As Trump Touts Plans for Immigrant Roundup, Militias Are Standing Back, but Standing By
Most scholars agree that even if it were technically legal, domestic deployment of the military would be an alarming threat to democracy.
Active Participation
Some militia units in border states have been engaged in deportation efforts for a long time. They typically patrol the border, sometimes detain migrants and regularly call the U.S. Border Patrol to report their findings.
Border Patrol agents have historically expressed skepticism and concerns about militia involvement with border monitoring due to the unverifiable skills and motives of civilian support.
Some state, county and local police also do immigration enforcement, and in recent years they have seemed to become more open to civilian assistance.
Some local police agencies, particularly sheriffs, are already asking for civilian assistance managing perceived problems with migrants. Others have hosted anti-immigration events with militias who patrol the border under an effective, if not formal, deputization of their actions.
Militias may also be called on directly. In the past, Trump has directly addressed militias. The most cited example is his instruction in a Sept. 29, 2020, presidential debate, directing the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” People had similar interpretations of his comments in advance of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
But I have long believed these appeals started much earlier. In 2018 Trump pardoned the men who inspired the Bundy family occupation and standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. I believe that was an early attempt to garner support from people in militia circles.
A Volatile Combination
The military has already been getting involved in immigration enforcement in unprecedented ways. In early 2024, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott claimed the U.S. Border Patrol was not protecting his state from an “invasion” from would-be immigrants. He deployed his state’s National Guard to an area of the border, blocking the Border Patrol from working in that section. That blockade continues.
In a second term, Trump has little incentive to restrain his rhetoric or his actions. The Supreme Court has ruled that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. Even if he does not directly appeal to private citizens to control the border or detain people whom they believe to be undocumented migrants, his official presence and hard-line stance on immigration may be enough to provide legitimacy to vigilante action.
In November 2024, two militia members were convicted of a variety of federal offenses, including conspiracy to murder federal agents, for a plot to kill Border Patrol agents whom the men believed were failing to adequately protect the border from crossing migrants.
Not all militia members support mass deportation, especially if it involves unconstitutionally deploying military forces on U.S. soil. That’s clear from my research.
“The military is the military, and law enforcement is law enforcement,” one militia member replied when I asked some of my long-term contacts for their perspectives on Trump’s declaration to use the military. “They are separate for a reason.”
This man believes undocumented migrants pose dangers – but thinks shifting the military’s role would be even more harmful. Not all militia members are so circumspect.
Amy Cooter is Director of Research, Academic Development, and Innovation at the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, Middlebury. This article is published courtesy of The Conversation.
