Corey Lewandowski, a polarizing figure who has long served as a close counselor to President Donald Trump, triggered significant internal turmoil at the Department of Homeland Security when he pursued permission to carry an official government-issued firearm during his tenure with the agency, according to accounts from four government sources with direct knowledge of the events who requested anonymity to speak freely and avoid potential reprisals.
The controversy surrounding Lewandowski's pursuit of weapon authorization escalated dramatically when a seasoned legal counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement faced severe professional consequences for declining to endorse the request. Kenneth Padilla, who held a senior position within ICE's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, conducted a thorough legal review and determined that no statutory foundation existed for granting such a privilege to an individual who does not serve in a sworn law enforcement capacity, according to two of the sources.
Padilla's refusal to approve the unprecedented request resulted in his immediate removal from the federal building under security escort, a highly unusual and humiliating measure for a veteran attorney. The confrontation with department leadership proved so contentious that Padilla was subsequently placed on administrative leave before being transferred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency later in the year. Professional networking records confirm Padilla's relocation to FEMA occurred in November, corroborating the timeline provided by insiders.
"This entire situation exemplifies how threats and intimidation serve as Corey's standard operating procedure," remarked one former senior DHS official familiar with the incident, highlighting a pattern of aggressive tactics.
When contacted for comment, Lewandowski issued an unequivocal denial of the allegations. "Never happened. I never sought, requested, asked for or even inquired about a federal firearm," he stated in a text message response. "So to be clear, I am NOT and have never carried a federal firearm."
However, multiple former officials from DHS, ICE, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation emphasized that such authorization would be practically unprecedented for a temporary political appointee occupying a non-law-enforcement role. The legal and liability implications of arming an individual without proper law enforcement training and credentials would be extraordinary.
"Throughout my entire career, I have never encountered a political appointee being permitted to carry a weapon," stated one former senior ICE official. "The potential liability is massive. These individuals haven't completed the rigorous training programs, they aren't career law enforcement officers, and there is simply no legitimate justification for such a privilege."
Lewandowski currently serves at DHS under a "special government employee" designation, a unique classification that allows him to work up to 130 days annually while simultaneously maintaining his private sector business interests and employment. Despite this part-time status, he is officially listed as a chief advisor to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and regularly accompanies her on official travel and departmental engagements.
The firearm authorization controversy is not the only issue raising concerns about the pair's management approach. Noem and Lewandowski have also implemented a polygraph examination program for DHS employees, and the mere threat of these tests has generated widespread fear and anxiety throughout the department's workforce, according to four individuals with knowledge of the matter. The use of lie detector tests as an intimidation tool has created a climate of apprehension among career civil servants.
Legal experts and former officials note that the process for issuing federal firearms to non-law-enforcement personnel is extraordinarily restrictive, requiring specific statutory authority and rigorous justification. Political advisors, even those with significant access and influence, typically do not meet the stringent criteria established for armed federal personnel.
The Wall Street Journal first reported on Lewandowski's efforts to obtain a firearm, bringing the internal dispute into public view. The revelation has sparked broader questions about the appropriate boundaries for political appointees within federal law enforcement agencies and the potential for abuse of authority when senior officials press for special privileges outside normal protocols.
The case also raises concerns about retaliation against career civil servants who uphold legal standards and resist pressure to circumvent regulations. Padilla's treatment suggests a troubling pattern where attorneys and other professionals who prioritize legal compliance over political demands may face professional consequences.
Departmental ethics guidelines and federal regulations establish clear parameters for who may carry official firearms, typically limiting such authority to sworn law enforcement officers, certain security personnel, and other specifically designated positions that require armed capability as a core function. Political advisory roles do not traditionally fall under these categories.
The incident underscores ongoing tensions between political appointees and career officials within federal agencies, particularly in departments with significant law enforcement responsibilities. As DHS continues to evolve under new leadership, the balance between political priorities and institutional safeguards remains a critical concern for oversight officials and agency veterans.
Questions remain about whether Lewandowski currently possesses firearm authorization in his present capacity, though his denial suggests he never obtained such approval. The full scope of the internal dispute and its implications for departmental operations continue to unfold as more details emerge from within the agency.