The Trump administration is considering deploying 20,000 National Guard troops for interior immigration enforcement under state authority, potentially sparking legal conflicts between states and the federal government. This move, estimated to cost $3.6 billion annually, would involve troops distinct from the current 4,000 Guardsmen deployed to Los Angeles under presidential orders. The proposal involves utilizing Guard troops under state authority, circumventing laws prohibiting military involvement in civilian law enforcement.

The administration is reportedly exploring the deployment of National Guard troops sourced from red states into blue states where state governors may be unwilling to authorize support for DHS/ICE. This strategy, suggested by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, aims to leverage state militias for immigration enforcement activities in reluctant states. Legal experts view this proposal as unprecedented and potentially stretching the boundaries of state militia and National Guard roles.

Furthermore, the DHS proposal involves Guard troops working for ICE through the 287(g) partnership program, which delegates immigration enforcement authority to local and state law enforcement agencies. The Trump administration has revived this program, rapidly expanding ICE’s reach through task force agreements with numerous agencies. Concerns over racial profiling and efficiency led to the termination of such agreements during the Obama administration.

The potential interstate deployment of Guard troops and the invocation of the Insurrection Act for immigration enforcement raise constitutional and legal questions. While some argue for a loophole in using National Guard troops across state lines, others emphasize the need for gubernatorial consent. The Insurrection Act could empower the president to deploy troops without state approval, highlighting the complexities and contentious nature of this proposed immigration enforcement strategy.