The Trump administration is reportedly exploring an aggressive new immigration enforcement strategy that could involve deploying tens of thousands of National Guard troops across state lines — even into states whose governors oppose such action. The move would represent a dramatic escalation in federal immigration enforcement and could ignite a significant constitutional conflict over states’ rights and military authority.
According to multiple sources, including internal documents obtained by USA TODAY, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has requested the deployment of up to 20,000 National Guard members to assist with interior immigration enforcement efforts under a legal framework known as Title 32, which allows the federal government to fund Guard operations while leaving command authority with state governors.
The Legal Gray Zone
What makes this plan controversial is the possibility that National Guard troops from Republican-led states like Texas or Florida could be sent into Democratic-controlled states such as California or Maryland, where governors have expressed opposition to participating in federal immigration crackdowns.
Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for domestic policy, previously outlined this strategy in a 2023 podcast with conservative commentator Charlie Kirk:
“You go to the red state governors and say, ‘Give us your National Guard.’ We will deputize them as immigration enforcement officers,” Miller said. “If you’re going into an unfriendly state like Maryland, then it will just be Virginia doing the arrests in Maryland.”
Legal scholars and former officials warn that this approach risks entering uncharted legal and constitutional territory.
“This would push the envelope on the concept of a state-controlled militia,” said John Sandweg, former acting ICE director and DHS general counsel.
Huyen Pham, a law professor at Texas A&M, echoed the sentiment, describing the idea as “uncharted territory.”
DHS Proposal Tied to 287(g) Program
The Trump administration’s plan would involve Guard troops participating in ICE-led immigration raids through the controversial 287(g) program, which allows local and state law enforcement personnel to be deputized to enforce federal immigration law.
Under Trump, the 287(g) program has been rapidly expanded, with 338 new task force partnerships signed since January. Some participating states, including Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and West Virginia, have already involved their National Guard units in state-supported immigration enforcement.
However, interstate use of these deputized personnel—particularly into states that have not authorized them—has never been legally tested, and experts warn that it could violate constitutional principles unless Congress explicitly authorizes such operations.
The Role of the Insurrection Act
One major concern is whether the Trump administration would ultimately invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used federal law that allows the president to deploy federalized military forces, including National Guard members, without needing state approval.
While the law has been used in the past—such as during the civil rights movement when President John F. Kennedy used it to enforce desegregation in Alabama—critics argue that applying it to enforce deportations would constitute federal overreach.
“This is clearly a different situation,” said Bill Enyart, a retired general and former head of the Illinois National Guard. “The Insurrection Act was used to protect civil rights. Using it for mass deportations would be a dangerous precedent.”
A Potential States’ Rights Showdown
The Pentagon has not confirmed whether it will approve DHS’s request, and neither DHS nor ICE responded to questions from USA TODAY before publication. The White House referred inquiries to DHS.
If approved, this move could trigger a legal showdown between the federal government and Democratic-led states, as governors may resist what they see as an infringement on their authority and state sovereignty.
At a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth affirmed the administration’s support for immigration enforcement operations and indicated that the Pentagon would be ready to act:
“If and when those decisions are made, the department is prepared to execute them,” Hegseth said.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy marks a significant escalation in its second-term policy agenda. If implemented, it could test the limits of state vs. federal authority, provoke intense legal challenges, and shape the future use of the National Guard in domestic law enforcement operations.
As legal experts, governors, and civil rights groups brace for the implications, the debate underscores the broader tension between immigration policy, military power, and the delicate balance of American federalism.
