Heinrich pushes Defense Secretary Hegseth for answers on NM's new military zone
From left to right: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks and United States Attorney for New Mexico Ryan Ellison stand along the National Defense Area along the New Mexico-Mexico border in a recent visit to tout recent arrests. (Photo courtesy USAO)
U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) on Wednesday sent a letter to the United States Department of Defense, asking leaders for information on how they are operating a newly designated military zone along New Mexico's border with Mexico and whom they might be arresting within it.
Last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others touted the creation of a National Defense Area along New Mexico's 170-mile border with Mexico. The new designation meant that land under Interior Department control effectively became part of a military base in Arizona and made trespass there a criminal offense punishable by up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine.
According to a Source New Mexico analysis, the newly designated military base covers an area of 400 square miles, though Defense officials say the new criminal penalties do not apply to the state and private land within that area.
Still, Heinrich and groups including the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concerns about the new zone and whether it will have unintended consequences for American citizens or the state of New Mexico. Some New Mexico State Land Office land is within the 400-mile area. The end of the 3,100-mile Continental Divide Trail is also within the National Defense Area, Heinrich noted.
'I have deep concerns that the Trump Administration is bypassing due process for individuals who either intentionally or unintentionally enter this newly restricted area, including United States citizens who may be stopped and detained by U.S. Army soldiers for trespassing on an unmarked military base,' Heinrich wrote to Secretary Hegseth.
Defense officials have said the new military zone allows it to use more resources and crack down harder on illegal border crossings. Several hundred people have faced new criminal charges so far since late April, according to federal court records.
However, United States Attorney for New Mexico Ryan Ellison has had to defend the new process in court in response to a judge's concerns over whether people being arrested had adequate warning that they could face criminal charges, among other legal considerations.
Read Heinrich's letter here
Heinrich's letter included a dozen questions about practical and legal considerations about the new zone, though he said he understands the Defense Department's 'states interest in reducing migrant crossings at the border.'
Some of Heinrich's questions include:
'Can the New Mexico State Land Office access state land within the NDA? Can lease or permit holders on state land within the NDA continue to utilize those state trust lands pursuant to those leases or permits?'
'How many mining claims are within the boundary of the NDA?'
'It has been reported that at least 300 individuals have been detained within the NDA area since the designation. How many of these individuals were U.S. citizens or were legally present in the United States?'
'Does the NDA limit road access to any private property within the boundaries of the NDA? If so, how is the department providing access to those private property owners?'
Heinrich ends the letter noting that the residents of southern New Mexico have 'longstanding relationships with these lands.'
'As such, decisions that significantly alter their access or legal standing must be made transparently and with meaningful consultation. Further, it is of upmost importance that federal laws and the Constitution are upheld,' Heinrich wrote.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Hedge fund titan Ken Griffin rips White House over tax bill
Hedge fund titan Ken Griffin ramped up his war of words with the Trump White House on Wednesday, blasting the president's so-called 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill for adding to Uncle Sam's eye-popping $36 trillion debt pile. The 56-year-old CEO of Citadel, who is worth $42 billion according to Forbes, told the business magazine's annual Iconoclast summit in New York City that if the bill passed, the country would 'unquestionably add several trillion dollars' to the US debt. 'There are a lot of question marks as to why we are continuing to restart tax cuts when we have a fiscal deficit that is this big,' Griffin said at the business magazine's annual Iconoclast summit in lower Manhattan Advertisement 4 Griffin warned that the Trump tax bill will only add to America's debt pile. REUTERS 'The United States' fiscal house is not in order,' Griffin added. 'You cannot run deficits of 6 or 7% at full employment after years of growth. That is just fiscally irresponsible.' Analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts that there is a $2.4 trillion black hole in the president's flagship tax bill. Griffin, who moved his firm from Chicago to Miami in 2022, likewise warned that the administration should rein in spending and that investors are already worried about America's finances — posing major risks in the bond markets. Advertisement 'US default prices are probably the same as Italy or Greece,' he said, referring to the so-called credit default swap markets where investors can bet on whether someone will fail to pay their bills. The GOP megadonor also took aim at Trump for criticizing Walmart CEO Doug McMillon after he warned of needing to raise prices in response to higher import costs. 'We should not criticize CEOs for being honest, right? And that's all the CEO of Walmart was doing,' he told the audience in lower Manhattan. 'Shame on the administration.' Advertisement The Post has approached the White House for comment. 4 Elon Musk, who has only recently left the Trump administration, has been repeatedly griping about the bill on his social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. REUTERS More broadly, Griffin lamented the 'uncertainty' that now clouds investment decisions in the US as a result of policies that have 'called into question American exceptionalism.' 'The administration's attempts to use tariffs come at a dear price for the US economy and come at a dear price for the US consumers, who will undoubtedly pay higher prices,' Griffin told the audience at the upmarket Cipriani ballroom on Broadway in lower Manhattan. Advertisement 'Why do we aspire to bring back to the United States jobs that are actually moving out of China into lower-cost jurisdictions? Why are we aspiring to be the nation of the lowest cost and the lowest-paid workforce in the world? That makes no sense to me.' 4 The tariff tiff blew up at the Beverly Hills Hilton where Trump's allies organized a rival VIP welcome party to go up against Griffin's traditional Milken opener. Bloomberg via Getty Images Griffin, who voted for Trump in November's presidential election, has been a staunch critic of his administration's tariff and trade policies since the real estate mogul's second inauguration earlier this year. The row between the two men spilled over at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills last month, where allies of President Trump organized a rival VIP welcome bash to go up against the Citadel supremo's traditional opening reception. Trump unveiled his tariff plans on April 2, which he dubbed Liberation Day, as he sought to renegotiate new trade deals with countries he believed were treating the United States unfairly. 4 Griffin used a Forbes summit to launch a string of broadsides at the Trump administration over its trade and tariff policies. AP The move has since faced a string of legal challenges, with negotiations failing to bear any fruit until now, apart from an agreement with post-Brexit Britain that was announced on May 8. But discussions with the European Union, one of America's largest trading partners, have faltered, as The Post exclusively reported on May 7.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump's Controversial Pardons Make Some Republicans Squirm
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump's pardons of white-collar criminals whosupport his presidency and donate to his campaigns stoked plenty of outrage from Democrats and former law enforcement officials last week. Now, even some Republicans are signaling their discomfort with his decisions to grant clemency ― and the way he's going about it. 'I think that when the president pardons someone, they need to carefully explain why injustice was done,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told HuffPost. 'And I think pardons should be rare, and President Trump likes pardons much more than I do.'In recent weeks, Trump has pardoned a former Virginia sheriff who was convicted of trying to sell deputy badges, a Las Vegas politician who stole money intended for a memorial dedicated to a fallen police officer, a tax cheat whose mother raised millions of dollars for Republican political campaigns, and a pair of reality television stars who were convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion. The pardons appear to have been politically motivated, a reward for MAGA die-hards who stood with Trump and his movement. 'No MAGA left behind,' Ed Martin, the president's controversial new pardon attorney, wrote in a social media post last month. Trump also shocked many Republicans when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol rioters who were convicted of assaulting or interfering with police officers, roughly 1,000 nonviolent offenders and around 200 people accused of assaulting police. A number of those pardoned have since been rearrested for other alleged crimes. 'On its face, you got to be pretty careful,' Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another Senate Judiciary Committee member, said of Trump's latest pardons. 'I haven't looked at the current ones, but I think I'm pretty well staked out on about two or three hundred of Jan. 6 people who never should have been pardoned.' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the 'best approach' for issuing pardons is to follow a process and make decisions on clemency requests after a recommendation from a parole board or the Department of Justice. The president's pardon power under the U.S. Constitution is broad and completely unchecked. Presidents aren't bound to go through a certain process ― though some follow DOJ guidelines more than others ― and they're free to pardon whomever, no matter the crime. Some of President Joe Biden's pardons also drew outrage ― including for his son Hunter Biden. 'The only way you're going to fix it or change it would be, I think, through a constitutional amendment, and that would take a long time to do,' Rounds said. 'I think just the American people being aware of it is an important part of this discussion. I don't know that you're going to fix it as much as bring attention to it.' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismissed a question about Trump's pardons by pointing to controversial pardons issued by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. 'There's no sense of making any comments about the president's pardons because it's totally his own decision ― any president in the United States,' Grassley said. 'And nobody asked me about the 2,500 pardons that [Bill] Clinton gave, and so I'm not going to make any comments on pardons that Trump makes.' Trump, meanwhile, seems far more interested in probing his predecessor's pardons. On Wednesday, the president directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, accusing his aides of concealing his 'cognitive decline' and casting doubts on the legitimacy of his use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. The order followed weeks of inquiries by Republican lawmakers into Biden's mental and physical health as president following the release of a new book chronicling the former president's 'decline, its cover-up and his disastrous choice to run again.' Biden, however, denied the accusations from Trump in a statement Wednesday: 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.'
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Musk says Trump would have lost election without him
Tech billionaire Elon Musk on Thursday said President Trump would have lost the 2024 presidential race if it were not for him, escalating a feud that erupted earlier that day between the two former allies. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk said on X. 'Such ingratitude,' he added. Musk spent millions of dollars backing Trump's election in 2024 and appeared alongside the president on the campaign trail during its final weeks. He then led the Department of Government Efficiency with the goal of cost-cutting efforts and overhauling the federal government; his last day in the administration was on Friday. Musk's comments came amid an influx of posts on his social media platform X, in which he called for the Trump-backed 'big, beautiful bill' to be killed in Congress. The Tesla CEO, who was a near-constant presence at the side of the president until last week, continued to share old posts on X from Trump talking about the debt and the need for a balanced budget. The president had moments before said in the Oval Office that he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by Musk's harsh criticism of the legislation and said he was uncertain about the future of their relationship. 'I've always liked Elon. And so I was very surprised. You saw the words he had for me, and he hasn't said anything about me that's bad. I'd rather have him criticize me than the bill. Because the bill is incredible,' Trump said during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more,' Trump added. Musk responded on X after Trump's remarks, repeating his assertion that a bill cannot be 'both big and beautiful.' Musk first railed against the 'big, beautiful bill' earlier this week, calling it 'an abomination' and 'pork-filled' due to its effects on federal deficits. 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' he wrote in a separate post, while sharing another that highlighted criticisms of Republican lawmakers.
