Concerns Arise Over U.S. Troops Deployed to Southern Border
Recent discussions among Democrats in Congress have centered on the implications of the White House’s decision to send U.S. troops to the southern border. During a confirmation hearing for Army Secretary nominee Daniel Driscoll, legislators voiced their worries about how this deployment might affect military readiness and the potential risks of civilian-military interactions.
Military Readiness at Stake?
Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, directly posed a critical question to Driscoll during his confirmation hearing: “Is there a cost in terms of readiness?” In response, Driscoll emphasized the Army’s historical ability to balance multiple missions. “The Army has a long history of balancing multiple objectives,” he stated, affirming that if border security aligns with the priorities set by the commander-in-chief, “the Army will execute it.” He added, “I think border security is national security… The Army stands ready for any mission.”
Concerns from Lawmakers
While Driscoll attempted to reassure lawmakers, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) expressed significant concerns regarding the deployment of active-duty military personnel to support the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the border. “According to our Constitution, the U.S. military on active duty cannot perform law enforcement roles,” Slotkin remarked, emphasizing the legal limitations that such a deployment imposes.
Slotkin, a former CIA agent, pointed out the risks associated with troops untrained for law enforcement duties being placed in potentially volatile environments. “I’m deeply concerned that active duty troops are going to be forced into law enforcement roles,” she warned, foreseeing the possibility of incidents that could lead to public backlash against the military. “There’s going to be an incident. Someone’s going to get hurt… and suddenly we’re going to have a community that’s deeply angry at uniformed military,” she cautioned.
Potential Constitutional Conflicts
During the confirmation hearing, Slotkin further pressed Driscoll on whether he would obey orders from President Donald Trump or Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth if such instructions conflicted with the Constitution. Driscoll rejected the notion that either figure would issue such orders, reaffirming, “I will always follow the law.” However, Slotkin noted that the previous Army Secretary, Mark Esper, had faced similar issues, citing an instance where military involvement was requested during peaceful protests in Washington, D.C.
“Your predecessor, Army Secretary Mark Esper, had this exact thing that he wrote about in his book,” Slotkin rebutted. “So I reject your rejection that this is theoretical.” She expressed the need for accountability to maintain a non-political military structure that is not equipped for law enforcement.
History of Military Presence at the Border
The discussion comes in the wake of a national emergency declared by Trump shortly after taking office, which authorized the deployment of 1,500 additional active-duty troops — comprising 1,000 Army personnel and 500 Marines — to the southern border. At that time, there were already 2,500 service members stationed there, deployed in May 2023 during the Biden administration under Title 10 authorities. This deployment is expected to continue until the end of the 2025 fiscal year, according to U.S. Northern Command spokespersons.
During a recent briefing, Hegseth assured that “whatever is needed at the border will be provided,” which hinted at potential further deployments in the coming weeks.
Military’s Greater Role in Border Security
In addition to deploying troops, Trump also signed an executive order aimed at designating drug cartels in Latin America as foreign terrorist organizations. This move grants the military expanded authority to intercept these groups, further intertwining military action with domestic security initiatives.
The Ongoing Debate
The ongoing debate over the deployment of military personnel to the southern border raises questions about the role of the military in domestic policing and national security. Lawmakers argue the importance of maintaining a distinct separation between military duties and law enforcement roles, fearing that the involvement of active-duty troops in civilian matters could erode public trust and challenge legal constraints. As these discussions continue, the balance between national security interests and constitutional duties remains a topic of critical importance.
As Driscoll moves forward with his confirmation process, the scrutiny from lawmakers and their concerns will likely linger, impacting how military engagement within U.S. borders is approached in the future. With the complexities of the current border situation, the implications of deploying troops to this area represent not only logistical challenges but also ethical and constitutional dilemmas that will shape military policy for years to come.
