Coast Guard says surge to southern maritime border drew on planned deployments, stresses readiness shortfalls

Acting Commandant Admiral Lundy told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security that the Coast Guard temporarily reassigned planned operations to surge air and surface assets to the southern maritime border to support Department of Homeland Security priorities.

The change, Lundy said, included 57 “alien expulsion operation” flights since Jan. 20 and a temporary redirection of planned patrols that were coordinated with combatant commanders and briefed to DHS leadership. “This type of decision is not unprecedented,” Lundy told the subcommittee, adding that the service consulted with Department of Defense commanders before making the changes.

Why it matters: Subcommittee members pressed whether the surge reduced Coast Guard presence in other theaters including the Arctic, the Indo-Pacific and the Great Lakes. Lundy told the panel that permanent presences in the Indo-Pacific and Great Lakes were not reduced but that two planned operational deployments were changed; one involved a national security cutter reassigned from an Indo-Pacific patrol and one involved canceling a non‑operational port visit tied to an Arctic forum. He said the Coast Guard must make “tough tradeoffs” because there are more demands than available cutters, boats, aircraft and crews.

The surge supports interdiction and migrant deterrence, Lundy said, and the Coast Guard has already reported stopping more than 860 people by sea in the previous four months and surpassing fiscal 2024 cocaine interdiction totals, “so far this year” seizing metric tons of cocaine and marijuana. The commandant characterized the service as facing “a severe readiness crisis” and said restoring readiness requires increased capital investment and a sustained top-line growth in appropriations.

Members asked for specifics about where assets were pulled from and whether Arctic or Indo‑Pacific capabilities suffered. Lundy said Arctic‑theater capability was not reduced by the surge; he cited one canceled port visit and one schedule change of a cutter but emphasized there was no reduction in the Coast Guard’s permanent Indo‑Pacific presence. He also said the service coordinated with Navy assets in some operations and does not expect reimbursement requests from the Navy for two destroyers currently supporting missions.

Discussion versus action: The hearing contained questions and answers and no formal votes or committee actions related to missions or budgets. Members requested follow-up briefings and data; the subcommittee chair asked for written responses to outstanding questions within 15 to 30 days.

Lundy and members repeatedly tied operational decisions to funding constraints. Multiple representatives urged the Coast Guard to specify requirements for staffing, sustainment and recapitalization to support persistent presence across theaters, and to provide timely responses to committee questions as the appropriations process moves forward.