerabilities along the border, its contents are not publicly 

available. In order to prevent its misuse, Committee staff have aggregated the data and 

eliminated references to specific vulnerabilities in particular stations and zones.

16 Government Accountability Office, Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions 

Needed to Better Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for 

Identifying Capability Gaps (GAO-17-331) (February 2017).
6

infrastructure” or “TI” was listed as a possible solution for seven of the two sectors’ 63 

capability gaps. All but one of these tactical infrastructure gaps related to road construction or 

maintenance to improve lateral mobility along the Rio Grande River. 

C. Only one “Urgent and Compelling” request mentioned either a wall or 

fencing.

Fourteen southwest border capability gaps that Democratic staff for the Committee 

reviewed received an Urgent and Compelling ranking at both the station and sector level. Just 

one of these gaps – a lack of detection technology and infrastructure in one remote area of the 

Yuma sector, which covers 126 miles of the border in southeast California and southwest 

Arizona – referenced additional fencing or a wall as a possible solution. For this particular 

capability gap, the Border Patrol also identified mobile detection equipment, additional staffing, 

vegetation removal, cameras, sights, scopes, and sensors as possible remedies. Three other 

Urgent and Compelling capability gaps recommended some type of tactical infrastructure, such 

as patrol roads, as methods for addressing the gaps.

In most instances, the Urgent and Compelling capability gaps that Border Patrol 

identified were associated with a lack of technology or personnel. For example, another gap in 

the Yuma sector – the inability to detect underground tunnel incursions – listed research, 

training, intelligence, partnerships with other agencies, and the acquisition of tunnel detection 

technology as possible solutions. In the Big Bend sector in southwest Texas, frontline agents 

and the Big Bend sector chief identified a variety of Urgent and Compelling “mission support” 

needs affecting one remote Border Patrol station. Possible solutions for closing this gap included 

external assignments, signing bonuses for new recruits, and increased manpower generally. In

one station located in the El Paso sector, which spans two Texas counties and the entire state of 

New Mexico, the Border Patrol proposed addressing an Urgent and Compelling capability gap –

the inability to effectively deter illicit cross-border traffic – by purchasing and installing 

permanent surveillance equipment, such as Integrated Fixed Towers (IFTs), Remote Video 

Surveillance Systems (RVSS), and a Mobile Surveillance Capability (MSC) platform. 

D. The Border Patrol classified just one in four vulnerabilities as ones that could 

be addressed using man-made infrastructure of any type.

Only 230 of the 902 capability gaps that frontline agents and sector chiefs identified 

along the southwest border in FY 2017 were classified as “Deterrence, Impedance, and 

Resolution” – gaps that, according to DHS, would be filled “primarily through the use of manmade infrastructure, such as physical wall[.]”17

 Another 672 capability gaps had no nexus to 

Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution and were classified under other “master capabilities,” 

such as “Domain Awareness,” “Mission Readiness,” and “Access and Mobility.” The most 

commonly identified gaps Border Patrol agents and sector chiefs identified along the southwest 

border in FY 2017 were associated with Domain Awareness and Mission Readiness – indicating 

a need for technological and personnel approaches to securing the border. 

 

17 Department of Homeland Security, Border Security Improvement Plan: Fiscal Year 

2017 Report to Congress (Jan. 4, 2018).
7

Among the 230 Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution capability gaps Democratic 

Committee staff reviewed — all of which could have reasonably been expected to feature an 

infrastructure-based solution — less than 4% identified “wall” or “fence” as a possible solution. 

Agents often identified other types of tactical infrastructure, such as patrol roads or lighting, as 

possible solutions. For example, to address one Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution 

capability gap in the Laredo sector – limited ability to deny storm drain entry – agents suggested 

policies allowing agents to safely enter storm drain tunnels and the installation of storm drain 

grates.

Many of the capability gaps that received a Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution 

classification were also classified under other master capabilities, such as “Access and Mobility,” 

“Domain Awareness,” and “Mission Readiness.” For example, Democratic staff of the 

Committee reviewed one capability gap that received both a Deterrence, Impedance, and 

Resolution and Access and Mobility designation. The gap cited a lack of patrol roads in the 

Border Patrol’s San Diego sector. Proposed solutions for addressing this Access and Mobility 

gap included the construction of all-weather roads or deploying additional Border Patrol agents 

with all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). A Domain Awareness gap in one area of the Laredo sector —

lack of surveillance technology — featured the acquisition of additional cameras as a possible

solution. And agents recommended increased staffing as a method for addressing a Mission 

Readiness gap in the El Centro sector, which includes Imperial and Riverside counties in 

southern California. 

0

100

200

300

400

Master Capabilites – Southwest Border (FY 2017)
8

III. WHITE HOUSE BUDGET REQUESTS

The desire for better technology and more personnel is in line with public statements 

made by senior CBP and DHS officials. David Aguilar, former Acting Commissioner of CBP, 

told the Committee at an April 4, 2017 hearing, “The ranking now is technology definitively first 

just about anywhere along the border. Infrastructure and personnel will be going back and forth 

depending on the area.”18 Former DHS Secretary John Kelly, who now serves as White House 

Chief of Staff, testified on January 10, 2017 that a “physical barrier in and of itself will not do 

the job.” He added, “If you are to build a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, you’d still 

have to back that wall up with patrolling by human beings, by sensors, by observation devices.”19 

Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen agreed with Kelly’s assessment during her November 8, 2017 

confirmation hearing. “I look forward, should I be confirmed, to working with the folks at CBP, 

understanding their operational needs on the border,” she told the Committee. “It is a 

combination of both personnel and technology. We also have to remember that technology can 

always serve also as a force multiplier if implemented and executed correctly.”20

Despite these statements and despite the capability gaps frontline Border Patrol agents 

themselves identified, the Trump Administration has requested funding for a wall along the 

southwest border in amounts that far exceed requests for border security technology and 

personnel.

 

The President’s FY 2019 budget request to Congress includes $1.6 billion for border wall 

construction compared to approximately $255.6 million for CBP hiring and retention initiatives, 

$43.7 million for Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS), $2 million for Integrated Fixed 

Towers (IFT), and $1.6 million for Mobile Video Surveillance Systems (MVSS).21 The 

President’s budget request did not include funding for CBP’s Cross Border Tunnel Threat 

(CBTT) program, Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS), or Tethered Aerostat Radar Systems 

(TARS) – all of which were listed as possible solutions to high-priority capability gaps in 

multiple locations across the southwest border through the FY 2017 CGAP process.

22

 

 

18 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on 

Fencing Along the Southwest Border, 115th Cong. (April 4, 2017).

19 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on the 

Nomination of General John F. Kelly, USMC (Ret.), to be Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, 115th Cong. (Jan. 10, 2017).

20 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on the 

Nomination of Kirstjen M. Nielsen to be Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Nov. 

8, 2017).

21 Department of Homeland Security, FY 2019 Budget in Brief (February 2018); 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Procurement,

Construction, and Improvements, Fiscal Year 2019 Congressional Justification.

22 Department of Homeland Security, FY 2019 Budget in Brief (February 2018); 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Procurement, 

Construction, and Improvements, Fiscal Year 2019 Congressional Justification.
9

These budget priorities are reflected in additional internal documents obtained by the 

Committee. A long-term border security investment strategy that DHS provided to Democratic 

Committee staff on January 5, 2018, identified approximately $18 billion in funding needs over a 

10-year period for 722 miles of “border wall system,” including “316 miles of new primary wall 

and 407 miles of replacement and secondary wall.”23 By comparison, the long-term investment 

strategy included $5.7 billion for “Technology,” $8.5 billion for “Law Enforcement Personnel 

and Mission Readiness,” and $1 billion for “Access and Mobility” improvements, a category that 

included roads, vehicles, and fleet management tools.24

Democratic Committee staff have also been presented with evidence that the President’s 

funding requests for constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border do not align with the 

Department’s own budget priorities. In a prior report, Democratic Committee staff revealed that 

an internal budget document from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) instructed DHS 

to dramatically increase its request to Congress for border wall funding in FY 2019 while 

decreasing its request for specific technology and equipment.25 The OMB document made no

reference to operational requirements. Rather, it stated that the office’s recommendations were a 

result of “Presidential priorities.”26

The prior staff report revealed that OMB ordered DHS to seek $1.6 billion – “$700 

million more than the agency request” – for border wall construction in FY 2019 while reducing 

the Department’s initial funding requests for specific technology and equipment upgrades by 

approximately $175 million.27 For example, OMB instructed the Department to scale back its 

original request for Remote Video Surveillance System (RVSS) technology by $44.6 million.28 

According to DHS, RVSS technology consists of remotely controlled day and night cameras that 

are mounted to towers or other permanent structures and “provide persistent wide-area 

surveillance for the visual detection, identification, classification, and tracking of items of 

 

23 Department of Homeland Security, Critical CBP Requirements to Improve Border 

Security (Dec. 27, 2017).

24 Department of Homeland Security, Critical CBP Requirements to Improve Border 

Security (Dec. 27, 2017).

25 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Overruled: White 

House Overrules Department of Homeland Security Budget Request on Border Security 

Priorities (Dec. 2017).

26 Office of Management and Budget, Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 

2019 Budget and Policy Guidance (Nov. 28, 2017).

27 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Overruled: White 

House Overrules Department of Homeland Security Budget Request on Border Security 

Priorities (Dec. 2017).

28 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Overruled: White 

House Overrules Department of Homeland Security Budget Request on Border Security 

Priorities (Dec. 2017).
10

interest.”29 The initials “RVSS” were used to identify possible solutions for at least 24 of the 

Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution capability gaps Democratic Committee staff reviewed.

IV. CONCLUSION

Democratic Committee staff’s review of the capability gaps frontline agents and Border 

Patrol sector chiefs identified through the FY 2017 CGAP process – and budget documents staff 

has received – provide strong evidence that the agency’s highest priorities for securing the 

southwest border are not the “contiguous, physical wall” that President Trump has ordered.30

In the limited set of data Democratic Committee staff reviewed – all of which could have 

reasonably been expected to feature an infrastructure-based solution — the word “wall” was 

scarcely mentioned as a method for mitigating current vulnerabilities along the southwest border. 

To be sure, there were instances in which Border Patrol agents proposed “fencing” or other 

tactical infrastructure, such as patrol roads, lighting, and storm drain grates, for addressing 

current capability gaps. But, more often, technological and personnel solutions, such as sensors, 

cameras, improved radio communications systems, additional hiring, and better training, were

proposed. In still other cases, Border Patrol listed relatively low-tech options, including horse 

patrols, K-9 units, ATVs, and better vegetation management, as ways to improve border security.

With finite resources, federal funding for border security must be allocated in the most 

effective and efficient manner possible. At a minimum, funding decisions should reflect the 

operational requirements of frontline agents and Border Patrol sector chiefs – and should not be 

based on a desire to fulfill campaign promises made by the President.

 

29 Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Budget Overview: 

Fiscal Year 2018 Congressional Justification (May 2017).

30 Exec. Order No. 13767, 82 Fed. Reg. 8793 (Jan. 25, 2017).
11

APPENDIX — Methodology

Border Patrol agents and sector chiefs identified 902 “capability gaps” along the 

southwest border through the FY 2017 Capability Gap Analysis Process (CGAP). For each 

capability gap, a corresponding “core card” was created. Each core card featured:

 A unique Core Card ID

 Location (by sector, station, and zone)

 Sector and station priority ranking (“Urgent and Compelling,” “High,” “Medium,” or 

“Low)

 Summary of the capability gap

 Master capability (e.g. “Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution,” “Domain 

Awareness,” and/or “Mission Readiness”)

 Possible Solution (short-term, mid-term, and long-term)

The Democratic staff of the Committee requested that CBP provide all FY 2017 

capability gaps classified as “Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution” — vulnerabilities that 

would typically be addressed with an infrastructure-based solution. The Democratic staff also 

requested that CBP provide all of its FY 2017 “Urgent and Compelling” gaps — vulnerabilities 

that were rated as CBP’s highest priorities. Through two separate review sessions, on February 

5, 2018 and February 12, 2018, Democratic Committee staff reviewed this data at CBP 

Headquarters. 

Each capability gap was classified using one or more “master capabilities” defined in 

CBP’s “Master Capabilities List” (MCL). CBP presented Democratic Committee staff with 230 

capability gaps that received a Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution designation. Staff did not 

review the 672 capability gaps that were not classified as Deterrence, Impedance, and 

Resolution. The 12 master capabilities used to classify capability gaps through the FY 2017 

CGAP process are as follows:

1) Access and Mobility – “Refers to the ability to gain and maintain access to USBP areas 

of responsibility (AORs) and rapidly move USBP resources (conveyances, response 

personnel, pooling/pre-staging etc.) in all weather, terrain, vegetation, and light 

conditions for providing security-in-depth along the border area.”

2) Command and Control – “Refers to the ability to exercise authority and direction by a 

properly designated individual or team over assigned resources in the accomplishment of 

a common goal or mission.” 

3) Communications – “Refers to the ability to reliably and securely transfer data and 

information among organizations, personnel, and technology; ensuring interoperability, 

and protecting vital information.”

4) Deterrence, Impedance, and Resolution – “Refers to the ability to impede border 

incursions and deny the threat’s use of terrain (i.e. land, air, water) for advantage in 

conducting illegal activity and acts of terrorism. This includes dissuading illegal border 
12

activity by conveying a certainty of detection, apprehension, and the implied application 

of appropriate consequences.”

5) Doctrine and Policy – “Refers to the ability to guide resources through a fundamental set 

of principles as they pursue national security objectives. Policy refers to the development 

and dissemination of long-term priorities and guidelines for USBP activities: 

administrative, management and operations.”

6) Domain Awareness – “Refers to the ability to continuously detect, identify, classify and 

track all border incursions (land, air, maritime, and subterranean) in targeted areas under 

all weather, terrain, vegetation, and light conditions for providing security-in-depth along 

the border area.”

7) Human Capital Management – “Refers to the ability to select, educate, train, and offer 

border patrol personnel with opportunities to progress in the organization; while ensuring 

the highest levels of agent safety.”

8) Information Management – “Refers to the ability to collect, consolidate, manage, 

disseminate, and archive information to support the USBP mission across the enterprise.”

9) Intelligence and Counter Intelligence – “Refers to the ability to produce and disseminate 

timely, well-formulated and actionable intelligence from the collection, processing, 

integration, exploitation, evaluation, analysis and interpretation of available information 

concerning border security threats and prevent threat organizations from successfully 

gathering and collecting intelligence against USBP.”

10) Mission Readiness – “Refers to the ability to develop, construct, deploy and redeploy, 

maintain and secure physical infrastructure, vehicles, and equipment to support Border 

Patrol operations. Integral to this capability is the assurance of a proper logistics chain.”

11) Planning and Analysis – “Refers to the ability to effectively plan at the strategic, 

operational, and tactical levels, supported by robust analysis, and acquire the proper mix 

of resources to successfully execute the USBP mission.”

12) Security Partnerships – “Refers to the ability to harness the political, social, economic, 

information, infrastructure, and technology assets/resources of the border areas to 

enhance our national security.”31

 

31 Customs and Border Protection, Briefing with Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs Staff (Dec. 20, 2017).