
Trump's Military Buildup at the Border Expands
In the past four months, the Pentagon has sent thousands of active-duty combat troops and armored Stryker combat vehicles to the southwestern border to confront what President Trump declared on his first day in office was an 'invasion' of migrants, drug cartels and smugglers.
That's not all. The military has also dispatched U-2 spy planes, surveillance drones, helicopters and even two Navy warships to surveil the borders and coasts round the clock.
The buildup of forces underscores how Mr. Trump is breaking with his predecessors' practice of mostly limiting deployments along the U.S.-Mexico border to small numbers of active-duty soldiers and reservists. About 2,500 active-duty troops were on the border at the end of the Biden administration. Now there are about 8,600.
In a recent visit with troops in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, the border was fairly calm. Crossings, which decreased sharply in the waning months of the Biden administration, have plummeted even further since the Trump administration declared its goal to obtain '100 percent' operational control of the boundary with Mexico. In April, about 8,000 people were arrested after crossing the border illegally, down from about 128,000 people a year earlier, according to U.S. government statistics.
Even so, there is no end in sight for the military mission on the border, which the Pentagon says has cost $525 million so far.
The deployments continue to grow in size, scope and sophistication even as the debate over the benefits and drawbacks rages on, and the military expands its territorial authorities to help interdict migrants.
These initial steps have provided evidence to both sides of the debate over the utility of sending frontline combat forces to the border: They appear to be deterring cartels, making life somewhat harder for human smugglers and giving infantry troops, or at least Stryker crews, a chance to hone some skills. But the costs in dollars and to long-term combat readiness are still unclear.
Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, the head of the military's Northern Command, recently told Congress that the border mission would probably be 'measured in years, not months.' He added that troops would need to stay longer to thwart cyclical increases in migration.
The Pentagon has created two narrow strips of land along the 2,000-mile U.S. border with Mexico — one in New Mexico and another in Texas — effectively turning them into parts of nearby U.S. military bases.
Migrants entering the strips, which are about 200 miles and 63 miles long, are considered trespassing on military land and can be temporarily detained by U.S. troops until Border Patrol agents arrive.
During a visit to the border on April 25, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held up signs in English and Spanish warning migrants against entering the areas.
A federal judge in New Mexico has dismissed charges against nearly 100 migrants arrested after entering the zone in the state, saying that the federal government had failed to show that the migrants knew they were unlawfully entering a restricted military area.
But 'as a practical matter, I would be surprised if many people are actually detained by the military in the narrow albeit long military base,' said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., who was a deputy judge advocate general in the military. 'Rather, I expect that the overwhelming majority of the military will be involved in supporting civilian law enforcement, not detaining border crossers.'
So far, the troops have been supporting law enforcement agencies, fanning out on foot patrols, in helicopters and in combat vehicles to serve as a deterrent and to give the authorities far more eyes and ears on the ground.
For now, top Trump aides have ruled out invoking the Insurrection Act, a more than 200-year-old law that would allow the use of the armed forces for law enforcement duty. Mr. Trump confirmed this month that he had pressed Mexico's president to let U.S. troops into the country to help fight the drug cartels, an idea she summarily rejected.
Some members of Congress have questioned whether this is the best use of active-duty troops who would otherwise be training for deployments to Eastern Europe, the Middle East or the Indo-Pacific. Lawmakers and independent analysts have voiced concerns that the border missions will distract from training, drain resources and undermine readiness.
A Stryker battalion stationed in the El Paso area was scheduled for a rotation at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., and then a deployment to South Korea. Both of those assignments have been pushed off for now.
'It is difficult to explain the border missions as anything but a distraction from readiness,' Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said in remarks on the Senate floor on May 8.
Mr. Reed said that one Marine battalion had been stringing miles of barbed wire across the California mountains. Navy aircrews are flying P-8 Poseidons — the most advanced submarine-hunting planes in the world — over the desert. The two Navy destroyers are loitering off the West Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, looking for migrant boats in the water.
But several commanders and some troops stationed along the border said in interviews that serving in one of Mr. Trump's highest-priority missions gave them purpose. They are using many of their skills — route planning, mission rehearsals, patrols, surveillance flights — in the real world against criminal smuggling gangs and Mexican drug cartels, instead of just practicing at their home bases or in exercises, they said.
Col. Hugh Jones, the commander of the Stryker brigade deployed along the border, said military readiness levels, as measured by Army standards such as equipment maintenance, were at 94 percent in April, up from 78 percent in December for his 2,000-soldier unit of the Fourth Infantry Division based at Fort Carson, Colo.
Commanders say they must be creative to find training areas and ways to carve out time to keep their soldiers' lethal skills sharp, from basic marksmanship to firing heavier weapons.
Re-enlistments among younger soldiers in the Stryker units — who never had the opportunity to serve combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq like their more senior commanding officers — have soared in recent months, commanders say.
'This is their mission for their generation, and they're embracing it,' said Maj. Gen. Scott M. Naumann, the head of the Army's 10th Mountain Division, who moved his headquarters staff to Fort Huachuca, Ariz., in February to oversee what the military calls Joint Task Force-Southern Border.
The increased military patrols, working closely with Customs and Border Protection, have pushed Mexican cartels and smugglers into more remote mountainous areas to evade detection, driving up the costs of doing business, said General Naumann, who also consults with his Mexican military counterparts.
U.S. intelligence officials say that human traffickers are now charging migrants about $20,000 per person to be smuggled into the country, up from $7,000 a year ago.
With the flow of migrants vastly diminished, military officials say they are also focusing on arguably a more difficult job: helping domestic law enforcement agencies curb the flow of illicit drugs and other contraband into the United States, even though most such drugs are smuggled through legal ports of entry.
The centerpiece of the military's ground support is more than 100 Stryker combat vehicles. The Stryker is a 25-ton, eight-wheeled vehicle that can carry 11 soldiers and weapons at speeds of more than 60 miles an hour. With its giant rubber tires instead of noisy tracks, it is fast and relatively quiet.
The vehicles, which were widely used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have an array of sensors that can pinpoint a target and share that information through satellite links with intelligence centers, essential in areas like Big Bend National Park in Texas, where cell coverage is poor or nonexistent.
On the border, commanders say a Stryker is particularly useful when positioned on a strategic overlook where smugglers and cartel members can see it. The vehicle's optical sights can spot individuals or groups of individuals up to about six miles away.
The drab green combat vehicles and the troops operating them initially raised suspicions in some remote communities. Residents in Presidio, Texas, feared that the soldiers would come into schools searching for undocumented migrant children.
Commanders sought to dispel those worries by having troops stay in local hotels to become part of the community, and they drove a Stryker to an elementary school so children could climb on it.
The military's growing presence has drawn sharp reaction from criminal groups and drug cartels, commanders say. Rock throwing against troops stationed near the border has increased, instigated by criminal groups, commanders said.
In an incident near El Paso, Border Patrol agents were forced to deploy tear gas to disperse a crowd taunting U.S. soldiers and threatening to kill them. American troops are armed for their self-protection but rely on Border Patrol for crowd control.
Several suspicious unarmed surveillance drones monitoring U.S. troops have posed a potentially more serious hazard, General Naumann said. Based on electronic intercepts, commanders believe the cartels are spying on soldiers to figure out how to bypass them. Commanders have the authority to shoot down any drone deemed to be hostile to U.S. troops, a step they have not yet taken.
'This is a real-world mission with real consequences,' said Lt. Col. Chad Campbell, the commander of the Stryker battalion stationed outside El Paso.
Indeed, two Marines were killed and another was critically injured in a vehicle accident near Santa Teresa, N.M., a few miles from El Paso.
Pentagon leaders have previously been lukewarm at best about using troops to seal the border, calling such efforts the beginning of a slippery slope that could pull the military into domestic political issues.
In Mr. Trump's first term, both of his defense secretaries wanted to avoid deploying troops to the border and, if they could not, to minimize their presence there.
Mr. Trump's first defense secretary, Jim Mattis, tried to protect troops from any perception that they might be engaging in partisan political activity. In April 2018, Mr. Mattis responded to the president's initial demand for a military deployment by sending 2,100 unarmed National Guard troops. That was not much different from past deployments of National Guard soldiers to the border.
Later that year, in the run-up to the midterm vote in 2018, Mr. Trump ordered that troops be deployed to the border to help deal with an approaching migrant caravan. The president asked for 10,000 troops, then 15,000. Mr. Mattis responded by sending 6,000 and told them to stick to support roles.
The military announced that the border mission would be called Operation Faithful Patriot. But on Election Day, Mr. Mattis told officials to drop the name, and the Pentagon sent out a terse news release saying that the operation from then would be known simply as border support. The term 'faithful patriot,' officials said, had political overtones.
Mr. Mattis's successor as defense secretary, Mark T. Esper, knocked back a White House proposal in the spring of 2020 to send 250,000 troops to the border.
There are plenty of examples in which the military has been used for domestic purposes. With the exception of what experts call the 'feel good' stuff like natural disaster relief, the military has 'come away from those instances saying, 'Yeah, we don't want to do that again,'' said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University and an expert on civil-military relations.
'The military prefers to orient itself towards foreign adversaries,' Mr. Feaver said. 'It prefers to have other branches of the government, to include other security sectors like police, border police, homeland security, who train for and are optimized for domestic missions — have them do it.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


News24
15 minutes ago
- News24
Salvadoran at the heart of row over Trump's deportation policies arrested on return to the US
The Salvadoran migrant at the heart of a row over President Donald Trump's hardline deportation policies was returned to the United States on Friday and arrested on human smuggling charges. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was brought back to the United States from El Salvador and charged with trafficking undocumented migrants, Attorney General Pam Bondi said. "Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice," Bondi said at a press conference. The US Supreme Court had ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" the return of Abrego Garcia after he was mistakenly deported in March to a notorious maximum security prison in El Salvador. But Bondi insisted to reporters that his return to the United States resulted from an arrest warrant presented to Salvadoran authorities. "We're grateful to (Salvadoran) President (Nayib) Bukele for agreeing to return him to our country to face these very serious charges," she said. In a post on X, Bukele said "we work with the Trump administration, and if they request the return of a gang member to face charges, of course we wouldn't refuse." Trump, in remarks to reporters Friday, described Abrego Garcia as a "pretty bad guy" and said he "should've never had to be returned." White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson said Abrego Garcia's return "has nothing to do with his original deportation." "There was no mistake," Jackson said on X. "He's returning because a new investigation has revealed crimes SO HEINOUS, committed in the US, that only the American Justice System could hold him fully accountable." Abrego Garcia, 29, was living in the eastern state of Maryland until he became one of more than 200 people sent to a prison in El Salvador as part of Trump's crackdown on undocumented migrants. Most of the migrants who were summarily deported were alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the Trump administration has declared a foreign terrorist organisation. 'Administrative error' Justice Department lawyers later admitted that Abrego Garcia - who is married to a US citizen - was wrongly deported due to an "administrative error." Abrego Garcia had been living in the United States under protected legal status since 2019, when a judge ruled he should not be deported because he could be harmed in his home country. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego Garcia's attorneys, said the government had returned him to the United States "not to correct their error but to prosecute him." "Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after," Sandoval-Moshenberg said. "This is an abuse of power, not justice." Bondi alleged that Abrego Garcia had "played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring" and was a smuggler of "children and women" as well as members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13. She said Abrego Garcia, who was indicted by a grand jury in Tennessee, would be returned to El Salvador upon completion of any prison sentence. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen visited Abrego Garcia in April in El Salvador and welcomed his return to the United States. "For months the Trump Administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution," the senator from Maryland said in a statement. "Today, they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States," he said. "The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along." According to the indictment, Abrego Garcia was involved in smuggling undocumented migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and other countries into the United States between 2016 and earlier this year.


Hamilton Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump: Ukraine provoked Russian strikes
US President Donald Trump has suggested that Ukraine itself provoked the Russian strikes by conducting Operation Spider's Web. Source: Trump speaking to journalists on board Air Force One Details: Responding to a journalist's question about whether Operation Spider's Web had changed his view of what advantages Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy holds, Trump said it had given Russian leader Vladimir Putin a reason to bomb Ukrainian cities. Quote: "They gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night. That's the thing I didn't like about it. When I saw it I said 'Here we go, now it's going to be a strike'." Background: On 1 June 2025, the Security Service of Ukraine carried out a special operation codenamed Pavutyna (Spider's Web) and hit Russian strategic jets at four airfields. Vasyl Maliuk, Head of the Security Service of Ukraine, stated that 34% of strategic carriers of cruise missiles at the main airfields of the Russian Federation had been destroyed. The Security Service of Ukraine officially stated that 41 Russian strategic aircraft had been destroyed by FPV drone strikes, including A-50, Tu-95, Tu-22 M3 and Tu-160 aircraft. The estimated cost of the strategic aircraft destroyed is over US$7 billion. Colonel Ants Kiviselg, Head of the Estonian Defence Forces' Intelligence Centre, reported that the Russian Tu-95 bombers targeted during Operation Spider's Web had been preparing to launch missile strikes on Ukraine. In response to these actions, Russia launched large-scale strikes on Ukraine on the night of 5-6 June, using over 400 drones and 40 cruise and ballistic missiles. The attack resulted in numerous civilian casualties and significant damage to infrastructure. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!