During his initial presidential term, Donald Trump explored the boundaries of military involvement in achieving his policy aims. Should he win a second term, he and his supporters are gearing up to take a more expansive approach, envisioning the military as a formidable entity to be utilized for domestic purposes.
Trump has committed to bringing thousands of American troops back from international postings to place them at the U.S.-Mexico border. His considerations include deploying these forces for domestic objectives such as immigration enforcement and addressing civil disturbances. Additionally, he has suggested purging military leaders who oppose his ideology.
This vision represents a significant potential transformation in the military’s function within American society, with serious consequences for the country’s international standing and the limitations that have typically governed domestic military use.
As Trump’s campaign enters its final phase against Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, he is advocating for aggressive measures against undocumented immigrants. Speaking in Colorado, he characterized the city of Aurora as a “war zone” under the control of Venezuelan gangs, despite local officials clarifying that it was merely a small part of the suburb that faced issues and is now safe again.
“I will rescue Aurora and any town that has been invaded and conquered,” Trump declared to supporters. “We will imprison these violent criminals or remove them from our country.”
The former president and his team are crafting strategies to redirect military priorities and assets, even as conflicts persist in Europe and the Middle East. His primary agenda, referred to as Agenda 47, emphasizes rigorous actions at the U.S.-Mexico border, including the relocation of thousands of troops currently deployed abroad. Additionally, he has committed to waging war against drug cartels and initiating a naval blockade to intercept and inspect vessels suspected of carrying fentanyl.
Trump has also indicated his willingness to mobilize both the National Guard and potentially the active military to facilitate the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants. While his campaign remains tight-lipped on specific details, including troop numbers, his allies fervently describe the initiative as an ambitious operation employing the federal government’s most potent resources in unprecedented ways.
“There could be a coalition between the Justice Department, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense. These agencies would need to coordinate like they likely never have before,” commented Ron Vitiello, a former acting director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement under Trump.
Though previous administrations have also utilized military resources at the border, Trump’s approach marks a sizable escalation in military involvement in domestic policy matters.
Human rights and civil liberties advocates are increasingly concerned. “They are planning to use the military for large-scale operations against American families that remind us of some of the worst moments in our nation’s history,” stated Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, an immigration advocacy group.
In Congress, where legislators hold sway over military action through budget and authorization powers, a significant faction of Republicans supports Trump’s initiatives. “I back Donald Trump because he will secure the border from day one. This could be misunderstood as dictatorship, but we need border security,” explained Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who is also part of the House Armed Services Committee.
Many Republicans contend that Trump’s immigration rhetoric aligns with reality and highlights the urgency for military intervention. “This could be seen as an invasion,” stated North Carolina Senator Ted Budd, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “With 10 million migrants here, many not pursuing a better future, military involvement has become necessary due to the issues created by the Biden and Harris administration.”
Nonetheless, relocating military resources from abroad may exacerbate tensions within the GOP between pro-foreign policy hawks and proponents of Trump’s “America First” isolationism. Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, insisted that Trump would not send active-duty troops to the border, despite the explicit intentions outlined in Trump’s platform.
In the Senate, where more traditional Republican values prevail, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, the leading Republican on the Armed Services Committee, issued a statement endorsing efforts to support border security, but emphasized that the primary leadership should come from the Department of Homeland Security.
Trump’s military objectives might extend beyond the border itself. Amid increasing concerns about his safety due to potential threats from foreign adversaries like Iran, aides have been reported to request military aircraft for Trump’s transport.
During his first term, when the nation faced widespread protests against police brutality, Trump sought the deployment of military personnel. However, high-ranking military officials, including then-General Mark Milley, challenged those proposals, highlighting that military oaths emphasize loyalty to the Constitution and its values.
Implementing Trump’s envisioned policies would likely necessitate invoking emergency powers, such as executing mass deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 or addressing civil unrest through the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows military deployment within the U.S. against citizens. This act was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush during civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the beating of Rodney King.
As Trump’s second term possibilities loom, Democratic lawmakers have attempted to reform presidential authority related to the Insurrection Act but met with limited success. Consequently, they have issued urgent warnings that Trump may possess fewer constraints on military utilization. He has demonstrated a capacity to reshape institutions to serve his goals, evident from a Supreme Court willing to reconsider presidential powers to a military leadership purged of dissenting voices.
Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who has proposed legislation to amend the Insurrection Act, indicated that Trump’s plans showcase his fundamental misunderstanding of the military’s role, viewing it as a national defense entity rather than a resource to be utilized for personal agendas. Conversely, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, emphasized a growing acceptance amongst Republicans of military deployment to address illegal immigration and drug trafficking. “Whatever resolves the border situation should be acceptable to us,” he concluded.