National Guard members express concerns about Trump potentially using them for widespread deportations
A former senior military official expressed concern, stating, “I don’t want to be seen as a Gestapo.”
TroibNews 
National Guard members are expressing concerns about becoming embroiled in a political conflict between Republican governors and Democratic attorneys general regarding Donald Trump’s anticipated crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
The large-scale deportation initiative could commence as soon as Monday, with Republican governors prepared to deploy the Guard at Trump’s request, while officials in Democratic states are gearing up for prompt legal challenges. Many of the 435,000 troops are apprehensive about being involved in a legally ambiguous mission to identify undocumented individuals within communities where they may work as sheriffs, police officers, or firefighters.
“Our North Star is how lawful is it?” remarked Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, during an interview discussing the potential deployment of the Guard under the incoming president. “If they are operating lawfully, there's nothing for us to do, and the president is allowed to do that. If he's acting unlawfully, as he did many times under Trump 1.0, we sued him over 120 times.”
Trump has indicated he would utilize the military to assist with mass deportations, though he has not clarified whether this pertains to state-based National Guard members or active duty troops.
“I don’t want to be seen as a Gestapo,” stated a former senior military official, who has maintained close ties with current Guard members and requested anonymity to comment on this legally sensitive matter. “It's important that everybody understands who they are and what they're doing.”
Despite the uncertainty within the Guard, Republican governors are swiftly voicing their support for Trump’s immigration initiatives. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee announced earlier this month his willingness to utilize the National Guard for deportation efforts if requested by the incoming administration.
Other red state officials, who advocated for increased deportations even prior to the election, have shown readiness to mobilize the Guard.
“Governor Reeves will do everything in his power to support President Trump’s plans to close our southern border,” stated Cory Custer, deputy chief of staff to Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves. “Nothing is off the table.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has mentioned that the National Guard could be used for immigration enforcement, depending on the directives from the White House.
“I’m very confident that we would have very, very positive results from both the National Guard and the state Guard,” DeSantis remarked at a recent press conference. He has provided plans to permit the National Guard to collaborate with a new immigration czar to execute deportations.
However, certain legal restrictions are in place. Red states have the authority to activate the National Guard for immigration enforcement, potentially to support federal agents, but blue states controlling their own Guard may refuse to comply.
Trump possesses multiple options. He could maintain National Guard oversight at the state level while providing federal funding for deployment on the deportation mission, which would allow governors to retain control over their troops. Alternatively, he could call the Guard to active duty, granting him increased capacity to direct troops in blue states and move them across state lines.
“President Trump will enlist every federal power and coordinate with state authorities to institute the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers in American history while simultaneously lowering costs for families,” noted Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for Trump’s transition team.
The National Guard Bureau and the Defense Department did not respond to requests for information.
Democratic attorneys general are already contemplating their response, particularly if National Guard troops from red states enter blue states. “That's not how our system is designed,” commented Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. “It would be a very sad day to see one state, in effect, undermining the sovereignty of another state.”
Bonta, California's chief law enforcement officer, indicated that state officials are exploring avenues in the federal court system to challenge Trump's directives.
“If things go really sideways, there could potentially be a real constitutional moment of how far governors can be pushed,” stated Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been advising Democratic governors on legal strategies to oppose the National Guard's militarization.
A blue state like California, Illinois, or New York faces challenges in preventing the president from federalizing their National Guard, as seen when Democratic President Lyndon Johnson mobilized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers in 1965. If the Trump administration pursues federalization, federal law would likely restrict troops to logistical roles, such as providing transportation and facilities for undocumented immigrants, rather than engaging in direct law enforcement actions.
National Guard members have increasingly found themselves involved in controversial issues, ranging from deployments at the U.S.-Mexico border to monitoring safety in the New York subway system.
“Military forces try to be apolitical,” said a former senior Guard official who communicates with current troops. This official expressed concern about the Guard's involvement in roles that do not align with traditional missions, such as disaster response and civil unrest management.
“When you take one person out of a three-person business for an extended period, you can't really easily replace that,” this individual said, requesting anonymity to address sensitive concerns.
Trump could also invoke the Insurrection Act, an early 19th-century law that permits the president to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement. This action would enable the federal government to intervene unilaterally in states, circumventing aspects of federal law that restrict military involvement in law enforcement.
The president made threats to use this authority during his first term in response to the George Floyd protests. Historically, it has been applied to enforce desegregation mandates during the Eisenhower administration and to manage the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Shah from the ACLU believes the military and civilian law enforcement have traditionally remained distinct from one another. She anticipates that current and former military officials would openly criticize Trump’s approach if he employs military forces for these actions.
“People would find it highly offensive that the military would be kind of the personal army of the president that he could deploy against, first, immigrants and then protestors and the so-called enemy within,” she cautioned. “It's a slippery slope."
Jessica Kline contributed to this report for TROIB News
The large-scale deportation initiative could commence as soon as Monday, with Republican governors prepared to deploy the Guard at Trump’s request, while officials in Democratic states are gearing up for prompt legal challenges. Many of the 435,000 troops are apprehensive about being involved in a legally ambiguous mission to identify undocumented individuals within communities where they may work as sheriffs, police officers, or firefighters.
“Our North Star is how lawful is it?” remarked Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, during an interview discussing the potential deployment of the Guard under the incoming president. “If they are operating lawfully, there's nothing for us to do, and the president is allowed to do that. If he's acting unlawfully, as he did many times under Trump 1.0, we sued him over 120 times.”
Trump has indicated he would utilize the military to assist with mass deportations, though he has not clarified whether this pertains to state-based National Guard members or active duty troops.
“I don’t want to be seen as a Gestapo,” stated a former senior military official, who has maintained close ties with current Guard members and requested anonymity to comment on this legally sensitive matter. “It's important that everybody understands who they are and what they're doing.”
Despite the uncertainty within the Guard, Republican governors are swiftly voicing their support for Trump’s immigration initiatives. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee announced earlier this month his willingness to utilize the National Guard for deportation efforts if requested by the incoming administration.
Other red state officials, who advocated for increased deportations even prior to the election, have shown readiness to mobilize the Guard.
“Governor Reeves will do everything in his power to support President Trump’s plans to close our southern border,” stated Cory Custer, deputy chief of staff to Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves. “Nothing is off the table.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has mentioned that the National Guard could be used for immigration enforcement, depending on the directives from the White House.
“I’m very confident that we would have very, very positive results from both the National Guard and the state Guard,” DeSantis remarked at a recent press conference. He has provided plans to permit the National Guard to collaborate with a new immigration czar to execute deportations.
However, certain legal restrictions are in place. Red states have the authority to activate the National Guard for immigration enforcement, potentially to support federal agents, but blue states controlling their own Guard may refuse to comply.
Trump possesses multiple options. He could maintain National Guard oversight at the state level while providing federal funding for deployment on the deportation mission, which would allow governors to retain control over their troops. Alternatively, he could call the Guard to active duty, granting him increased capacity to direct troops in blue states and move them across state lines.
“President Trump will enlist every federal power and coordinate with state authorities to institute the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers in American history while simultaneously lowering costs for families,” noted Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for Trump’s transition team.
The National Guard Bureau and the Defense Department did not respond to requests for information.
Democratic attorneys general are already contemplating their response, particularly if National Guard troops from red states enter blue states. “That's not how our system is designed,” commented Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. “It would be a very sad day to see one state, in effect, undermining the sovereignty of another state.”
Bonta, California's chief law enforcement officer, indicated that state officials are exploring avenues in the federal court system to challenge Trump's directives.
“If things go really sideways, there could potentially be a real constitutional moment of how far governors can be pushed,” stated Naureen Shah, deputy director of government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been advising Democratic governors on legal strategies to oppose the National Guard's militarization.
A blue state like California, Illinois, or New York faces challenges in preventing the president from federalizing their National Guard, as seen when Democratic President Lyndon Johnson mobilized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers in 1965. If the Trump administration pursues federalization, federal law would likely restrict troops to logistical roles, such as providing transportation and facilities for undocumented immigrants, rather than engaging in direct law enforcement actions.
National Guard members have increasingly found themselves involved in controversial issues, ranging from deployments at the U.S.-Mexico border to monitoring safety in the New York subway system.
“Military forces try to be apolitical,” said a former senior Guard official who communicates with current troops. This official expressed concern about the Guard's involvement in roles that do not align with traditional missions, such as disaster response and civil unrest management.
“When you take one person out of a three-person business for an extended period, you can't really easily replace that,” this individual said, requesting anonymity to address sensitive concerns.
Trump could also invoke the Insurrection Act, an early 19th-century law that permits the president to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement. This action would enable the federal government to intervene unilaterally in states, circumventing aspects of federal law that restrict military involvement in law enforcement.
The president made threats to use this authority during his first term in response to the George Floyd protests. Historically, it has been applied to enforce desegregation mandates during the Eisenhower administration and to manage the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Shah from the ACLU believes the military and civilian law enforcement have traditionally remained distinct from one another. She anticipates that current and former military officials would openly criticize Trump’s approach if he employs military forces for these actions.
“People would find it highly offensive that the military would be kind of the personal army of the president that he could deploy against, first, immigrants and then protestors and the so-called enemy within,” she cautioned. “It's a slippery slope."
Jessica Kline contributed to this report for TROIB News
