On August 8, 2025, a leaked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo sent shockwaves through political circles and civil rights organizations alike, revealing that the Trump administration is actively pushing for a massive deployment of military troops for domestic law enforcement targeting immigrants in America’s largest cities. The memo, obtained and reported by The New Republic, was penned by Phil Hegseth, a senior adviser to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and liaison to the Defense Department. Hegseth’s background, which includes founding a podcast production company and managing social media at The Hudson Institute, may seem unconventional for such a pivotal national security role, but his message is crystal clear: the administration sees drug cartels and other criminal elements as the number one threat to national security, equating them to “Al Qaeda or ISIS cells and fighters operating freely inside America.”
This internal document marks a dramatic escalation in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, which has already seen a $170 billion boost in ICE spending over four years and the lowering of the age limit for ICE recruits to just 18. Despite these measures, the memo argues that it’s not enough and calls for military boots on domestic soil—a move that experts warn is unprecedented since the Japanese internment during World War II.
“The memo is alarming, because it speaks to the intent to use the military within the United States at a level not seen since Japanese internment,” Carrie Lee, senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, told The New Republic. “The military is the most powerful, coercive tool our country has. We don’t want the military doing law enforcement. It absolutely undermines the rule of law.”
This approach, according to reporting from The New Republic, is not an isolated policy shift but a manifestation of Project 2025’s broader plans. These plans reportedly involve a sweeping overhaul of military leadership, targeting officials who prioritize their oath to the Constitution over loyalty to Trump and the so-called MAGA agenda. The implications are far-reaching, threatening the very core of military readiness and the foundational oath of service: to defend the Constitution.
Recent events lend credence to concerns about mission creep. National Guard and Marines have already been deployed to Los Angeles. There have been high-profile arrests: a judge in Wisconsin, the mayor of Newark, several members of Congress, and even the deportation of a four-year-old child battling stage-four cancer. Perhaps most chilling, Afghan interpreters who fought alongside U.S. forces have been arrested and now face deportation to countries where torture or worse likely awaits.
Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis once addressed the nation after federal forces were used against citizens exercising their rights at Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C. Mattis declared that Trump was the first president who “has no interest in uniting the American people, and had no interest even in the appearance of unity.” Other prominent military figures have echoed similar warnings. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, reportedly described Trump as “a Fascist to the core.” The late Senator and POW John McCain famously criticized Trump’s behavior on the world stage, saying he “abased himself in front of a tyrant.”
As The New Republic details, the administration’s strategy is three-pronged. First, drug cartels are being designated as terrorist organizations on par with Al Qaeda or ISIS. Second, this opens the door for the military to be used not just against illegal immigration, but also against protests, labeling them as domestic terrorism threats in the name of national security. Third, the administration is relying on Supreme Court precedent that presidential orders are above scrutiny, provided they are deemed “official acts.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made it clear to the Pentagon that these moves represent official policy from the Commander in Chief. The normalization of military support for law enforcement, warns Joseph Nunn, counsel for the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center, could “create a kind of domestic ‘forever war,’ but one that is uniquely dangerous. As the Founders well understood, a military that is turned inward is a threat to both democracy and individual liberty.”
Meanwhile, the ripple effects of this new doctrine are being felt in states across the country. On the very same day the memo leaked, Idaho Governor Brad Little announced that the Idaho National Guard would begin assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with administrative duties, freeing up ICE agents for law enforcement activities. “As Commander in Chief, I am proud that the Idaho National Guard always stands ready to support our federal partners in any capacity that strengthens public safety and national security,” Little said in a news release. “Our guardsmen are trained, disciplined, and committed to serving the people of Idaho and the nation.”
According to the governor’s office, up to 14 Idaho National Guard members will be activated within 30 days to handle tasks like fingerprinting, data entry, and record-keeping. This move is part of a broader federal initiative, with Defense Secretary Hegseth notifying the National Guard Bureau that governors in 20 states could authorize similar support immediately, with the arrangement running through November 15, 2025.
Governor Little has been a vocal supporter of President Trump’s immigration priorities. On August 7, just a day before the National Guard announcement, Idaho State Police transported three immigrants to ICE detention under a 287(g) agreement signed in June. Little has repeatedly decried what he calls “open border policies” and has blamed the Biden administration’s approach to immigration for harming Idaho.
Trump’s campaign for mass deportations during the 2024 election cycle set the stage for these developments. The administration has continued to shift tactics, ramping up ICE recruitment and now enlisting the National Guard for support roles—a move that, while administrative on paper, raises concerns about the blurring of lines between military and civilian law enforcement.
Critics from across the political spectrum are sounding the alarm. Some see these steps as a necessary response to what they view as a national security crisis at the border, while others argue that the real threat lies in eroding the boundaries between military and civilian authority. The invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a law designed for foreign invasions, is being used to justify these actions, further muddying the legal waters and raising questions about the future of constitutional protections.
At the heart of the debate is a simple but profound question: Should the U.S. military be used to enforce domestic immigration law? For some, the answer is a resounding yes, citing the need to protect the nation from criminal elements. For others, the answer is a firm no, warning that such a move risks turning the military into an instrument of domestic repression—a role it was never meant to play.
As the nation stands at this crossroads, the decisions made in the coming months will shape not only the future of immigration policy, but also the very nature of American democracy and the rule of law.
