According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 36 is estimated to have a negative impact of $7.15 million on General Revenue-related funds for the 2026–27 biennium. The bill does not make a direct appropriation but could serve as the legal basis for appropriating funds to support the establishment and operation of the Homeland Security Division within the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS).

To implement the new division, DPS anticipates the need for 23 new full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, spanning administrative, infrastructure protection, and preparedness functions. Administrative staffing includes leadership and budgeting roles, while infrastructure protection and preparedness sections will require data analysts, project managers, and program specialists. Personnel costs—including salaries and benefits—are projected at approximately $3 million per year, with additional costs for supplies, travel, equipment, and capital expenses totaling around $717,000 in FY 2026 and $388,000 in FY 2027.

Over a five-year horizon, the costs remain consistent at about $3.41 million annually beyond FY 2026. Despite the financial outlay, the bill is not expected to impose significant fiscal burdens on local governments. The analysis acknowledges that while the division will take over management of initiatives like Operation Drawbridge and the Border Security Operations Center, these duties cannot be absorbed within existing DPS resources and thus require dedicated new funding and staffing.

Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 36 unless amended as described below. While the bill aims to improve the coordination of Texas' homeland security and border operations by creating a Homeland Security Division within the Department of Public Safety (DPS), it does so in a way that raises significant concerns about the expansion of government authority—both administratively and in its practical influence over law enforcement strategy. The bill establishes new staffing (23 full-time positions), new operational roles, and centralized oversight of existing programs, resulting in a projected cost of $7.15 million over the 2026–27 biennium​. Without sufficient checks, these provisions amount to a real and lasting expansion of the state’s bureaucratic and operational footprint.

In addition to fiscal concerns, the bill risks centralizing influence over law enforcement priorities in a way that could blur the line between coordination and active enforcement authority. Although the legislation does not formally create new policing powers, the division’s control over surveillance infrastructure (such as Operation Drawbridge), coordination of intelligence centers, and development of tactical plans gives it broad leverage over law enforcement activities across state and local jurisdictions. Without explicit guardrails, this could evolve into a centralized policing apparatus that weakens local control and increases executive overreach.

To preserve the bill’s core intent while aligning it with principles of limited government, local control, and fiscal responsibility, the following amendments are recommended:

• Sunset Provision: Require automatic legislative review and reauthorization of the Homeland Security Division after a fixed term (e.g., six years).
• Performance Audits and Transparency: Mandate independent performance evaluations and public reporting on the division’s activities and outcomes.
• Staffing and Budget Cap: Impose statutory limits on personnel and expenditures unless increased by future appropriations.
• Narrow Grant and Budget Coordination Role: Clarify that the division’s involvement in grant and budget planning is advisory, not directive, to prevent executive overreach.
• Restrict Law Enforcement Authority: Explicitly prohibit the division from exercising arrest powers or initiating enforcement actions independently.
• Preserve Local Autonomy: Codify that local law enforcement agencies retain operational independence and are not subject to mandates from the division.
• Limit Surveillance Use: Establish clear legal boundaries around the division’s use of surveillance and intelligence tools, with required legislative oversight and transparency.

With these amendments, SB 36 could deliver improved homeland security coordination without undermining core Texas values of fiscal restraint and limited government.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not directly impose restrictions on individual rights or expand state surveillance authorities in a new way. However, it centralizes the management of intelligence gathering, surveillance (e.g., Operation Drawbridge), and planning across multiple agencies. While these are existing programs, the consolidation under a single division could increase the risk of overreach or reduce transparency without appropriate oversight. Therefore, while no new civil liberties violations are created, the potential for indirect encroachment on privacy and due process increases, particularly if surveillance tools are expanded or operationalized without checks.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill largely applies to government structure and does not interfere with or diminish individual responsibility. It does, however, aim to create a more accountable framework for interagency cooperation, which could arguably improve governmental responsibility and clarify who is responsible for homeland security strategy and execution.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not regulate private businesses or introduce new economic mandates. It encourages coordination with private sector stakeholders on infrastructure protection and offers outreach to inform them about risks. There is no evidence in the bill of new compliance burdens or mandates that would interfere with business operations. However, the bill gives the new division some role in managing commerce-related security risks—especially with respect to compliance with federal restrictions on transactions with foreign adversaries—which could evolve into regulatory overreach if not closely monitored.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect eminent domain, land use, or impose new regulations on private property. To the extent that it improves coordination and intelligence on threats to infrastructure (including privately owned infrastructure), it could strengthen protections against vandalism, sabotage, or criminal activity. However, any expansion of surveillance near private land (as seen in Operation Drawbridge) warrants caution and should include explicit protections for property owners to avoid unintended infringements.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill most clearly diverges from liberty principles. The bill creates a new division, new state jobs (23 FTEs), and new administrative and policy functions within DPS, resulting in increased government size and spending. The division is granted wide-reaching planning, coordination, budgeting, and grant-making influence. Without sunset provisions, staffing caps, or external audits, it risks becoming a permanent, growing bureaucracy. This violates the principle of limited government unless corrective amendments are adopted.

• SB 780 (Same As)