DHS Cancels Planned SCIF at Dakota State University After Procurement Scrutiny

The Department of Homeland Security has terminated plans to install a sensitive compartmented information facility at Dakota State University in South Dakota, according to three people with knowledge of the decision, POLITICO reported. The cancellation closes a chapter that began in January 2026, when reporting first surfaced that DHS and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had faced internal pressure to construct a taxpayer-funded classified intelligence facility whose national security rationale was disputed by agency personnel [POLITICO].

A SCIF, or sensitive compartmented information facility, is a government-accredited space where officials can store and exchange top secret/sensitive compartmented information, the country's most highly classified intelligence tier ^[1]. CISA's original justification for the project cited a March 18 executive order directing federal agencies to empower state and local governments to strengthen security and resilience nationwide. But that framing ran against the agency's own internal analysis. A DHS-led SCIF working group in early 2024 had identified regions of the country requiring additional facilities, and South Dakota was not among them. The project was nonetheless tasked to CISA in early March 2025, with Karen Evans, then the senior-most political appointee at the agency, asking staff to attest to the need for a new SCIF at Dakota State University.

Internal resistance was documented from the outset. Staff at both DHS and CISA raised immediate concerns because there was no established operational need to share intelligence at that classification level with personnel near the university, and two officials said employees felt pressure to manufacture a justification despite those reservations. One official stated they were told explicitly that the project must proceed because it was a "Secretary-level priority." Contractors and research universities compete aggressively to secure federal sponsorship of a SCIF; such sponsorship effectively pre-qualifies an institution to bid on highly classified federal contracts, raising conflict-of-interest questions where the sponsoring secretary holds prior ties to the recipient institution ^[1]. Two officials with knowledge of the project estimated that constructing a new facility from scratch could cost DHS several million dollars, though they cautioned that figures can vary widely.

The original DHS defense rested on two claims: that the facility was not for then-Secretary Kristi Noem's personal use, and that the project was part of a broader national push to extend classified-sharing infrastructure to underserved parts of the country. CISA spokesperson Marci McCarthy stated the initiative was not unique and was part of an effort to bring SCIFs to states without them, adding that Noem, like other Cabinet secretaries, travels to a SCIF per congressional regulation. McCarthy also maintained the SCIF would not be built with federal money, stating that the university was funding design and construction itself while dedicating space that would meet SCIF accreditation standards and be accessible to DHS and other cleared personnel. Critics noted, however, that accreditation and ongoing staffing costs would still fall on the government.

The project's political context changed materially in March 2026. President Trump removed Noem as DHS secretary and announced that Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma would replace her, with Noem reassigned as special envoy for the Shield of the Americas, a new Western Hemisphere security initiative. Noem's position had weakened after two days of contentious congressional hearings in which lawmakers from both parties pressed her on a $220 million advertising campaign that featured her and bypassed standard contracting procedures. Under the incoming leadership, DHS reversed course on the South Dakota facility. A DHS staffer disclosed the cancellation to House Homeland Security Committee staff during a closed budget briefing, according to a committee aide who spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity. Two current DHS officials separately confirmed the decision [POLITICO].

The ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., drew a direct line between the cancellation and the original rationale for the project. Critics had previously noted what they characterized as a contradiction, pointing to a reported instance in which Noem told a state official that DHS had no federal funding available for SCIF projects. Thompson told POLITICO that cancellation of the project confirmed it was never operationally necessary [POLITICO]. Neither DHS nor Dakota State University responded to requests for comment at the time of the original report. CISA had already shed roughly 1,000 personnel over the preceding year amid broader federal workforce reductions. The episode illustrates continuing tension at the agency between administration-directed priorities and the internal assessments of career intelligence and cybersecurity staff.