From Policy to Procurement: How the OBBB is Reshaping DHS Operations and Contracting

With the signing of the “big beautiful bill” (OBBB), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has secured an unprecedented $171 billion investment—ushering in the most expansive period of immigration enforcement funding in U.S. history. The bill’s sweeping provisions include $45 billion for new detention infrastructure, the hiring of 10,000+ ICE agents, and a massive acceleration in border construction and operational readiness.

As DHS prepares to operationalize this funding, the scale of implementation raises critical questions for contractors, policymakers, and state/local partners alike. What happens next—from policy to procurement—is where the real story begins.

In this interview, I spoke with Sue Armstrong, a DHS expert with more than three decades in homeland security, investigations, and infrastructure protection, to explore how the OBBB is reshaping agency operations, procurement priorities, and private-sector opportunity across the homeland security ecosystem.

You’ve tracked DHS for years. How would you describe the scale and speed of change introduced by the OBBB—and how does this compare to previous cycles of immigration enforcement funding?

I would call this current proposed funding cycle unprecedented. Back in the pre-DHS INS era, I recall shifts like turning the Border Patrol into a constant visible presence (sometimes called “standing on the X”) and pushes for Citizenship USA. In recent years, we’ve seen wall enhancements and enforcement expansion—but nothing near the scale anticipated under OBBB. One especially significant provision is the expansion of 287(g), which allows state and local law enforcement agencies to carry out immigration enforcement functions under ICE supervision. This opens new paths for detention facility upgrades, expanded staffing, and stronger local-federal partnership models.

The $171 billion topline is striking, but what are the line items that stand out to you most from a contractor’s perspective—whether in infrastructure, staffing, logistics, or operational support?

Several areas stand out. First, staffing growth will be substantial—not only across ICE and investigations, but also Border Patrol and possibly deputized USCIS fraud investigators. That means increased demand for training, support staff, IT infrastructure, and logistics. On infrastructure, the need for both detention and office space is urgent: press reports have flagged ICE’s request for over 300 new offices to support 10,000 new hires. Port screening enhancements, non-intrusive inspection technology, and conveyance screening will also see expansion. Logistics support—transportation, monitoring equipment for alternatives to detention—and a push toward a unified “ImmigrationOS” for data integration round out the picture from my view.

With $45 billion earmarked for detention infrastructure, and much of it expected to be privately operated, what kind of procurement activity should we expect to see in the short term?

We should expect a surge in leasing, renovations, and new construction contracts for detention infrastructure. Alongside that, solicitations for supporting services—legal counseling, IT support, screening systems, operations and maintenance, and contractual support staff—will likely flood the market. These supporting contracts will be critical for turning new detention capacity and systems into functioning enforcement tools.

The bill also reinvigorates operational collaboration between DHS and DoD. What does that look like in practice—and what implications does it have for contractors?

Historically, DHS and DoD have cooperated in cyber, critical infrastructure, disaster response, and border surveillance. Under OBBB, this collaboration will have greater urgency and scale. Events like the 2026 World Cup, 2028 Olympics, and America250 require synchronized planning across federal, state, and local lines. The renewed emphasis on defense-critical infrastructure—power, water, communications—means contractors in contingency and base support sectors should watch for crossover opportunities between defense and homeland domains.

Are you seeing signals around innovative procurement approaches—like OTAs or public-private R&D accelerators—making their way into DHS?

Yes. DHS is increasingly embracing innovative acquisition models such as Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs) and consortium-based pilots. For example, DHS’s Commercial Solutions Opening Pilot (CSOP) is streamlining how the agency connects with commercial technology providers. Similarly, the U.S. Coast Guard’s Force Design 2028 strategy emphasizes faster acquisition and integration of modern capabilities. These signals suggest a more agile and inclusive approach to procurement, especially for companies outside the traditional defense-industrial base.

Finally, what advice would you give to contractors and new entrants hoping to engage DHS in this next cycle of procurement? What matters most now: capabilities, speed, or relationships?

All are essential. But to be effective, contractors must first understand who inside DHS turns a concept or pilot into a program of record—then cultivate relationships there. Past performance and geographic footprint matter, especially if your work stimulates local jobs or congressional impact. Also, stay vigilant on legal and compliance issues, including Flores Consent Decree (the 1997 settlement governing treatment of minors in federal custody). These frameworks will influence how enforcement and detention obligations are implemented moving forward.

About Sue Armstrong

Sue Armstrong is a homeland security expert with over three decades in federal service. She served as a Criminal Investigator at the State Department and GSA Inspector General and was Assistant Director of Internal Investigations at the legacy INS.

From DHS’s inception in 2003, she has held leadership roles in infrastructure protection, policy development, and strategic oversight. Her work includes developing the 2006, 2009, and 2013 National Infrastructure Protection Plans, implementing PPD-21 on critical infrastructure, and contributing to infrastructure-related executive orders, such as EO 14081, which safeguards the U.S. bioeconomy.

Sue holds a B.A. and an M.S. in Criminal Justice from American University.

About Bibiana Rais

Bibiana Rais is a GovCon strategist with two decades of experience helping U.S. and European contractors expand through growth and go-to-market strategies. She specializes in competitive positioning and strategic engagements across defense, diplomacy, security, logistics, and stability operations programs. Drawing on her global track record in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe, she now advises from Washington, D.C., delivering executive marketing insights, growth strategies, and industry intelligence that drive results in the government contracting sector.

Explainer: What is 287(g)?

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to delegate certain federal immigration enforcement powers to state and local law enforcement agencies through formal agreements. These partnerships are governed by Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) and require ICE-led training, oversight, and reporting standards. Under the program, designated officers may perform functions such as interviewing individuals about their immigration status, checking databases, and issuing detainers—all while operating under ICE supervision. First enacted under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, the program has evolved across multiple administrations. Today, it remains one of DHS’s most prominent local enforcement force-multipliers. As of September 30, 2025, ICE has signed 1,036 Memorandums of Agreement for 287(g) programs covering 40 states. These include JEM agreements with 133 law enforcement agencies in 28 states, 287(g) Warrant Service Officer (WSO) agreements with 381 agencies in 35 states, and 287(g) Task Force Model (TFM) agreements with 522 agencies in 35 states. Civil rights groups have raised concerns about 287(g)’s impact on community policing, racial profiling, and immigrant trust in local authorities. Several jurisdictions have opted out or restricted participation due to legal, political, or public safety concerns. Learn more