On September 3, 2025, the United States Department of Defense (DOD) took a dramatic step into the heart of the country’s immigration debate. Officials announced that hundreds of military and civilian lawyers would temporarily serve as immigration judges, a move that’s already ignited controversy and debate across the legal and political spectrum. The decision, approved by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is the latest in a string of actions by President Donald Trump’s administration to enlist the military in carrying out domestic policy—most notably, immigration enforcement.
According to reporting from Reuters, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell explained the rationale behind the decision: “These DOD attorneys will augment existing resources to help further combat a backlog of cases by presiding over immigration hearings.” The backlog of immigration cases has been a persistent issue for years, with courts struggling to keep pace with the volume of cases, and the administration seeking ways to expedite proceedings.
The plan, as outlined in a memo reviewed by the Associated Press, authorizes the deployment of up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department. These lawyers will be sent in groups of 150 “as soon as practicable,” with each group expected to serve as immigration judges for an initial period of 179 days. The assignment is voluntary, with interested lawyers given until September 4, 2025, to step forward, according to a U.S. official who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
This measure is part of a broader crackdown on undocumented immigration that President Trump has made a centerpiece of his administration—and, notably, his 2024 reelection campaign. Since January 2025, the White House has ramped up the use of military resources for immigration enforcement, with active duty troops patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border, National Guard members deployed to U.S. cities, and even military aircraft being used to carry out deportations. In some cases, people have been detained at military bases prior to deportation, a practice that has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups and immigration advocates.
The legal community’s reaction to the latest plan has been swift and pointed. Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, offered a scathing critique: “Expecting fair decisions from judges unfamiliar with the law is absurd. This reckless move guts due process and further undermines the integrity of our immigration court system.” Johnson likened the plan to having “a cardiologist do a hip replacement,” underscoring concerns that military lawyers, who are not trained in immigration law, may be ill-equipped to handle the complexities of these cases.
These concerns are not merely academic. Another U.S. official told Reuters that even with additional training, it would be difficult for military lawyers to adapt to the role of immigration judges. The processes and standards of immigration courts differ significantly from the military justice system, where most of these lawyers have built their careers. The official added, “even with some additional training, it would be a tough task for military lawyers to learn the process, which is different from the military justice system they are trained in.”
This is not the first time the Trump administration has turned to the military legal corps to shore up its domestic policy agenda. Just last month, the Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office brought in about 20 people from the Department of Defense to serve as special assistant U.S. attorneys, tasked with prosecuting misdemeanor cases. In parallel, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been actively reshaping the leadership of the military justice system, replacing the judge advocates general for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Hegseth’s attitude toward military lawyers has been a matter of public record. In his 2024 book, The War on Warriors, he wrote that most military lawyers “spend more time prosecuting our troops than putting away bad guys.” This perspective appears to have influenced his recent moves to overhaul the military justice system and now, to deploy military lawyers in support of the administration’s immigration crackdown.
The Trump administration has consistently pointed to its use of military resources as a key reason for what it describes as a sharp decline in crossings by undocumented migrants. Supporters of the administration argue that extraordinary measures are necessary to address what they see as a crisis at the border and an overburdened immigration court system. They contend that by leveraging the organizational discipline and manpower of the military, the government can resolve cases more efficiently and uphold the rule of law.
However, critics warn that the militarization of immigration enforcement—and, now, the judiciary—risks eroding fundamental legal protections. The American Immigration Lawyers Association and other advocacy groups argue that deploying military lawyers as immigration judges could compromise due process and the impartiality of the courts, especially when those presiding over cases lack specialized training in immigration law.
The plan also comes at a time when the Trump administration’s use of the military in domestic affairs is under heightened scrutiny. On September 2, 2025, a court ruled that the administration had “willfully” violated federal law by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles in early June 2025. This ruling has intensified debates over the appropriate boundaries between military and civilian roles in American society, particularly when it comes to law enforcement and the administration of justice.
From a broader perspective, the decision to use military lawyers as immigration judges reflects a deepening entanglement of the military with domestic policy—a trend that has accelerated under President Trump. While some see this as a necessary response to extraordinary challenges, others view it as a dangerous blurring of the lines between military and civilian spheres, with potential consequences for civil liberties and the integrity of the justice system.
As the first groups of military lawyers prepare to take up their new posts, the nation’s eyes will be on the immigration courts. Will the infusion of DOD attorneys help clear the backlog and restore confidence in the system, as the administration hopes? Or will it, as critics fear, undermine the fairness and independence that are supposed to be the hallmarks of American justice? Only time—and the experiences of those who pass through these courts—will tell.
For now, the move stands as a bold, controversial chapter in the ongoing struggle over immigration policy and the role of the military in American public life.
