Written by Samuel Thompson.
A recent probe by the Department of Government Efficiency has laid bare a troubling lapse in oversight during the previous administration. Thousands of individuals flagged as potential security risks were not only allowed into the country but also granted access to Social Security numbers and public assistance programs. For Americans who value safety and fiscal responsibility, these revelations raise hard questions about how such policies took root and what must be done to prevent their return.
Flawed Parole Practices Exposed
The Department of Government Efficiency’s findings paint a stark picture: over 14 million unauthorized border crossings occurred under the prior administration, including more than two million undetected entries. Among them were 6,300 individuals paroled into the U.S. despite being listed on the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Dataset or having criminal records. These parole programs, later deemed unlawful by federal courts, allowed entry with minimal vetting, a departure from standard immigration protocols.
Parole, intended as a narrow tool for humanitarian or public benefit cases, was expanded to include millions, many flown into the U.S. on taxpayer-funded flights. For a small business owner watching every penny, the idea that such funds supported unverified entrants—some tied to groups like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, active in over 20 states—feels like a breach of trust.
Taxpayer Resources Misallocated
The scope of benefits granted to these individuals is no less striking. All 6,300 flagged parolees received Social Security numbers, unlocking access to work authorization and federal programs. Some 905 collected $276,000 in Medicaid, including four on the terrorist watchlist. Another 41 pocketed $42,000 in unemployment benefits, while 22 secured $280,000 in student loans. Tax refunds in 2024 saw 409 of them claim $751,000, and several tapped into food assistance programs.
These aren’t abstract figures. Consider a nurse working overtime, her taxes supporting programs meant for citizens in need, only to learn they’ve been diverted to individuals with questionable backgrounds. The numbers, while not massive in the federal budget’s context, erode confidence when every dollar counts for families balancing groceries and rent.
The prior administration’s approach leaned heavily on parole to manage border surges, with over one million Venezuelans alone entering under these terms. Yet the lack of robust screening left gaps that groups like Tren de Aragua exploited, spreading crime from coast to coast. The contrast with past decades, where parole was used sparingly, underscores how far policy veered off course.
Security Risks at the Borders
The influx brought unprecedented challenges to both borders. Between 2021 and 2024, a record 1,903 known or suspected terrorists were apprehended—the highest in U.S. history. Of these, 1,216 crossed from Canada at the northern border, where sparse patrols and limited surveillance have long hindered enforcement. The southwest border saw 687 such apprehensions, a sharp rise from prior years. Unlike the south, where agents track “gotaways,” the northern border’s vast stretches—sometimes one agent per 500 miles—make it a blind spot.
This isn’t just about numbers; it’s about what slips through. The northern border’s vulnerabilities, compounded by weaker Canadian vetting processes, have worried security experts for years. For a parent sending kids to school, the thought of undetected entrants with terrorist ties moving freely is a quiet dread that policy failures amplify.
Under the prior administration, parole programs didn’t just release people—they embedded them in communities without a clear removal plan. The Terrorist Screening Dataset, meant to flag threats, was underutilized, letting 6,300 risky individuals settle in. The current administration has since ended these programs, prioritizing arrests and deportations, but the damage lingers in public unease.
Our Take
The Department of Government Efficiency’s report reveals a system stretched beyond reason, where expediency trumped caution. Granting benefits to thousands flagged as potential threats isn’t just a misstep—it’s a betrayal of the public’s expectation for safety. The prior administration’s parole policies, however well-intentioned, opened doors that should’ve stayed locked, and the costs, both financial and social, hit hardest those who play by the rules.
Restoring order means more than ending bad programs; it demands a commitment to vetting that matches the threats we face. Americans deserve a government that guards its borders and their wallets with equal care. The path forward isn’t easy, but it starts with learning from these failures and ensuring they don’t repeat.
