Border Security and Immigration: Initial Executive Order Actions and Resource Implications
Released: 2018-07-12T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In January and March 2017, the President issued a series of executive orders related to border security and immigration. The orders direct federal agencies to take a broad range of actions with potential resource implications. For example, Executive Order 13767 instructs DHS to construct a wall or other physical barriers along the U.S. southern border and to hire an additional 5,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents. Executive Order 13768 instructs federal agencies, including DHS and DOJ, to ensure that U.S immigration law is enforced against all removable individuals and directs ICE to hire an additional 10,000 immigration officers. Executive Order 13780 directs agencies to develop a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures; and established nationality-based entry restrictions with respect to visa travelers for a 90-day period, and refugees for 120 days.

GAO was asked to review agencies' implementation of the executive orders and related spending. This report addresses (1) actions DHS, DOJ, and State have taken, or plan to take, to implement provisions of the executive orders; and (2) resources to implement provisions of the executive orders, particularly funds DHS, DOJ, and State have obligated, expended, or shifted. GAO reviewed agency planning, tracking, and guidance documents related to the orders, as well as budget requests, appropriations acts, and internal budget information. GAO also interviewed agency officials regarding actions and budgetary costs associated with implementing the orders.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), and State issued internal and public reports such as studies and progress updates, developed or revised policies, and took initial planning and programmatic actions to implement Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780. For example:

DHS's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) started the acquisition process for a Border Wall System Program and issued task orders to design and construct barrier prototypes. In November 2017, CBP awarded a contract worth up to $297 million to help with hiring 5,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents, 2,000 CBP officers, and 500 Air and Marine Operations agents.

DOJ issued memoranda providing guidance for federal prosecutors on prioritizing certain immigration-related criminal offenses. Additionally, from March through October 2017, DOJ detailed approximately 40 immigration judge positions to detention centers and to the southern border to conduct removal and other related proceedings, according to DOJ officials.

State participated in an interagency working group to develop uniform standards related to the adjudication of visa applications, interviews, and system security checks. State also implemented visa and refugee entry restrictions in accordance with the Supreme Court's June 26, 2017, ruling.

Agency officials anticipate that implementing the executive orders will be a multi-year endeavor comprising additional reporting, planning, and other actions.

DHS, DOJ, and State used existing fiscal year 2017 resources to support initial executive order actions that fit within their established mission areas. GAO found that it was not always possible to disaggregate which fiscal year 2017 funds were used for implementation of the orders versus other agency activities. All three agencies indicated that they used existing personnel to implement the orders and, in some cases, these efforts took substantial time. For example, according to ICE data, personnel spent about 14,000 regular hours (the equivalent of 1,750 8-hour days) and 2,400 overtime hours planning for the ICE hiring surge from January 2017 through January 2018.

In March 2017, the President submitted a budget amendment along with a request for $3 billion in supplemental appropriations for DHS to implement the orders. In May 2017, DHS received an appropriation of just over $1.1 billion, some of which DHS used to fund actions to implement the orders. For example, CBP received $65 million for hiring and, according to CBP officials, used these funds to plan and prepare for the surge in U.S. Border Patrol agents. As of January 2018, CBP had obligated $18.8 million of the $65 million.

Agencies plan to continue to use their base budgets and request additional funds as needed to carry out their missions and implement the orders. For example, for fiscal year 2018, CBP requested approximately $1.6 billion and received (in March 2018) approximately $1.3 billion to build new and replace existing sections of physical barriers along the southern border. For fiscal year 2019, ICE requested $571 million to hire 2,000 immigration officers and DOJ requested approximately $40 million to hire new immigration judges and supporting staff.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2017, the President issued a series of executive orders related to  border security and immigration. The orders direct federal agencies to  take a broad range of actions with potential resource implications.  Specifically, Executive Order 13767, Border Security and Immigration  Enforcement Improvements, instructs the Department of Homeland  Security (DHS) to immediately plan, design, and construct a wall or other  physical barriers along the U.S. southern border and to hire an additional  5,000 U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol) agents, among other border  security initiatives. Executive Order 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in  the Interior of the United States, instructs federal agencies, including DHS  and the Department of Justice (DOJ), to ensure that U.S immigration law  is enforced against all removable individuals; establishes the  administration’s enforcement priorities; and directs U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hire an additional 10,000 immigration  officers, among other things. Finally, Executive Order 13780, Protecting  the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, among  other things, states that it is U.S. policy to improve the screening and  vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance  process and U.S. Refugee Admissions Program; imposed visa entry  restrictions on foreign nationals from certain listed countries for a 90-day  period; and suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days.

In light of the number of policy and programmatic requirements in the  executive orders, you asked us to review federal agency actions and  budgetary costs associated with implementation. This report examines (1)  actions DHS, DOJ, and the Department of State (State) have taken, or  plan to take, to implement provisions of the executive orders; and (2)  resources to implement provisions of the executive orders, particularly  funds DHS, DOJ, and State have obligated, expended, or shifted.

For the purposes of this review, we focused our audit work on DHS, DOJ,  and State because they are responsible for implementing the majority of  the provisions in the three executive orders. To address the first  objective, we identified actions planned, completed, or underway at DHS,  DOJ, and State as of March 2018 by reviewing and cataloguing specific  provisions included in the executive orders and by reviewing available  agency-wide planning and tracking documents, such as a DHS inventory  of tasks related to the executive orders and their implementation status.  We also obtained and reviewed executive order-related memoranda  issued by agency leadership to identify actions they directed within their  respective departments. We conducted semi-structured interviews with  officials at key components, program offices, and bureaus at the three  agencies, and utilized a data collection instrument in which we asked  agencies to identify actions either planned, completed, or underway to  implement the executive orders. We corroborated actions identified with  documentation, such as recruiting and hiring plans and statements of  work. Additionally, we reviewed strategic and operational policies,  guidance, and memoranda that agencies developed or revised in  response to executive order provisions.

To address the second objective, we worked to identify any funds DHS,  DOJ, and State obligated, expended, or shifted within or between  appropriation accounts to implement tangible, measurable, and  quantifiable executive order provisions. Specifically, we reviewed the  executive orders and placed each provision into one of three categories:  (1) analyses and reports, (2) policies, and (3) programs. We defined the  analyses and reports category as executive order provisions that direct  agencies to review and analyze data, policies, processes, and operational  mission areas and produce reports. We defined the policies category as  executive order provisions that establish new or modify existing policies,  guidance, or processes related to border security or immigration. We  defined the programs category as tangible, measurable, and quantifiable  executive order provisions that implement policies. We confirmed our  categorization with each agency, particularly for the programs category,  since the extent to which a provision is tangible, measurable, and  quantifiable was not always clearly discernable. To confirm the programs  category for DHS, we conducted a crosswalk between our internal  categorization, actions in the DHS inventory of tasks, and provisions that  the DHS Office of Budget identified as requiring resources. To confirm the  programs category for DOJ and State, we corroborated our categorization  by asking officials from each agency if actions taken or planned to  implement the provisions required resources. In some cases, we moved  policy provisions to the program category if agency efforts underway to  implement the policy were programmatic in nature.

For each agency, we collected available budgetary information— specifically, any funds requested, appropriated, obligated, and  expended—from January 2017 through March 2018 for the  implementation of executive order provisions that we categorized as  programs. We reviewed publicly available budget requests, congressional  budget justifications, appropriations acts, and budgetary data from  agencies’ internal data systems. While we were able to identify certain  funds requested, provided, or designated for executive order  implementation from these documents, it was not always possible to  extract funds specifically meant for implementing the executive orders  from budget requests, appropriations, or expenditures for more general  purposes. To specifically identify funds used for executive order  implementation, we reviewed agency documentation, interviewed agency  budget and program officials, and submitted written questions as  necessary. In instances where there was no explicit distinction between  funds for executive order implementation and funds for regular  operations, we identified, and made note of, the larger account used for  executive order implementation. In addition, where agencies identified  that they used personnel resources to implement the executive orders,  we collected related data as available. We analyzed agency  documentation on the policies, procedures, and processes for maintaining  internal data and interviewed agency officials about their data collection  practices to assess the reliability of these data. We determined that the  data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives.

To further address our second objective, we identified official  reprogramming or transfer requests and approvals specifically for  implementation of executive order provisions that we categorized as  programs. We also interviewed DHS, DOJ, and State budget officials to  identify any funds that were re-classified, reallocated, or otherwise shifted  for different programs, activities, or purposes at lower thresholds not  subject to time and condition limitations for official reprogramming or  transfer requests. Additionally, we collected and reviewed documentation  related to funds moved from existing programs to implement the  executive orders from January 2017 through March 2018. We  corroborated this information by interviewing agency budget and program  officials to determine resource prioritization and what funds, if any,  agencies reprogrammed or transferred—or planned to reprogram or  transfer—from other existing programs to implement the executive orders.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to June 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Executive Order Summaries
paragraphs: The President issued two executive orders addressing border security  and immigration enforcement on January 25, 2017. These orders direct  executive branch agencies to implement a series of reporting, policy, and  programmatic provisions to carry out the administration’s border security  and immigration policies and priorities.

Executive Order 13767 lays out key policies of the executive branch  with regard to securing the southern border, preventing further  unlawful entry into the United States, and repatriating removable  foreign nationals. To support these purposes, the order directs DHS  to, among other actions, produce a comprehensive study of the  security of the southern border; issue new policy guidance regarding  the appropriate and consistent use of detention of foreign nationals for  violations of immigration law; plan, design, and construct a wall or  other physical barriers along the southern border; and hire and on- board, as soon as practicable, 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents.

Executive Order 13767 also directs DOJ to assign immigration judges  to immigration detention facilities in order to conduct removal and  other related proceedings.

Executive Order 13768 focuses on immigration enforcement within  the United States. Among other things, the order lays out the  administration’s immigration enforcement priorities for removable  foreign nationals; directs ICE to hire 10,000 additional immigration  officers; states that, as permitted by law, it is the policy of the  executive branch to empower state and local law enforcement officials  to perform the functions of immigration officers; calls for weekly public  reports on criminal actions committed by foreign nationals and any  jurisdictions that do not honor ICE detainers with respect to such  individuals; and terminates the Priority Enforcement Program while  reinstituting Secure Communities. The order also directs DHS and  DOJ to ensure that jurisdictions that willfully prohibit or otherwise  restrict communication with DHS regarding immigration status  information are not eligible to receive federal grants, except as  determined necessary for law enforcement purposes.

On March 6, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13780. This  order directed agencies to take various actions to improve the screening  and vetting protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance  process and the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Specifically, the  order directed agencies to conduct a worldwide review to identify any  additional information needed from each foreign country to adjudicate  visas and other immigration benefits to ensure that individuals applying  for such benefits are not a security or public-safety threat. The order  also instituted visa entry restrictions for nationals from certain listed  countries for a 90-day period; directed agencies to develop a uniform  baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures; and  suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days in order  to review refugee application and adjudication procedures. The order  further directed DHS to expedite the completion and implementation of a  biometric entry-exit tracking system for travelers to the United States.  Implementation of Executive Order 13780 entry restrictions for visa  travelers and refugees commenced on June 29, 2017, subject to a June  26 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court prohibiting enforcement of such  restrictions against foreign nationals with a credible claim of a bona fide  relationship to a person or entity in the United States.

section_title: Federal Budget Process and Status Since Executive Order Issuance
paragraphs: The federal budget process provides the means for the President and  Congress to make informed decisions between competing national needs  and policies, allocate resources among federal agencies, and ensure  laws are executed according to established priorities. The President  generally submits the budget request for the upcoming fiscal year to  Congress no later than the first Monday of February (e.g. the fiscal year  2019 budget request was submitted in February 2018). To ensure there is  not a lapse in appropriations for one or more federal departments or  agencies, regular appropriations bills must be enacted to fund the  government before the expiration of the prior appropriations, which would  typically be in effect through September 30 in a regular appropriations  cycle. If these regular full-year appropriations bills are not enacted by the  deadline, Congress must pass a continuing appropriation (or resolution)  to temporarily fund government operations into the next fiscal year. For  fiscal year 2017, multiple continuing appropriations were enacted to  extend funding until the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, was  enacted in May 2017.

At the time the President issued the executive orders in January and  March of 2017, agencies were operating under a continuing appropriation  which did not incorporate any funding explicitly for the administration’s  immigration and border security priorities, such as hiring 5,000 additional  Border Patrol agents. The administration sought additional funds to  implement the executive orders through an out-of-cycle March 2017  budget amendment and supplemental appropriations request for the  remainder of fiscal year 2017. In May 2017, Congress provided funding  for selected priorities through the Consolidated Appropriations Act,  2017. The administration submitted additional funding requests related  to the executive orders through the President’s fiscal year 2018 and 2019  budget requests. A number of continuing appropriations acts were  enacted from September 2017 through February 2018, providing fiscal  year 2018 funding at fiscal year 2017 levels through March 23, 2018. The  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, was signed into law on March 23,  2018, providing funding for government operations for the remainder of  fiscal year 2018. Figure 1 below provides a timeline of executive order  issuance and key milestones in the budget process from December 2016  through March 2018.

section_title: Agency Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: DHS, DOJ, and State each play key roles in enforcing U.S. immigration  law and securing U.S. borders. Key components and bureaus at the three  agencies, and their general roles and responsibilities with regard to  border security and immigration enforcement, are described in table 1.

section_title: DHS, DOJ, and State Took Initial Planning and Programming Actions to Implement Provisions of the Executive Orders
paragraphs: DHS, DOJ, and State issued reports, developed or revised policies, and  took initial planning and programmatic actions in response to the  executive orders. Each agency took a distinct approach to implementing  the orders based on its organizational structure and the scope of its  responsibilities. Each executive order established near-term reporting  requirements for agencies, including updates on the status of their efforts,  studies to inform planning and implementation, and reports for the public.  According to officials, agencies focused part of their initial implementation  efforts on meeting these reporting requirements. In addition, agencies  developed and revised policies, initiated planning efforts, and made initial  program changes (such as expanding or expediting programs) to reflect  the administration’s priorities.

DHS: DHS established an Executive Order Task Force (EOTF), which  was responsible for coordinating and tracking initial component actions to  implement the executive orders. The EOTF assembled an operational  planning team with representatives from key DHS components, such as  U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE. The EOTF and the  planning team inventoried tasks in the orders, assigned component  responsibilities for tasks, and monitored the status of the tasks through an  online tracking mechanism and weekly coordination meetings.  Additionally, the EOTF coordinated and moved reports required by the  orders through DHS. For example, Section 4 of Executive Order 13767  directed DHS to produce a comprehensive study of the security of the  southern border. DHS completed and submitted this report to the White  House on November 22, 2017, according to EOTF officials. DHS also  publicly issued three Declined Detainer Outcome Reports pursuant to  Section 9 of Executive Order 13768. Additionally, EOTF officials stated  that, in 2017, DHS produced and submitted to the White House 90-day  and 180-day reports on the progress of implementing Executive Orders  13767 and 13768.

The Secretary of Homeland Security issued two memoranda establishing  policy and providing guidance related to Executive Orders 13767 and  13768 in February 2017. One memorandum implemented Executive  Order 13767 by outlining new policies designed to stem illegal entry into  the United States and to facilitate the detection, apprehension, detention,  and removal of foreign nationals seeking to unlawfully enter or remain in  the United States. For example, the memorandum directed U.S.  Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), CBP, and ICE to ensure  that appropriate guidance and training is provided to agency officials to  ensure proper exercise of parole in accordance with existing statue. The  other memorandum implemented Executive Order 13768 and provided  additional guidance with respect to the enforcement of immigration laws.  For example, it terminated the Priority Enforcement Program, under which  ICE prioritized the apprehension, detention, and removal of foreign  nationals who posed threats to national security, public safety, or border  security, including convicted felons; and restored the Secure  Communities Program, pursuant to which ICE may also target for removal  those charged, but not yet convicted, of criminal offenses, among others.  Additionally, the memorandum reiterated DHS’s general enforcement  priorities. ICE, CBP, and USCIS may allocate resources to prioritize  enforcement activities as they deem appropriate, such as by prioritizing  enforcement against convicted felons or gang members.

DHS components subsequently issued additional guidance further  directing efforts to implement the executive orders and apply the  guidance from the memoranda. For example, ICE issued guidance to its  legal program to review all cases previously administratively closed based  on prosecutorial discretion. ICE’s new guidance requested its attorneys  to determine whether the basis for closure remains appropriate under  DHS’s new enforcement priorities. USCIS also reviewed its guidance for  credible and reasonable fear determinations—the initial step for certain  removable individuals to demonstrate they are eligible to be considered  for particular forms of relief or protection from removal in immigration  court. As a result, USCIS made select modifications pursuant to  Executive Order 13767, including adding language related to evaluating  an applicant’s credibility based on prior statements made to other DHS  officials, such as CBP and ICE officers.

DHS also initiated a number of planning and programmatic actions to  implement the executive orders. In some cases DHS components  expanded or enhanced existing regular, ongoing agency activities and  programs in response to the orders. For example, in response to  Executive Order 13768, ICE officials reported that they expanded the use  of the existing Criminal Alien Program. In other instances, DHS  components altered their activities consistent with the administration’s  immigration priorities. For instance, in response to Executive Order 13768, the Secretary of Homeland Security directed ICE to terminate  outreach or advocacy services to potentially removable foreign nationals,  and reallocate all resources currently used for such purposes to a new  office to assist victims of crimes allegedly perpetrated by removable  foreign nationals (the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement, or  VOICE, office, established in April 2017). Additional examples of planning  and programmatic actions that DHS took, or officials reported taking, in  response to the executive orders are described in table 2.

DOJ: Within DOJ, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General coordinated  and oversaw DOJ’s initial implementation of key provisions in the  executive orders, according to DOJ officials. Specifically, DOJ officials  said that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General coordinated and  collected information for executive order reporting requirements and  participated in an interagency working group related to Executive Order  13780, and interagency meetings related to Executive Order 13767.  However, DOJ components were responsible for implementing the  provisions and ensuring that they met executive order requirements. In  addition, DOJ assisted in the creation and issuance of various reports.  For example, officials told us that DOJ provided data to State for a report  on foreign assistance to the Mexican government, as required by Section  9 of Executive Order 13767. DOJ also jointly issued three reports with  DHS in response to Executive Order 13768 Section 16, which included  information regarding the immigration status of foreign-born individuals  incarcerated under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and  in pre-trial detention in U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) custody.

The Attorney General issued two memoranda providing policy and  guidance related to Executive Orders 13767 and 13768 in April and May  of 2017. The April 2017 memorandum contains guidance for federal  prosecutors on prioritizing certain immigration-related criminal offenses.  For example, the memorandum requires that federal prosecutors consider  prosecution of foreign nationals who illegally re-enter the United States  after prior removal, and prioritize defendants with criminal histories. The  May 2017 memorandum addresses Executive Order 13768’s provision  directing DOJ and DHS to ensure that jurisdictions willfully prohibiting  immigration status-related communication with the federal government  (referred to as “sanctuary jurisdictions”) are not eligible for federal grants.  It requires jurisdictions to certify their compliance with 8 U.S.C §1373,  under which a federal, state, or local government entity or official may not  prohibit, or in any way restrict the exchange of citizenship or immigration  status information with DHS.

Additionally, DOJ took a number of initial planning and programmatic  steps to implement the executive orders. DOJ officials stated that some  provisions outlined in the executive orders represent regular, ongoing  agency activities and did not require any major changes to be  implemented. For example, DOJ detailed Assistant United States  Attorneys (AUSAs) and immigration judges to southern border districts  and detention centers to assist in prosecutions and to conduct removal  proceedings in response to the executive orders. However, while they  expanded their efforts, DOJ officials said that detailing immigration judges  and AUSAs to the border districts is a regular practice, and not a new  function created by the executive orders. Examples of actions that DOJ  took, or officials reported taking, in response to the executive orders are  described in table 3.

State: State’s Bureaus of Population, Refugees, and Migration and  Consular Affairs led efforts to implement key provisions in Executive  Order 13780. Several legal challenges and resulting federal court  injunctions affected State’s implementation of Executive Order 13780 and  at times curtailed specific provisions. Initial State actions included  conducting reviews and contributing to reports required by the order. For  instance, while State generally suspended refugee travel for 120 days,  the department, in conjunction with DHS and the Office of the Director of  National Intelligence, conducted a review to determine what, if any,  additional procedures should be implemented in the U.S. Refugee  Admissions Program. According to State officials, the agencies provided  a joint memorandum to the President in October 2017 that contained  recommendations regarding resumption of the program, specific changes  to refugee processing, and further reviews and steps that the interagency  group should take. Additionally, State worked with DHS and the Office of  the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a worldwide review. This  review identified any additional information that the United States may  need from each foreign country to adjudicate visas and other immigration  benefit applications and ensure that individuals seeking to enter the  United States do not pose a threat to public safety or national security. In  July 2017, upon completion of this review, DHS, in consultation with State  and other interagency partners, issued a report to the President  cataloguing information needed from each country and listing countries  not providing adequate information.

State also issued a number of policies and guidance in response to the  executive orders; however, guidance on how to implement certain  provisions often changed due to legal challenges. For example, the  Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration issued 23 iterations of  refugee travel restrictions guidance to overseas refugee processing  centers in response to federal litigation and budgetary uncertainties.  Similarly, the Secretary of State issued a number of cables to visa-issuing  foreign posts on implementing travel restrictions for nationals of selected  countries following court orders limiting the implementation of such  restrictions.

Executive Order 13780 contained several time-sensitive provisions  directed to the Secretary of State. State focused on first addressing these  provisions while working towards longer-term priorities outlined in the  order. For instance, Executive Order 13780 Sections 2 and 6 established  visa and refugee entry restrictions, which contained near-term timelines.  State implemented these provisions, consistent with judicial decisions.  Examples of planning and programmatic actions that State took, or  officials reported taking, to implement Executive Order 13780 are  described in table 4.

For more information on specific planning or programmatic actions DHS,  DOJ, and State have taken to implement the executive orders, see  appendix I.

The examples we provided for DHS, DOJ, and State represent initial  actions and do not constitute an exhaustive list of actions that agencies  have taken, or may take in the future, to fully implement the executive  orders. Agency officials anticipate that implementation of the executive  orders will be a multi-year endeavor comprising present and future  reporting, planning, and other actions. For example, DOJ officials noted  that many of the actions that they took to implement the orders will be  ongoing and responsive to additional DHS actions. Specifically, DOJ  bases the number of immigration judges and AUSAs detailed to the  southern border districts on court caseloads driven by ICE. If ICE hires  additional officers and attorneys and arrests and files charges of  removability against more foreign nationals, then DOJ may need to staff  additional judges and AUSAs to meet caseload needs.

section_title: DHS, DOJ, and State Used Existing Fiscal Year 2017 Resources to Support Initial Executive Order Actions; DHS also Received and Expended Supplemental Funds
paragraphs: Existing Fiscal Year 2017 Resources: Many of the initial actions  agencies and components took in response to the executive orders fit  within their existing fiscal year 2017 budget framework and aligned with  their established missions. At the time the executive orders were issued  in January and March of 2017, federal agencies were operating under  existing continuing appropriations pending enactment of fiscal year 2017  appropriations; therefore the new administration’s border security and  immigration priorities and policies had not yet been incorporated into the  budget process. As a result, it is not always possible to disaggregate  which fiscal year 2017 funds were used for implementation of the  executive orders versus other agency activities. For example, while the  orders call for a surge in hiring at CBP and ICE, these agencies regularly  hire additional personnel to offset attrition or to meet budget hiring targets  as part of their normal operations.

We asked agencies to identify budgetary resources they used specifically  to address the executive orders. In some cases agencies were able to  quantify their expenditures; however in other cases they could not. For  example, according to DOJ officials, the Executive Office for Immigration  Review, which conducts immigration court proceedings, spent close to  $2.4 million in existing funds to surge approximately 40 immigration judge  positions to detention centers and the southwest border from March  through October 2017 in response to Executive Order 13768. DHS’s  USCIS reported expending approximately $4.2 million detailing asylum  officers to immigration detention facilities along the southern border from  February 2017 through February 2018. Additionally, as a result of the  120-day suspension of refugee admissions, State cancelled airline tickets  for previously approved refugee applicants, which resulted in a cost of  nearly $2.4 million in cancellation and unused ticket fees. State officials  noted that, aside from the ticket costs, other budgetary costs associated  with implementing the order are difficult to disaggregate from other  processing activities. For example, any budgetary costs associated with  refugees who were admitted on a case-by-case basis were absorbed into  overseas processing budgets. In some cases, agencies also identified  cost savings or avoidances. For example, State reported a total cost  avoidance of over $160 million in fiscal year 2017, partially as a result of  admitting fewer refugees than originally planned under the prior  administration.

While the costs above were part of agencies’ normal operations, we  identified one case where Congress approved a DHS request to  reprogram $20 million from existing programs to fund the planning and  design of new physical barriers along the border, including prototype  design and construction. Specifically, CBP reprogrammed $15 million  from funds originally requested for Mobile Video Surveillance System  deployments and $5 million from a border fence replacement project in  Naco, Arizona. Additionally, we identified another case where DHS  shifted funds and notified Congress, but determined Congressional  approval for reprogramming was not required. Specifically, in response to  Executive Order 13768, the Secretary of Homeland Security directed ICE to reallocate any and all resources used to advocate on behalf of  potentially removable foreign nationals (except as necessary to comply  with a judicial order) to the new VOICE office. As part of this effort, ICE’s  Office of the Principal Legal Advisor determined that the creation of the  VOICE office fell within ICE’s authority to carry out routine or small  reallocations of personnel or functions. According to officials at DHS,  DOJ, and State, there were no additional requests to reprogram or  transfer funds to implement the executive orders. DHS budget officials  stated that any future requests from DHS components to reprogram or  transfer funds would typically be considered at the midway point in the  budget cycle.

All three agencies indicated that they used existing personnel to  implement the executive orders and, in some cases, a substantial amount  of time was spent preparing reports, planning to implement provisions,  and responding to changes or new developments in the executive orders.  For example, USCIS officials noted that the agency devoted a significant  number of manpower hours to aligning USCIS priorities to the executive  orders. ICE’s Office of Human Capital established a dedicated executive  order hiring team to plan for the hiring surge directed by Executive Order  13768. Additionally, officials at State told us that personnel were diverted  from normal operations in order to implement executive order policy  actions and that there were overtime costs associated with some  provisions. In most cases, agencies did not specifically track or quantify  the amount of time spent on these efforts; however, ICE’s Office of  Human Capital tracked the amount of time spent on planning for the  potential surge in ICE hiring in its human resource data system.  According to ICE information, ICE personnel charged approximately  14,000 regular hours (the equivalent of 1,750 8-hour days) and 2,400  overtime hours to this effort from January 2017 through January 2018.

Fiscal Year 2017 Request for Supplemental Appropriations: In March  2017, the President submitted a budget amendment along with a request  for $3 billion in supplemental appropriations for DHS to implement the  executive orders and address border protection activities. In May 2017,  an additional appropriation of approximately $1.1 billion was provided in  response to this request, some of which DHS used to fund actions to  implement the orders. For example, CBP received $65.4 million for  hiring and, according to CBP officials, used these funds to plan and  prepare for the surge in Border Patrol agents directed by Executive Order  13767. As of January 2018, CBP had obligated $18.8 million and  expended $14.1 million of the $65.4 million it received. Additionally, ICE  received $147.9 million for custody operations. At the end of fiscal year  2017, ICE had obligated and expended nearly all—over 99.9 percent—of  the funds it received.

Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 Budget Requests and Fiscal Year 2018  Appropriations: Agency officials anticipate additional costs to further  implement the executive orders and expect that certain provisions will  require a multi-year effort. According to DHS officials, the agency expects  to incorporate executive order implementation into its annual strategic  and budgetary planning processes. DHS officials also noted that  additional future planning and funds will be needed to fully implement  actions in the orders. Agencies plan to continue to use their base budgets  as well as request additional funds as needed to carry out their mission.  Examples of DHS and DOJ fiscal year 2018 budget requests and  appropriations to implement executive order provisions are listed below.

CBP requested $1.6 billion and in the Consolidated Appropriations  Act, 2018, received approximately $1.3 billion to build new and  replace existing sections of physical barriers along the southern  border. CBP also projected out-year funding for construction along  certain segments of the border through 2024.

ICE requested $185.9 million for approximately 1,000 new  immigration officers and 606 support staff. ICE’s fiscal year 2018  appropriation included $15.6 million to support the hiring of 65  additional investigative agents, as well as 70 attorneys and support  staff.

DOJ requested approximately $7.2 million to hire additional attorneys  in support of the orders. According to DOJ officials, DOJ received  sufficient funds in the fiscal year 2018 budget to meet the hiring goal  for attorneys.

DHS and DOJ also requested funds for fiscal year 2019 to implement  executive order provisions, examples of which are listed below.

ICE requested $571 million to hire 2,000 immigration officers  (including 1,700 deportation officers and 300 criminal investigators)  and 1,312 support staff (including attorneys).

DOJ requested $1.1 million for 17 paralegal support positions to  support the additional attorneys requested in the fiscal year 2018  request. DOJ also requested approximately $40 million to hire new  immigration judges and their supporting staff, citing an over 25  percent increase in new cases brought forward by DHS over the  course of fiscal year 2017.

DHS and DOJ components that were not directly tasked with  responsibilities in the executive orders have also begun to plan for  potential effects as agencies implement the orders. For example, as CBP  and ICE work to meet the hiring surge in the orders, USMS anticipates a  likely increase in the number of individuals who are charged with criminal  immigration offenses and detained pending trial, resulting in a  corresponding increase in its workload. USMS developed a multi-year  impact statement which projected possible effects on USMS prisoner  operations, judicial security, and investigative operations. According to  DOJ officials, these efforts may inform USMS’s budget requests and  future year planning. For example, for fiscal year 2018 USMS requested  approximately $9 million to hire 40 USMS deputies to support the  executive orders. For fiscal year 2019, USMS projected that the  administration’s policies to increase immigration enforcement and  immigration-related prosecutions could result in an increase of nearly  19,000 prisoners between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2019 and a  corresponding budget increase of approximately $105 million for  immigration expenses. In addition, officials at the Federal Law  Enforcement Training Centers stated that they coordinated with Border  Patrol and ICE to assess future training needs and project future resource  requirements based on the hiring assumptions in the executive orders.  For example, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers requested  an increase of $29 million in fiscal year 2018 and $25.7 million in fiscal  year 2019 for tuition and training requirements to implement the executive  orders, among other funding requested.

Appendix I includes additional information on funds DHS, DOJ, and State  have obligated, expended, or shifted, to implement provisions of the  executive orders.

section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOJ, and State for review and  comment. DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in  appendix III; DOJ and State did not provide written comments. In its  written comments, DHS discussed resources and legislative authorities  the department believes it needs to carry out executive order  requirements. All three agencies provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the  Attorney General, and the Secretary of State. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions  to this report are listed in appendix IV.

section_title: Appendix I: Key Actions and Budgetary Costs Related to Implementing Executive Order 13767, 13768, and 13780 Provisions
subsections: section_title: Purpose
paragraphs: This appendix contains summaries of initial actions that the Department  of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), and  Department of State (State) took to implement selected programmatic  provisions of the President’s executive orders on border security and  immigration. These orders include Executive Order 13767, Border  Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements; Executive Order  13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States; and  Executive Order 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry  into the United States. These summaries also contain overviews of  budget information related to implementing the executive orders,  including obligations, expenditures, and budget requests where available,  among other things. Table 5 lists the summaries and the executive order  provisions on which they focus.

section_title: Methodology for Selecting Executive Order Provisions
paragraphs: We reviewed the executive orders and placed each provision directed at  DHS, DOJ, and State into one of three categories: (1) analyses and  reports, (2) policies, and (3) programs. We defined the analyses and  reports category as executive order provisions that direct agencies to  review and analyze data, policies, processes, and operational mission  areas and produce reports. We defined the policies category as executive  order provisions that establish new or modify existing policies, guidance,  or processes related to border security or immigration. We defined the  programs category as tangible, measurable, and quantifiable executive  order provisions that implement policies. We confirmed our categorization  with each agency, particularly for the programs category, since it was  sometimes ambiguous whether provisions would lead to actions that were  tangible, measurable, and quantifiable. Specifically, we reviewed agency  documentation, such as a DHS inventory of tasks related to the executive  orders, and interviewed agency officials. In some cases, we moved policy  provisions to the programs category if agency efforts to implement the  policy were underway.

We prepared summaries for each executive order provision(s) we  categorized as a program. For each program, we identified actions  planned, completed, or underway at DHS, DOJ, and State as of March  2018 through reviewing documentation, interviewing agency officials, and  submitting data collection instruments. For each program we also  collected available budgetary costs—specifically, any funds requested,  appropriated, obligated, and expended for executive order  implementation from January 2017 through March 2018. We reviewed  publicly available budget requests, congressional budget justifications,  public laws, and budgetary data from agencies’ internal data systems.  While we were able to identify certain funds directly attributed to the  executive order provisions from these documents, it was not always  possible to extract funds specifically meant for implementing the  executive order provisions from more general budget increase requests,  appropriations, or expenditures. To specifically identify funds used for the  executive order provisions, we reviewed agency documentation,  interviewed agency budget and program officials, and submitted written  questions as necessary. In instances where we were unable to  differentiate executive order provision funds from regular operating funds,  we identified the larger account used for executive order funds and noted  this distinction. We analyzed agency documentation on the policies,  procedures, and processes for maintaining budgetary data and  interviewed agency officials about their data collection practices to assess  the reliability of these data. We determined that the data were sufficiently  reliable for our purposes.
subsections: section_title: Executive Order: 13767

section_title: Provision Summary:

section_title: Key Agency(ies) Responsible:

section_title: Program Context:
subsections: section_title: Statutes enacted from 1996 through 2007 authorize DHS, subject to certain criteria, to take necessary actions to construct physical barriers and roads to deter illegal crossings in border areas experiencing high levels of illegal entry. As we previously reported in 2017, from fiscal years 2005 through 2015, CBP increased the total miles of primary border fencing on the southwest border from 119 miles to 654 miles.
paragraphs: Action Overview  CBP has taken initial steps to plan, design, and construct new and  replacement physical barriers on the southern border.

For instance, CBP began the acquisition process for a Border Wall  System Program, including developing plans to construct barrier  segments and awarding eight task orders with a total value of over $3  million to design and construct barrier prototypes (four made from  concrete and four made from non-concrete materials).

CBP selected San Diego, California as the first segment and plans to  replace an existing 14 miles of primary and secondary barriers.   DHS plans to use fiscal year 2017 funding for the replacement of the  primary barrier which it plans to rebuild to existing—as opposed to  prototype—design standards.

In January 2018, DHS leadership also approved cost, schedule, and  performance goals for a second segment in the Rio Grande Valley in  Texas, which will extend an existing barrier with 60 miles of new  fencing.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, stated that fiscal year 2018 funds for primary pedestrian fencing are  only available for “operationally effective designs deployed as of ,” such as steel bollard fencing  currently deployed in areas of the border. As of April 2018, CBP and DHS were evaluating what, if any, impact  this direction will have on the department’s plans, according to DHS officials.

Additionally, DHS waived specific legal restrictions, such as environmental restrictions, in order to begin  construction of barriers in the El Centro and San Diego Border Patrol sectors in California; and the Santa  Teresa, New Mexico segment of the El Paso Border Patrol Sector. DHS also completed a categorical  exclusion for replacement of a segment of existing barriers in El Paso, Texas.

Budget Overview  To fund the barrier prototypes, Congress approved a DHS request to reprogram $20 million in fiscal year 2017.  Specifically:

CBP reprogrammed $15 million from funds originally requested for Mobile Video Surveillance System  deployments. The funds were originally part of the fiscal year 2015/2017 Border Security Fencing,  Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) Development and Deployment funding and were available due to a  contract bid protest and delays associated with the Mobile Video Surveillance System Program.

CBP also reprogrammed $5 million from funds originally intended for a fence replacement project in Naco,  Arizona. The funds were part of fiscal year 2016 BSFIT Operations and Maintenance funding and were available  as a result of unanticipated contract savings. The Naco Fence Replacement project will be completed within its  original scope, according to CBP documentation.

DHS also received an appropriation in fiscal year 2017 to replace existing fencing and to install new gates; and an  appropriation in fiscal year 2018 for border barrier planning and design, and to replace existing fencing and build  new barriers. As previously discussed, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, limited the use of funds provided  for construction of new and replacement primary pedestrian fencing to previously deployed fencing designs. DHS  has requested, but has not received, fiscal year 2019 funds for building new barriers. For more information  regarding funding for future barrier construction projects along the southern border, see table 6.

According to CBP documentation, the total cost to construct the Border Wall System Program over approximately 10  years is $18 billion. DHS headquarters conducted an independent cost estimate for the San Diego and Rio Grande  Valley segments of the program, which CBP adopted as the program’s life cycle cost estimate. Acquisition and  operations and maintenance costs for the Rio Grande Valley segment were separately described in other DHS  documents and are shown in table 7 below.

Provision: Sections 5 and 6  Sections 5 and 6 pertain to detention  facilities and detention of foreign  nationals for violations of immigration  law, pending the outcome of their  proceedings or to facilitate removal.  The order directs the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) to take  immediate actions to construct,  operate, or control facilities to detain  foreign nationals at or near the  southern border, and assign asylum  officers to immigration detention  facilities, among other things.  Additionally, the order directs the  Department of Justice (DOJ) to  immediately assign immigration  judges to immigration detention  facilities.

DHS: U.S. Customs and Border  Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration  and Customs Enforcement (ICE),  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration  Services (USCIS)

DOJ: Executive Office for  Immigration Review (EOIR)

ICE and U.S. Border Patrol officials stated they consider custody  determinations on a case by case basis. Additionally, officials from CBP’s  Office of Field Operations stated they inspect all applicants for admission  in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, as prescribed by  the executive order and a February 2017 memorandum the Secretary of  Homeland Security issued.

ICE, through its Enforcement and  Removal Operations directorate,  manages the nation’s immigration  detention system, which houses  foreign nationals detained while their  immigration cases are pending or  after being ordered removed from  the country. DOJ’s EOIR is  responsible for conducting  immigration court proceedings,  appellate reviews, and administrative  hearings, pursuant to U.S.  immigration law and regulation.

ICE initially intended to increase bed capacity at detention facilities in  order to accommodate potential surges in apprehensions that could  result from implementation of the executive order. According to ICE  officials, ICE identified 1,100 additional beds available at detention  facilities already in use. However, officials also stated that, as of February  2018, ICE has not needed to use these additional beds due to a  decrease in the number of apprehensions.

Additionally, ICE officials indicated no acquisition actions were needed because contracts and agreements are  in place at existing detention facilities and additional beds are available for excess capacity. CBP and ICE are  continuously monitoring bed space requirements based on migration volume. According to ICE officials, as of  February 2018, ICE had no additional actions planned to increase bed capacity.

DHS’s Office of Strategy, Policy and Plans convened a cross-component meeting to discuss detention  standards, which govern the conditions of detainee confinement, according to DHS officials. ICE officials  reported that ICE is currently re-writing its national detention standards (the standards applicable at most county  jails housing immigration detainees). According to officials, the new standards are intended to make it easier for  local jurisdictions to comply with standards without completely re-writing their existing policies to conform to  ICE’s requirements.

USCIS officials told us they began working with ICE to identify where additional asylum officers were needed  based on workload needs and space availability as soon as the executive order was issued in January 2017.  From February 2017 through February 2018, USCIS deployed between 30 and 64 asylum officers during any  given week along the southern border and continues to do so in response to caseload needs. USCIS continues  to monitor and periodically adjust asylum officer staffing requirements, according to USCIS officials.

DOJ officials stated that DOJ components coordinated with ICE to identify removal caseloads along the southern  border that were large enough to warrant additional immigration judges. According to DOJ officials, from March  2017 through October 2017, EOIR detailed approximately 40 immigration judge positions, both in person and by  video teleconference, to 19 DHS detention facilities, including many along the southern border, in response to the  executive order. DOJ officials further explained that as caseloads fluctuated, some of the details ended, some in- person details were converted to video teleconference, and some details were converted to permanent immigration  judge positions. EOIR often details immigration judges for operational reasons; however officials noted that the  scale of this detail mobilization was larger because of the executive order.

Fiscal Year 2017: Because Executive Orders 13767 and 13768 were issued during fiscal year 2017, DHS  submitted a budget amendment and requested supplemental appropriations to address the needs of the  department in support of executive order implementation. The request proposed funding to increase daily  immigration detention capacity to 45,700 detention beds by the end of fiscal year 2017. The request stated that  the detention capacity was necessary to implement the administration’s immigration enforcement policies for  removing foreign nationals illegally entering or residing in the United States.

ICE: On May 5, 2017, ICE received a supplemental appropriation of $236.9 million for enforcement and  removal operations, including $147.9 million for custody operations, $57.4 million for alternatives to  detention, and $31.6 million for transportation and removal operations. According to ICE documentation,  almost all of the funds from that additional appropriation were obligated and expended at the conclusion of  fiscal year 2017, as shown in table 8.

USCIS: USCIS documentation estimated that it expended at least $4.2 million detailing asylum officers to  immigration detention facilities along the southern border from February 2017 through February 2018.

Fiscal Year 2018: The President’s budget requested an additional $1.5 billion above the 2017 annualized  continuing appropriations level, for expanded detention, transportation, and removal of foreign nationals who  enter, or remain in, the United States, in violation of U.S. immigration law. As part of the $1.5 billion requested,  the ICE congressional budget justification requested $1.2 billion in additional funds to support an average daily  population (ADP) of detainees of 51,379—a 49 percent increase over fiscal year 2016 ADP (34,376). The  request stated that Executive Order 13768 and subsequent department guidance were expected to drive  increases in the ADP due to the increase in ICE law enforcement officers and an expected increase in the  average length of stay at detention facilities. ICE also requested funds for transportation and alternatives to  detention. In fiscal year 2018, ICE was appropriated $4.1 billion to support enforcement and removal operations.  According to DHS officials, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, provides funds for an ADP of 40,520 total  beds, 10,859 lower than requested.

Fiscal Year 2019: The President’s budget requested $2.5 billion for detention and removal capacity. As part of  the $2.5 billion requested, ICE’s congressional budget justification states $2.3 billion will support an ADP of  47,000. According to the ICE congressional budget justification, the number of beds will sustain the fiscal year  2017 ADP level (38,106) and provide additional detention capacity stemming from the continued implementation  of Executive Order 13768. ICE also requested funds for transportation and alternatives to detention.

Prior GAO Work: Our prior work on immigration detention examined ICE’s formulation of its budget request and  cost estimate for detention resources. In April 2018, we found errors and inconsistencies in ICE’s calculations  for its congressional budget justifications and bed rate model. Specifically, we found that ICE made errors in its  budget justifications, underestimated the actual bed rate, and its methods for estimating detention costs did not  meet the characteristics of a reliable cost estimate. We also found ICE did not document its methodology for its  projected ADP. We recommended that ICE assess and update its adult bed rate and ADP methodology and  take steps to ensure that its budget estimating process fully addresses cost estimating best practices. DHS  concurred with our recommendations and plans to take actions in response to them.

Fiscal Year 2017: DOJ documentation showed it expended approximately $2.4 million detailing immigration  judge positions to immigration detention facilities from March 2017 through October 2017, either through video  teleconferencing, or in-person, to adjudicate removal proceedings. EOIR officials explained the funds used were  unobligated balances carried over from a prior fiscal year.

Fiscal Year 2018: For fiscal year 2018, DOJ requested an increase of $75 million to hire 75 additional  immigration judge teams to enhance public safety and law enforcement. According to DOJ officials, the  agency received sufficient funds in the fiscal year 2018 budget to meet this hiring goal.

Fiscal Year 2019: The fiscal year 2019 President’s budget also requests an increase of $40 million for 75 new  immigration judge teams at EOIR and nearly $40 million for 338 new prosecuting attorneys at ICE to ensure  immigration cases are heard expeditiously. According to the President’s budget, these investments are critical to  the prompt resolution of newly-brought immigration charges and to reduce the 650,000 backlog of cases  currently pending in the immigration courts. EOIR’s fiscal year 2019 congressional budget justification includes a  program increase totaling almost $65 million to provide funding for immigration judges and support staff, as well  as information technology efforts. This increase supports initiatives that implement Presidential and Attorney  General priority areas, among other things.

section_title: Provision Summary:
subsections: section_title: Section 11 directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure that parole is exercised on a case- by-case basis in accordance with existing statutory criteria, and that asylum referrals and credible and reasonable fear determinations are conducted in a manner consistent with relevant statute and regulation.

section_title: Key Agency(ies) Responsible:

section_title: Program Context:
paragraphs: USCIS has discretion to authorize  parole for urgent humanitarian  reasons or significant public benefit,  which it uses to allow an individual,  who may be inadmissible or  otherwise ineligible for admission to  come to the United States for a  temporary period. USCIS asylum  officers adjudicate asylum  applications filed with USCIS, and  conduct credible and reasonable fear  screenings to determine if certain  removable foreign nationals may be  eligible to seek particular forms of  relief or protection in immigration  court.

section_title: In fiscal year 2019, USCIS requested a total increase of $287.5 million for all programs, projects, and activities to support changes in operational requirements driven by changes to benefit request receipt volumes and complexity of work, including implementing the executive orders.
paragraphs: Additional Funds Saved and Expended:

According to USCIS officials, USCIS saved approximately $274,000 from not renewing contracts to  administer the Central American Minors Parole Program.

According to USCIS documentation, USCIS expended approximately $70,300 to deploy FDNS officers along  the southern border from March 2017 to February 2018.

section_title: Executive Order: 13767 and 13768

section_title: Provision Summary:

section_title: Key Agency(ies) Responsible:

section_title: Program Context:
subsections: section_title: CBP and ICE hiring demands are driven by various factors, such as national security objectives, executive-level policies, legislative mandates, and component-specific operational requirements. Border Patrol agents are to respond to, and interdict, cross-border threats and ICE officers are responsible for apprehending individuals within the United States who may be removable for various reasons, including entering the country illegally or being convicted of certain crimes.
paragraphs: Action Overview  DHS has taken a number of actions to implement the executive order hiring  provisions. Specifically, DHS requested and the Office of Personnel  Management approved a number of changes to assist DHS and its  components with the executive order hiring directives. These changes  include granting CBP and ICE direct hire authority and a special salary rate  for polygraphers, among others. DHS’s Office of the Chief Human Capital  Officer and DHS components’ human capital offices also began additional  hiring planning, such as refining component-level hiring plans, coordinating  on potential joint hiring events, and targeting specific recruitment efforts,  such as military veterans. CBP and ICE have also taken the following  additional actions:

CBP: In November 2017, CBP awarded a contract not to exceed $297  million to Accenture Federal Service LLC to help with law enforcement  hiring for all CBP components. The contract is structured so the  contractor receives a set dollar amount for each law enforcement officer  hired—80 percent for each final offer letter and 20 percent for each law  enforcement officer who enters on duty. The contractor is to assist CBP in hiring 7,500 qualified agents and officers, including 5,000 Border Patrol agents, 2,000 CBP officers, and 500 Air  and Marine Interdiction agents over 5 years. CBP expects Accenture to be fully operational and effectively provide  surge hiring capacity by June 2018, according to CBP officials.

ICE: According to ICE Office of Human Capital (OHC) officials, OHC is ensuring policies and procedures are in  place so that ICE is ready to begin hiring additional immigration officers and support staff if funds are  appropriated. In January 2018, ICE OHC also issued a contract solicitation for recruitment, market research,  data analytics, marketing, hiring, and onboarding activities. ICE OHC sought to procure comprehensive hiring  and recruitment services to assist ICE OHC in meeting the demands required to achieve the executive order’s  hiring goals and develop efficiencies to current OHC processes. ICE aimed to have a similar pricing structure as  CBP’s Accenture contract, according to the solicitation. Specifically, according to the solicitation, the yet to be  selected contractor would receive a set dollar amount for each frontline officer hired–80 percent for each  preliminary offer letter and 20 percent for each frontline officer who enters on duty. The contractor would assist  ICE in hiring 10,000 law enforcement agents, including 8,500 deportation officers and 1,500 criminal  investigators. It would also assist in the hiring of approximately 6,500 support personnel positions. In May 2018,  the contract solicitation was cancelled; however, the government anticipates re-soliciting the requirement in  fiscal year 2019. According to the contract cancellation notice and an ICE OHC official, DHS cancelled the  contract due to delays associated with the fiscal year 2018 budget and hiring timelines, as well as the limited  number of additional ICE positions funded in the fiscal year 2018 budget. In the interim, ICE is partnering with  the Office of Personnel Management to meet the executive order’s hiring goals and develop efficiencies to  current OHC processes, according to ICE officials.

Because Executive Orders 13767 and 13768 were issued during fiscal year 2017, DHS submitted a budget  amendment and requested supplemental appropriations to help address the needs of the department in support  of executive order implementation. The request included funding for DHS agencies to begin building the  administrative capacity necessary to recruit, hire, train and equip the additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents and  10,000 ICE officers. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), which provides training to law  enforcement professionals who protect the homeland, including any new ICE and CBP personnel hired as result  of the executive orders, also requested funds to support these efforts.

On May 5, 2017, CBP received an additional appropriation of $65.4 million to improve hiring processes for  Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, and Air and Marine Operations personnel, and for officer relocation  enhancements. Of the $65.4 million appropriated in fiscal year 2017, CBP obligated $18.8 million and  expended $14.1 million as of January 2018. While ICE also received additional funding for custody operations,  alternatives to detention, and transportation and removal, it did not receive supplemental funds in fiscal year  2017 specifically for hiring. DHS also requested funds for CBP, ICE, and FLETC hiring and training in fiscal year  2018 and fiscal year 2019. For additional details, see table 9.

According to FLETC officials, the total average cost to provide basic law enforcement training varies by  agencies and position, as shown in table 10. FLETC officials noted their partners also provide additional training  unique to their missions, which is not included in the costs below.

Action Overview  ICE officials reported expediting review of pending 287(g) requests and  approved 46 additional state and local jurisdictions for the program from  February 2017 through March 2018, bringing the total to 76 law enforcement  agencies in 20 states. See figure 2 for a map of additional jurisdictions  approved.

Section 10 and Section 8 of  Executive Orders 13767 and 13768,  respectively, direct the Department  of Homeland Security (DHS) to  engage with state and local entities  to enter into agreements under  Section 287(g) of the Immigration  and Nationality Act.

DHS: U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE)

The Illegal Immigration Reform and  Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996  added Section 287(g) to the  Immigration and Nationality Act,  which authorizes ICE to enter into  agreements with state and local law  enforcement agencies, permitting  designated state and local officers to  perform immigration law enforcement  functions.

According to ICE officials, ICE also conducted outreach with state and  local officials and identified potential law enforcement partners with whom  to enter into possible future 287(g) agreements. U.S. Customs and  Border Protection (CBP) officials stated that they agreed to support ICE’s  program expansion efforts and provided hundreds of viable state and  local law enforcement referrals to ICE to assist with this effort. For  example, CBP reviewed data and conducted a gap analysis, to include a  survey, to identify potential law enforcement partners for future 287(g)  memorandums of agreement.

CBP officials further noted that they introduced new language into Operation Stonegarden grant guidance that  allows the use of grant funding to support CBP-identified, 287(g) law enforcement operational activities.  According to CBP and ICE officials, efforts to develop a 287(g) enforcement model that can be used for this  purpose are pending.

According to ICE officials, the agency is considering developing a program under which designated local law  enforcement officers would be trained and authorized to serve and execute administrative warrants for  individuals who are in violation of U.S. immigration laws at the time they are released from state criminal  custody. ICE officials indicated that program participants would have limited authority under 287(g). For  example, they would not interview individuals regarding nationality and removability, lodge detainers, or process  individuals for removal. ICE has not yet finalized the program and it may evolve as ICE further develops the  program, according to ICE officials.

ICE is also leveraging an existing Basic Ordering Agreement, a procurement tool to expedite acquisition of a  substantial, but presently unknown, quantity of supplies or services, according to ICE officials. A Basic  Ordering Agreement is not a contract, but rather, is a written instrument of understanding, negotiated between  ICE and state and local jurisdictions, to house detainees upon ICE’s issuance and their acceptance of an  Immigration Detainer and either a Warrant for Arrest of Alien or Warrant of Removal. For any order placed under  the agreement, ICE will reimburse the provider, such as a state or local jurisdiction, for up to 48 hours of  detention, under applicable regulations. The rate will be fixed at $50.00 for up to 48 hours of detention. No  payment will be made for any detention beyond 48 hours.

The Secretary of Homeland Security vested authority in CBP to accept state services to carry out certain  immigration enforcement functions pursuant to Title 8, United States Code Section 1357(g). According to CBP  officials, CBP also joined a 287(g) Program Advisory Board, which reviews and assesses ICE field office  recommendations about pending 287(g) applications.

Participation in the 287(g) program is expected to expand further in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, according to  ICE. Additionally, ICE anticipates further increase in the number of 287(g) memorandums of agreement in fiscal  years 2018 and 2019.

In fiscal year 2018, ICE requested $24.3 million for ICE 287(g) program funding. According to the  explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, the 287(g) program was  fully funded at the requested level.

In fiscal year 2019, ICE requested $75.5 million for ICE 287(g) program funding.

section_title: Executive Order: 13767 and 13768
subsections: section_title: Provision: Sections 13 and 11

section_title: Provision Summary:
subsections: section_title: Section 13 of Executive Order 13767 directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to establish prosecution guidelines and allocate appropriate resources to ensure that federal prosecutors prioritize offenses with a nexus to the southern border.
paragraphs: Section 11 of Executive Order 13768  directs DOJ and the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) to develop  and implement a program to ensure  that adequate resources are devoted  to prosecuting criminal immigration  offenses, and to develop cooperative  strategies to reduce the reach of  transnational criminal organizations  and violent crime.

section_title: Key Agency(ies) Responsible:
paragraphs: border districts developed guidelines for prioritizing misdemeanor cases  involving individuals illegally entering the United States for the first time.  However, according to these officials, southern border districts developed  these guidelines based on an initial high volume of apprehensions, and  when apprehensions decreased the guidelines were no longer necessary  and never published.

DOJ: Executive Office for United  States Attorneys (EOUSA)

DHS: Immigration and Customs  Enforcement  (ICE)

EOUSA provides executive and  administrative support for United  States Attorneys and Assistant  United States Attorneys (AUSAs).  AUSAs conduct trial work, as  prosecutors, in which the United  States is a party, including  prosecution of criminal immigration  offenses.

Western District of Texas and Arizona, and two AUSAs each to the  Southern District of California, the District of New Mexico, and the  Southern District of Texas, for a total of 12 details according to DOJ  officials. The first round of details lasted for 6 months, and EOUSA  extended the details of one AUSA at each southern border district for an  additional 6 months. DOJ officials told us that EOUSA will continue to  evaluate the need for additional details along the southern border based  on the needs of the districts, as determined by the number of DHS  apprehensions. According to DOJ officials, implementation of these  provisions is ongoing and will depend largely upon DHS executive order  actions—for instance, as DHS hires more enforcement personnel,  criminal immigration cases may increase which could spur a need for  more AUSAs.

ICE litigates charges of removability  against foreign nationals and  conducts criminal investigations,  including investigations of  immigration fraud.

The Secretary of Homeland Security released a memorandum with  guidance on the enforcement of immigration laws in the United States on  February 20, 2017. In response to this memorandum, ICE’s Office of  the Principal Legal Advisor sent guidance to its attorneys directing them  to prioritize legal services supporting the timely removal of foreign  nationals in accordance with Executive Order 13768. The guidance directed ICE to review all cases previously  administratively closed based on prosecutorial discretion to determine whether the basis for closure remains  appropriate under DHS’s enforcement priorities. The guidance also directed ICE to coordinate with the  Executive Office for Immigration Review to ensure that foreign nationals charged as removable and who meet  the enforcement priorities remain on active immigration court dockets and that their cases are completed as  expeditiously as possible.

In response to the executive orders, ICE Homeland Security Investigations officials stated that the agency  began to focus more of its resources on the investigation and criminal prosecution of immigration fraud. ICE  Homeland Security Investigations added five new Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces throughout the  nation and directed field offices to increase staffing of task forces. Additionally, ICE is in the process of  combining five Benefit Fraud Units into an immigration fraud center—the National Lead Development Center—  that will serve as a new centralized entity that will refer cases to the task forces for enforcement action.

A summary of DOJ budget increase requests, appropriations, and expenditures related to prosecution priorities in  the executive orders that we identified can be found in table 11.

The fiscal year 2018 President’s budget request included $19.3 million for 195 attorney positions in ICE’s Office of  the Principal Legal Advisor. According to ICE officials, while the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, included  funds for 70 positions for the Homeland Security Investigations Law Division, it did not include funds for additional  attorney positions for immigration litigation within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor.

The fiscal year 2019 President’s budget request included $39.7 million for additional attorney resources in ICE’s  Office of the Principal Legal Advisor.

Provision: Sections 5 and 10  Sections 5 and 10 direct the  Department of Homeland Security  (DHS) to take action related to  immigration enforcement.  Specifically, Section 5 directs DHS to  prioritize the removal of certain  categories of removable foreign  nationals. Section 10 directs DHS to  terminate the Priority Enforcement  Program (PEP) and reinstitute  Secure Communities, among other  things.

DHS: U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs  and Border Protection (CBP)

Under PEP (from 2015 to 2017), ICE  issued a request for detainer (with  probable cause of removability) or  information or transfer, for a priority  removable individual, such as one  posing a threat to national security or  public safety, including a foreign  national convicted of a felony, among  others, under DHS’s former tiered  civil enforcement categories. Under  Secure Communities, ICE may issue  detainers for removable individuals  charged, but not yet convicted, of  criminal offenses, in addition to  individuals subject to a final order of  removal whether or not they have a  criminal history.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13768, the Secretary of Homeland Security  terminated PEP and reinstituted the Secure Communities program. As  such, DHS is no longer required to utilize a tiered approach to civil  immigration enforcement with direction to dedicate resources to those  deemed of highest priority. Instead, under Section 5 of the executive  order, various categories of removable individuals are general priorities  for removal, and DHS personnel may initiate enforcement actions against  all removable persons they encounter. Further, the DHS memorandum  implementing this executive order allows ICE, CBP, and USCIS to  allocate resources to prioritize enforcement activities within these  categories, such as by prioritizing enforcement against convicted felons  or gang members.

As part of this effort, ICE reported it reviewed policies, regulations, and  forms relevant to enforcement priorities. ICE subsequently rescinded  prior enforcement priority guidance and issued new guidance directing  application of the new approach to immigration enforcement prioritization.  Additionally, ICE eliminated existing forms and created a new form to  place detainers on foreign nationals who have been arrested on local  criminal charges and for whom ICE possesses probable cause to believe  that they are removable from the United States, so that ICE can take  custody of such individuals upon release.

According to ICE officials, more than 43,300 convicted criminal aliens have been identified and removed through  Secure Communities from January 25, 2017 through the end of fiscal year 2017.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13768 and in accordance with the Secretary of Homeland Security’s memorandum  entitled, Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal  Operations (ERO) expanded the use of the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) by increasing the use of Criminal  Alien Program Surge Enforcement Team (CAPSET) operations, traditional CAP Surge operations, and the  Institutional Hearing Program. Specifically, ICE took the following actions:  ICE ERO conducted four CAPSET operations in Louisiana, Georgia, and California in fiscal year 2017,  resulting in a total of 386 encounters, 275 detainers, and 261 charging documents issued, according to ICE  documentation.

ICE ERO field offices conducted CAP Surge operations, which concluded in March 2017. According to ICE  documentation, the operations collectively resulted in 2,061 encounters, 668 arrests, 1,307 detainers issued,  and 614 charging documents issued.

ICE, along with the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Federal Bureau  of Prisons, expanded the number of Institutional Hearing Program sites by nine, from 12 to 21. As of  January 22, 2018, five of the nine Institutional Hearing Program expansion sites were operational.

ICE officials reported that ICE also detailed over 30 percent more officers (79 officers) to support Community  Shield efforts, an international law enforcement initiative to combat the growth and proliferation of transnational  criminal street gangs, prison gangs, and outlaw motorcycle gangs throughout the United States.

According to ICE officials, CAP used existing resources in fiscal year 2017 to support the efforts required by  Executive Order 13768.

ICE also requested funds in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 for CAP. Specifically, ICE stated in its fiscal year 2018  and 2019 congressional budget justifications that CAP performs its duties in accordance with immigration  enforcement priorities defined by Executive Order 13768.

In fiscal year 2018, ICE requested $412.1 million for CAP. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018,  funded $319.4 million for CAP, $92.6 million less than requested.

Section 9 directs the Department of  Justice (DOJ) and the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure  that jurisdictions in willful  noncompliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373  (section 1373) are ineligible to  receive federal grants. The section  also directs DOJ to take appropriate  enforcement action against any  entity that violates section 1373, or  which has in effect a policy, statute,  or practice that prevents or hinders  the enforcement of federal law.

section_title: Key Agency(ies) Responsible:

section_title: Program Context:
paragraphs: conducted a compliance review of certain jurisdictions relative to 8 U.S.C.  § 1373, and issued a report in May 2016 finding that 10 jurisdictions  raised compliance concerns. In response, DOJ placed a special  condition on certain fiscal year 2016 grant awards, requiring recipients to  submit an assessment of their compliance with section 1373. In  November 2017, as part of the section 1373 compliance effort predating  Executive Order 13768, DOJ sent letters to 29 jurisdictions expressing  concern that they may not be in compliance with section 1373, and  requesting responses regarding compliance. In January 2018, DOJ  sent 23 follow-up demand letters to jurisdictions seeking further  documents to determine whether they are unlawfully restricting  information sharing by their law enforcement officers with federal  immigration authorities, and stating that failure to respond will result in  records being subpoenaed.

The Attorney General determined  that Section 9 will be applied solely  to DOJ or DHS federal grants for  jurisdictions willfully refusing to  comply with section 1373. Under  section 1373, a federal, state, or  local government entity or official  may not prohibit, or in any way  restrict the exchange of information  regarding citizenship or immigration  status with DHS.

ICE developed weekly Declined Detainer Outcome Reports detailing jurisdictions with the highest volume of  declined detainers and a list of sample crimes suspected or determined to have been committed by released  individuals. According to ICE officials, ICE identified data processing errors and incorrect detainer  information and is working to correct these issues. ICE officials noted that they temporarily suspended the  reports, and have not yet determined a specific time frame for future publications.

DHS reviewed all DHS grant programs to determine which programs could be conditioned to require compliance  with section 1373 and plans to provide this information to the Office of Management and Budget, according to  DHS officials.

DOJ has not obligated, expended, or requested any additional funds to implement Executive Order 13768, section  9(a).

The fiscal year 2019 President’s budget proposed to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant  Responsibility Act of 1996 to condition DHS and DOJ grants and cooperative agreements on state and local  governments’ cooperation with immigration enforcement.

Section 2 directed multiple agencies,  including the Department of State  (State) and Department of Homeland  Security (DHS), to conduct a  worldwide review to identify any  additional information needed from  each foreign country to adjudicate  immigration benefit applications and  ensure that individuals applying for a  visa or other immigration benefit are  not a security or public safety threat.  It also directed the agencies to send  a report of the findings of the  worldwide review to the President.  This section further established visa  entry restrictions applicable to  foreign nationals from Iran, Libya,  Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen  for a 90-day period. It also stated  that agencies, including State and  DHS, could continue to submit  additional countries for inclusion in  visa entry restrictions.

Section 5 required agencies,  including State, DHS, and the  Department of Justice (DOJ), to  develop a uniform baseline for  screening and vetting to identify  individuals seeking to enter the  United States on a fraudulent basis  or who support terrorism or  otherwise pose a danger to national  security or public safety. practices based on the criteria identified above. In July 2017, State  directed its posts to inform their respective host governments of the new  information-sharing criteria and request that host governments provide  the required information or develop a plan to do so. CA directed posts to  engage more intensively with countries whose information-sharing and  identity-management practices were preliminarily deemed “inadequate”  or “at risk” and submit an assessment of mitigating factors or specific  interests that should be considered in the deliberations regarding any  travel restrictions. According to officials, State and its posts will continue  to engage with foreign countries to address information-sharing and  identify management deficiencies.

section_title: Key Agency(ies) Responsible:
paragraphs: State: Bureau of Consular Affairs  (CA), DHS, and DOJ  CA provides consular services in  reviewing and adjudicating visa  applications for those seeking to  enter the United States. DHS  adjudicates visa petitions, and DHS  and DOJ also play roles in screening  and vetting applicants. DHS and  DOJ, along with State, are  responsible for implementing the  enhanced screening and vetting  protocols established under the  executive order.

June 29, 2017 through September 24, 2017. During the implementation  period, if an applicant was found ineligible for a visa on other grounds  unrelated to the executive order, such as prior criminal activity or  immigration violations, the applicant would be refused the visa on those  grounds, according to State officials. If the applicant was found to be  otherwise eligible for the visa and did not qualify for an exemption or a  waiver under the executive order, he or she would be refused on the  basis of the executive order. CA sent several cables to posts with  guidance on implementing the 90-day travel restriction, including  operational guidance and updated guidance following court decisions. CA  also offered trainings to consular posts on implementation of the order.

A series of legal challenges ultimately led to the June 26, 2017 Supreme Court decision prohibiting enforcement  of entry restrictions against foreign nationals who could credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or  entity in the United States.

On September 24, 2017, pursuant to section 2(e) of Executive Order 13780, the President issued Presidential  Proclamation 9645, which established conditional restrictions on U.S. entry for certain categories of nationals  from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and Somalia, for an indefinite period.

According to State officials, State, DHS, DOJ, and other agencies formed a working group and developed a  uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures to ensure ineligible individuals are not  permitted to enter the United States, and are implementing the new requirements. The working group conducted  a review of the visa screening and vetting process and established uniform standards for (1) applications, (2)  interviews, and (3) system security checks, including biographic and biometric checks. According to State  officials, for applications, the group identified data elements against which applicants are to be screened and  vetted. For interviews, the working group established a requirement for all applicants to undergo a baseline  uniform national security and public safety interview. The working group modeled its interview baseline on  elements of the refugee screening interview.

As of June 2017, State collected most of the data elements online for immigrant and nonimmigrant visas,  according to State officials.

The President issued a memorandum on February 6, 2018, directing DHS, in coordination with State, DOJ, and  the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to establish a national vetting center to coordinate agency  vetting efforts to identify individuals who pose a threat to national security, border security, homeland security,  and public safety. The National Vetting Center will be housed in DHS, and will leverage the capabilities of the  U.S. intelligence community to identify, and prevent entry of, individuals that may pose a threat to national  security. On February 14, 2018, the Secretary of Homeland Security appointed a director for the National Vetting  Center. The Secretary also delegated authorities of the National Vetting Center to the Commissioner of U.S.  Customs and Border Protection.

State officials said that personnel worked overtime to implement Section 2 and the following Presidential  Proclamation, but did not identify monetary costs or budget increases associated with implementation. DHS also  dedicated several full-time staff positions to developing and implementing enhanced screening and vetting  protocols, and DHS employees worked overtime to implement these provisions, according to officials.

Section 6 directed the Department of  State (State) to suspend travel of  refugees seeking to enter the United  States, and the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) to  suspend adjudications on refugee  applications, for 120 days. Section 6  further ordered that during the 120- day period, State, together with DHS,  and the Office of the Director of  National Intelligence review the  refugee application and adjudication  process to identify and implement  additional procedures to ensure that  refugees seeking entry into the  United States under the United  States Refugee Admissions Program  (USRAP) do not pose a threat to  U.S. security and welfare. This  section also capped annual refugee  admission at 50,000 in fiscal year  2017.

State generally suspended travel of refugees into the United States from  June 29, 2017 through October 24, 2017.

State coordinated with DHS, the Office of the Director of National  Intelligence, and other security vetting agencies on the 120-day review of  the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what  additional procedures should be used to ensure that individuals seeking  admission as refugees do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of  the United States, according to State officials. Upon completion of the  review, the agencies submitted a joint memorandum to the President.

The United States admitted 53,716 refugees in fiscal year 2017,  according to State officials. Throughout fiscal year 2017, State issued  guidance that steered the refugee admissions program to different  refugee arrival goals during different periods of time due to court  decisions and budget considerations. Prior to the issuance of Executive  Order 13769, which, after largely being blocked nationwide by a federal  court injunction was revoked and replaced by Executive Order 13780,  PRM operated at the rate of 110,000 refugees per year. After the  issuance of Executive Orders 13769 and 13780, PRM officials noted that  at times, State made no bookings for refugee arrivals, and also made  bookings based on 50,000 arrivals, as well as 110,000 arrivals.

section_title: Key Agency(ies) Responsible:

section_title: Program Context:
paragraphs: A series of legal challenges and resulting court injunctions culminated in the  June 26, 2017, Supreme Court order limiting State’s implementation of this  section to prospective refugees without bona fide ties to the United States.   Together with budget uncertainties, State could not enact the refugee travel  suspension or 50,000-person admissions cap based on the timeline set in  the executive order. Figure 3 below shows key milestones related to this  section of the order.

The USRAP resettles refugees to the  United States in accordance with a  refugee admission ceiling set by the  President each year. PRM is  responsible for coordinating and  managing the USRAP. USCIS is  responsible for adjudicating refugee  applications.

According to USCIS officials, USCIS is implementing new requirements and vetting procedures for refugees. For  example, these officials stated that USCIS is accessing more detailed biographical information earlier in the  vetting process. Additionally, these officials noted that USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security unit is  conducting additional reviews of applicants, including social media and other information against various  databases. USCIS officials further noted that USCIS’s International Operations office sent guidance to the field  that established the logistical requirements of the new procedures. As of April 2018, USCIS was finalizing further  guidance and training officers for the enhanced review and vetting procedures, according to USCIS officials.

State officials said that State and DHS executed four categories of exemptions during the 120-day USRAP  suspension: a Congolese woman with a life-threatening illness and her family; 29 unaccompanied refugee  minors; 17 Yezidis and other religious minorities in northern Iraq who had been victims of ISIS; and 53  individuals on Nauru and Manus Islands.

section_title: Provision Summary:
subsections: section_title: Section 9 directs the Department of State (State) to suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program, subject to certain exceptions. To support this, the provision also directs State to expand the Consular Fellows program so that visa wait times are not unduly affected. The provision also directs State to make language training available to Consular Fellows outside of their core linguistic abilities.

section_title: Key Agency(ies) Responsible:

section_title: Program Context:
paragraphs: appointments by 12 months. In October 2017, State approved extending  offers for follow-on 60-month Limited Non-Career Appointments to  Consular Fellows who complete a successful initial 60-month  appointment. State officials noted the first officer to accept a follow-on  appointment was sworn in during April 2018. CA and State’s Bureau of  Human Resources updated the CA Limited Non-Career Appointments  handbook to include an implementation plan for extending such  appointments, and according to officials, providing language training  outside of the applicant’s area of core linguistic ability.

Consular Fellows serve in U.S.  embassies and consulates overseas  and primarily adjudicate visa  applications for foreign nationals.  The Visa Interview Waiver Program  formerly waived in-person interviews  for certain categories of visa  applicants.

In early 2017, State streamlined the application process for Consular  Fellows and realigned resources to expedite their security clearance  process, according to CA officials. From February 2017 through February  2018, State hired 134 new Consular Fellows, according to CA officials.  Additionally, State officials said that they expect to hire 120 more  Consular Fellows for the remainder of fiscal year 2018.

In August 2017, the Foreign Service Institute created a 12-week Spanish  Language program for Consular Fellows who received certain scores on  the Spanish language exam, according to CA officials. Eleven Consular  Fellows completed the program in January 2018 and 20 more are  expected to complete the program in July 2018, according to CA officials.  As of January 2018, five Consular fellows were being trained in a  language outside their core linguistic ability, according to CA officials.

While these actions were taken to support implementation of the  executive order, CA officials also told us that hiring Consular Fellows has  been a State priority for some time. CA officials said that the bureau has  hired an increasing number of Consular Fellows to meet worldwide visa  demand since 2012, and that providing consular services is one of  State’s highest priorities, as well as a national security imperative.

According to CA officials, because the Consular Fellows program is  entirely funded by non-appropriated consular fees, subject to fluctuating  demand for passports and visas, the expansion of the program did not  have appropriations impacts. However, officials did provide per unit costs  associated with aspects of expanding the Consular Fellows program. For  example, Consular Fellows salaries range from approximately $48,000 to  approximately $98,000 and Foreign Service Institute language courses  last from 24 to 36 weeks, at a cost of $1,700 per week, per student.

section_title: Appendix II: Executive Order Reports
paragraphs: Executive orders 13767 (Border Security and Immigration Enforcement  Improvements), 13768 (Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the  United States), and 13780 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist  Entry into the United States) include reporting requirements for the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State  (State), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Table 13 lists completed  reports as of April 2018, according to DHS, State, and DOJ officials.

section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Taylor Matheson (Assistant  Director), Sarah Turpin (Analyst-in-Charge), Isabel Band, and Kelsey  Hawley made key contributions to this report, along with David Alexander,  Eric Hauswirth, Sasan J. “Jon” Najmi, Kevin Reeves, and Adam Vogt.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: How did DHS, DOJ, and State use the existing fiscal year 2017 resources?
answer: DHS, DOJ, and State used existing fiscal year 2017 resources to support initial executive order actions that fit within their established mission areas.
child_questions: question: How did the agencies deploy personnel and time?
answer: All three agencies indicated that they used existing personnel to implement the orders and, in some cases, these efforts took substantial time. For example, according to ICE data, personnel spent about 14,000 regular hours (the equivalent of 1,750 8-hour days) and 2,400 overtime hours planning for the ICE hiring surge from January 2017 through January 2018.

question: What problem did GAO encounter with assessing these actions?
answer: GAO found that it was not always possible to disaggregate which fiscal year 2017 funds were used for implementation of the orders versus other agency activities.

questions: question: What budget action did the President take in March 2017?
answer: In March 2017, the President submitted a budget amendment along with a request for $3 billion in supplemental appropriations for DHS to implement the orders.
child_questions: question: What did the DHS recieve as a result of the President's request?
answer: In May 2017, DHS received an appropriation of just over $1.1 billion, some of which DHS used to fund actions to implement the orders.
child_questions: question: How did DHS use these funds?
answer: For example, CBP received $65 million for hiring and, according to CBP officials, used these funds to plan and prepare for the surge in U.S. Border Patrol agents. As of January 2018, CBP had obligated $18.8 million of the $65 million.

questions: question: How do agencies intend to carry out their responsibilities?
answer: Agencies plan to continue to use their base budgets and request additional funds as needed to carry out their missions and implement the orders.
child_questions: question: What is an example of an agency requesting additional funds?
answer: For example, for fiscal year 2018, CBP requested approximately $1.6 billion and received (in March 2018) approximately $1.3 billion to build new and replace existing sections of physical barriers along the southern border.

question: Why did other agencies request additional funds?
answer: For fiscal year 2019, ICE requested $571 million to hire 2,000 immigration officers and DOJ requested approximately $40 million to hire new immigration judges and supporting staff.

questions: question: To what did the President's executive orders in January and March 2017 relate?
answer: In January and March 2017, the President issued a series of executive orders related to border security and immigration.
child_questions: question: How did the orders affect federal agencies?
answer: The orders direct federal agencies to take a broad range of actions with potential resource implications.
child_questions: question: What does Executive Order 13767 instruct DHS to do?
answer: For example, Executive Order 13767 instructs DHS to construct a wall or other physical barriers along the U.S. southern border and to hire an additional 5,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents.

question: What are the implications of Executive Order 13768?
answer: Executive Order 13768 instructs federal agencies, including DHS and DOJ, to ensure that U.S immigration law is enforced against all removable individuals and directs ICE to hire an additional 10,000 immigration officers.

question: What does Executive Order 13780 direct agencies to do?
answer: Executive Order 13780 directs agencies to develop a uniform baseline for screening and vetting standards and procedures; and established nationality-based entry restrictions with respect to visa travelers for a 90-day period, and refugees for 120 days.

questions: question: What was GAO asked to do?
answer: GAO was asked to review agencies' implementation of the executive orders and related spending.
child_questions: question: How did GAO complete its research?
answer: GAO reviewed agency planning, tracking, and guidance documents related to the orders, as well as budget requests, appropriations acts, and internal budget information. GAO also interviewed agency officials regarding actions and budgetary costs associated with implementing the orders.

question: What does this report cover?
answer: This report addresses (1) actions DHS, DOJ, and State have taken, or plan to take, to implement provisions of the executive orders; and (2) resources to implement provisions of the executive orders, particularly funds DHS, DOJ, and State have obligated, expended, or shifted.