Trump activates military support for DHS: 2,000 troops to protect ICE personnel and property

The White House has issued a presidential memorandum authorizing the deployment of at least 2,000 National Guard troops under federal command to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel and facilities operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The directive, signed by President Donald J. Trump, came in response to what federal officials described as an “escalating threat of violence” against immigration enforcement agents and detention infrastructure across multiple states.

According to the memorandum, which was publicly released the same morning, protests that began in opposition to renewed ICE raids and immigration policy enforcement have “threatened the safety of federal personnel” and are now considered a disruption of lawful federal operations. The president invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. §12406 to call National Guard units into federal service for a minimum period of 60 days.

Why has the National Guard been deployed to protect immigration enforcement?

The deployment follows weeks of protest activity in cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where demonstrators have rallied against mass deportations and extended immigration detentions. Federal authorities reported that certain protest groups have attempted to breach the perimeter of ICE detention centers and obstruct enforcement operations.

In the presidential memorandum, Trump stated that “violence and disorder” targeting ICE agents and facilities have directly interfered with the enforcement of immigration law. The order frames this interference as a form of “rebellion” against the authority of the federal government, giving constitutional justification for military intervention in support of civilian federal agencies.

The decision to mobilize troops represents a rare and controversial use of federalized National Guard forces in domestic security roles, echoing prior deployments during nationwide unrest in 2020 and 2021. However, this instance differs in that it explicitly targets the defense of immigration enforcement actions and associated personnel.

What authority did President Trump invoke for this deployment?

The legal framework for the deployment rests on 10 U.S. Code §12406, a statute that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service during instances of insurrection or when state authorities are unable—or unwilling—to enforce federal law. The memorandum directs the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in identifying units for immediate deployment.

President Trump’s order specifies a minimum deployment of 2,000 National Guard members for a duration of 60 days. It also grants the Secretary of Defense the authority to extend the duration or expand the size of the deployment as necessary. In addition, the memorandum permits the use of regular active-duty personnel from the U.S. Armed Forces to augment National Guard efforts if deemed necessary.

All deployed military forces will be restricted to “military protective activities” essential to ensuring the safety of federal property and personnel. However, the memorandum requires the Secretary of Defense to consult with both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security before withdrawing any forces from their assigned locations.

What are the protest dynamics driving this federal action?

Demonstrations have surged in intensity following new enforcement measures rolled out by DHS in May 2025, which include expanded workplace raids, enhanced biometric surveillance at detention facilities, and the resumption of controversial deportation flights to countries with volatile political situations.

Advocacy groups have accused federal agencies of overreach, while the administration has insisted that it is simply executing long-standing immigration law. In several cities, tensions have escalated between federal officers and protestors, leading to arrests, injuries, and temporary facility shutdowns.

In Los Angeles, ICE officials were forced to evacuate a regional processing center last week following attempts by activists to chain themselves to access gates. In Chicago, federal authorities confirmed vandalism and attempted arson at a DHS field office. These incidents were cited in internal threat assessments shared with the Pentagon and DHS leadership, prompting the security escalation.

How are the National Guard and military expected to operate?

According to Pentagon officials familiar with the plan, National Guard troops will be tasked with perimeter security, personnel escort duties, surveillance assistance, and crisis response around designated federal locations, including ICE detention centers and federal court buildings.

The Department of Defense clarified that military personnel will not engage directly in law enforcement unless authorized under specific conditions consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. Instead, they will serve as force multipliers to support federal protective missions, with federal civilian agencies maintaining operational control.

Command decisions, including unit placement, deployment timeline, and withdrawal strategy, will be overseen by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with DHS and the Department of Justice. Delegation of operational authority to subordinate military and civilian officials is permitted under the terms of the memorandum.

What has been the official reaction from government departments?

The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the memorandum, stating that it reflects “a necessary and proportional response to credible threats targeting lawful federal operations.” In a joint internal memo obtained by reporters, DHS and ICE leadership thanked the White House for “taking decisive action to protect our officers and ensure operational continuity.”

The Department of Defense, through a spokesperson, confirmed that coordination with state governors and the National Guard Bureau began immediately after the memorandum’s release. Preparations for troop mobilization are ongoing, with initial deployments expected in metropolitan areas with high protest activity by June 10.

Officials from the Department of Justice did not issue a public statement but have been directed to support legal coordination and compliance measures as deployments proceed.

What are the broader political and civil liberty implications?

The decision to deploy troops to protect immigration enforcement is already drawing sharp criticism from civil rights groups, legal scholars, and members of Congress. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have warned that this action risks normalizing military intervention in civilian protest environments and could lead to violations of constitutional rights.

Opponents argue that the federal government is conflating civil disobedience with insurrection, thereby justifying the use of military force against largely peaceful demonstrators. Legal experts have also raised concerns about the scope of the deployment, noting the potential for mission creep if protest conditions worsen.

Supporters, including conservative lawmakers and law enforcement associations, contend that the use of military support is appropriate given the scale of recent violence. They argue that the safety of federal personnel must be prioritized and that deterrence is essential to maintaining order in politically sensitive enforcement zones.

What comes next for this federally backed security deployment?

Operational logistics are now in the hands of the Department of Defense, with support roles delegated to DHS and the DOJ. The timeline outlined in the memorandum sets a 60-day window, but the actual duration could be adjusted depending on the evolving security landscape.

Oversight from Congress is expected to intensify, with Democratic lawmakers likely to call for public hearings and detailed reporting on military-civilian interactions during this deployment. Meanwhile, immigrant advocacy organizations are preparing legal challenges and requesting injunctions should deployed troops engage in any non-compliant enforcement activities.

As of June 8, no incidents involving military personnel and protestors have been reported, but DHS is expected to issue security updates in the coming days as troop presence is established. The legal, political, and operational implications of this deployment will likely continue to unfold throughout the summer.