Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday announced that the state is building an 80-acre base camp in Eagle Pass for Texas National Guard soldiers who are deployed for Operation Lone Star, the $10 billion state effort to deter people from immigrating into Texas illegally.

Abbott said the new facility will house between 1,800 soldiers to 2,300 soldiers — the base would reach the higher figure if the state deploys more troops to the border — and each will have individual rooms.

“Before this effort here, they had been living in conditions that were atypical for military operations,” Abbott said during a news conference in Eagle Pass. “Because of the magnitude of what we’re doing, because of the need to sustain and actually expand our efforts of what we’re doing, it’s essential that we build this base camp for the soldiers.”

He said troops are scattered around the area, living in tents, hotels and private residences, and some have to drive an hour to get to Eagle Pass.

Abbott didn’t say how much the new base would cost; his office didn’t respond to an email from The Texas Tribune.

Texas Major Gen. Thomas Suelzer said that by mid-April the base will be able to hold 300 soldiers and will add 300 more beds roughly every 30 days until the base is complete.

Since launching Operation Lone Star in March 2021, Abbott has sent state troopers and the National Guard to different parts of the state’s 1,200-mile border with Mexico. An estimated 3,000 Texas soldiers are now deployed to the border, where they have helped state troopers apprehend migrants — many of whom were charged with trespassing on private land — erect barriers on land and water; and most recently, block U.S. Border Patrol agents from entering a city park in Eagle Pass that the state enclosed with concertina wire.

According to a 2022 investigation by the Military Times and the Tribune, the deployment has faced a myriad of problems: One in five troops reported problems with their pay, including being paid late, too little or not at all for months; shortages of critical equipment, including cold weather gear, medical equipment and plates for their ballistic vests; and troops living in cramped trailers.

The Texas National Guard and state troopers are still rolling out concertina wire and preventing Border Patrol agents from accessing most of Shelby Park, a 47-acre Eagle Pass park that sits on the bank of the Rio Grande where thousands of migrants have crossed.

Those continued efforts come despite the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week vacating a lower court’s decision that prevented Border Patrol agents from cutting the state’s concertina wire to apprehend people who already crossed the river.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 order didn’t give any reason and didn’t explicitly say Border Patrol agents were allowed to access the park or that the state had to remove the concertina wire. So the state has doubled down and some Republican lawmakers have said Texas should defy the Supreme Court’s ruling.

According to NBC News, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency that oversees the Border Patrol, sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office Tuesday demanding that immigration officers be allowed access to the park.

“To our knowledge, Texas has only permitted access to Shelby Park by allowing public entry for a memorial, the media, and the use of the golf course adjacent to Shelby Park, all while continuing to restrict U.S. Border Patrol’s access to the park. Please clarify the scope of access Texas permits to the public,” says the letter from DHS general counsel Jonathan Meyer , according to NBC News.

The Texas Military Department’s top officer also signaled quiet defiance in remarks made to agency staff during a Tuesday morning meeting, according to a source familiar with his comments. Military Times and The Texas Tribune verified the identity of the source, who requested anonymity due to potential reprisal from state officials because they are not authorized to speak publicly.

Air Force Maj. Gen. Thomas Suelzer was appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott to oversee the Texas National Guard and Texas State Guard as the agency’s adjutant general. He told staff that he believes the ruling only permits Border Patrol to cut through obstacles to retrieve stranded migrants, the source said. Suelzer added that his troops will repair any obstacles destroyed by federal agents, and that his troops won’t allow the feds to set up migrant processing centers in areas they’ve blocked.

“The Texas Military Department continues to hold the line in Shelby Park to deter and prevent unlawful entry into the State of Texas,” the agency said in an unsigned statement Tuesday. “We remain resolute in our actions to secure our border, preserve the rule of law, and protect the sovereignty of our State.”

On social media, U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, said Texas should ignore the ruling on behalf of the agents represented by the Border Patrol’s rank-and-file union.

“This opinion is unconscionable and Texas should ignore it on behalf of the @BPUnion agents who will be put in a worse position by the opinion and the Biden administration’s policies,” Roy wrote.

Jeremy Carl, a former deputy assistant secretary of the interior under the Trump administration and current senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank, expressed a similar sentiment on social media.

“If Greg Abbott wants to have a future on a national ticket he will defy this lawless Supreme Court and protect the Texas border from invasion,” he wrote.

On social media Wednesday, Abbott posted a picture of four guards rolling out concertina wire with a statement: “Texas’ razor wire is an effective deterrent against the illegal border crossings encouraged by Biden’s open border policies. We continue to deploy this razor wire to repel illegal immigration.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration in October, claiming that the Border Patrol illegally destroyed state property when its agents cut through concertina wire on the banks of the Rio Grande to “assist” migrants to “illegally cross” the border. The Biden administration has said agents cut the wire in order to arrest migrants that were already on American soil as that is what federal law requires.

District Judge Alia Moses, a George W. Bush appointee, eventually ruled in favor of the Biden administration, saying Border Patrol agents didn’t violate any laws by cutting the wire to take into custody people crossing the river illegally.

Texas appealed and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s ruling until a panel of judges could hear arguments. The Biden administration took the case to the Supreme Court asking the federal judges to vacate the appeal court’s ruling.

The standoff between Texas and the federal government escalated when earlier this month state troopers and National Guard members took over Shelby Park in Eagle Pass against city officials’ wishes.

On Jan. 12, National Guard members at the park blocked a Border Patrol agent from accessing the river after three migrants drowned while crossing the Rio Grande and two other migrants were still struggling in the water, according to a court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice.

According to the filing, Mexican immigration officials alerted Border Patrol agents at 9 p.m. that night that two migrants were in distress on the American side near the boat ramp at Shelby Park. An hour earlier, a mother with two children drowned in the same area, according to the Justice Department. When a supervising Border Patrol agent told National Guard troops at the park gate about the migrants in distress, one of them responded that they had orders to deny Border Patrol entry.

The Border Patrol agent asked to speak with a National Guard supervisor, who told the agent that “Border Patrol was not permitted to enter the area even in emergency situations,” according to the court filing.

Since then, National Guard has given Border Patrol access to the boat ramp at the park, but the agents have to give their names, and the time they entered the park is recorded, according to a statement by Robert Danley, lead field coordinator for U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the Del Rio area, that was filed with the Supreme Court.

The state has denied the Justice Department’s version of events, saying that the supervising agent who alerted National Guard members at the gate about the drownings didn’t indicate it was an emergency and that “Mexican officials had the situation under control,” according to a court filing by Paxton’s office with the Supreme Court.

In its current form, family separation allowance provides an additional tax-free $250 per month to service members who are involuntarily separated from their families for 30 days or more. Eligible circumstances include dependent-restricted permanent duty tours (unless the member volunteered), sea duty and temporary duty away from the member’s permanent station. The defense policy bill, which President Joe Biden signed on Dec. 22, authorized DoD to boost the allowance to $400 per month.

Despite the updated law, officials are waiting to decide whether they’ll do it, according to a Pentagon spokesperson and an internal newsletter obtained by Military Times.

“The Department has not made any decision to change the monthly amount of Family Separation Allowance at this time,” said a Pentagon official who argued that Congress intended to create “a payment range with upper and lower payment boundaries.” The official, who requested anonymity to discuss ongoing policy deliberations, said the law gives the DoD “flexibility over time to adjust payment levels … without having to seek specific legislation to change the payment amount.”

The defense policy bill also required the Pentagon’s regular reviews of military pay — which occur every four years — to include family separation allowance rates in their studies. The Pentagon official said the review commission is expected to issue its final report and recommendations by the end of 2024, though it’s uncertain whether family separation allowance will increase before (or even after) the study concludes.

One of the law’s original sponsors, Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, emphasized that the changes are intended to increase the amount of money going into troops’ pockets.

“Our military families make great sacrifices every day — it’s only fair that we do everything we can to improve their quality of life,” Gonzales said in a statement to Military Times. “That is why I pushed hard to increase the Family Separation Allowance in this year’s NDAA for the first time in two decades. I will continue to work with the Department of Defense to ensure this boost is made a reality for military parents across the country.”

Advocates for military families expressed frustration with the Pentagon’s inaction when reached by Military Times.

“It has been 20 years since the last increase of the Family Separation Allowance. It’s time to bring it in line with the current cost of living,” said Kelly Hruska, government relations director for the National Military Family Association. “This is what Congress intended. We are disappointed that DoD chose to ignore the will of Congress and keep this allowance flat.”

The politicians argue that military force — effectively doubling down on the War on Drugs within the borders of America’s largest trading partner — can help stem the flow of synthetic opioid drugs like fentanyl. Such drugs killed more than 70,000 Americans in 2021, according to government data.

In recent months, former president Donald Trump, the likely GOP nominee, and his longshot rivals — including former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, Florida Gov. Ron Desantis, and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy — have all committed to using military force against drug cartels, with or without the Mexican government’s consent.

Trump’s campaign website states the former president intends to “impose a full naval embargo on the cartels” using Navy ships, in addition to deploying “special forces, cyber warfare, and other covert and overt actions” against the criminal organizations. Other proposals include drone and missile strikes, as well as special operations raids into Mexico.

The nation’s leader, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, strongly opposes any U.S. military action in Mexico’s sovereign territory. Although more than half of Americans, according to a September Reuters/Ipsos poll, support sending troops into Mexico to fight the cartels, only 29% would support doing so against the Mexican government’s wishes.

Meanwhile, the military’s efforts on U.S. soil to shore up border security amid record-high migration levels will continue into 2024.

The Texas National Guard’s state-controlled border security effort, Operation Lone Star, has stationed thousands of Guardsmen along the border. Because they are not considered federal military members while on state duty, they have arrested migrants on state trespassing charges in addition to manning observation posts and building barriers along the border, among other duties. Troops assigned to the mission have run afoul of intelligence oversight rules, according to a joint Army Times-Texas Tribune investigation, and have committed shootings and other controversial incidents.

U.S. Northern Command also has two federally controlled missions to support federal agencies at the border. According to the command, the larger of the two consists of 2,500 Army National Guard soldiers assisting Customs and Border Protection with tasks like camera watching, analysis support, and aerial monitoring. In a parallel but separate effort, 800 active duty troops of multiple branches remain authorized to assist CBP with administrative, logistical and surveillance work there through the end of 2023.

Despite lawmakers and media reports sounding alarm over the proposed reductions in recent months, Army officials — including Army Secretary Christine Wormuth — have largely declined to discuss their proposals in detail before legislative briefings were complete. According to an Oct. 5 Wall Street Journal report, around 3,000 Army special operations roles are on the chopping block. A cut of that magnitude would eliminate approximately 10% of all Army special operations billets.

Army Undersecretary Gabe Camarillo and other Army officials went to Capitol Hill Thursday and briefed professional staff members from the House and Senate’s respective armed services committees “on Army structure changes, to include [special operations forces],” according to a congressional staffer, who spoke on condition their name not be used in order to discuss the private briefing.

A defense official, to whom Army Times also granted anonymity, confirmed the briefings occurred. That official added that the assistant defense secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict was also represented in the closed-door events.

Asked about Thursday’s briefings, a second defense official told Army Times that a “significant portion” of the requested cuts would fall on vacant positions — the Army’s special operations community has not been immune to the recruiting crisis affecting the service.

Reached by email regarding the special operations cuts, a spokesperson for Wormuth referred Army Times to recent public statements made by the secretary.

Wormuth has repeatedly stated that the Army will request to cut what she terms to be “over structure.” That means eliminating or restructuring units that struggle to maintain adequate manning and are becoming “hollow.” In an Oct. 3 press conference, she acknowledged that “part of what we’re doing is driven by the recruiting challenges we’ve had for the last few years.”

The secretary also exclusively told Army Times in June that the service was weighing reductions to “enablers” who support operators after the U.S. has significantly reduced the Global War on Terror operations that caused the Army special operations community to double in size.

Beyond vacant positions and excess enablers, Army Times could not confirm what other areas of Army SOF, if any, will lose troops.

The proposed force structure reductions first came to light in May, when members of the Senate Armed Services Committee asked Army officials about them during a subcommittee hearing. Those lawmakers further voiced their objections last month, with a Senate staffer telling Army Times that senators wanted the Pentagon to ”’show us their math’ in both a written report and briefings.”

According to a report from Defense One, special operations officials also disagreed with the cuts, which led to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s mediation in the months preceding Thursday’s briefing. Ultimately, Congress will decide whether to accept the Defense Department and Army’s proposed force reductions.

Military Times editor-at-large Todd South contributed to this report.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) and state Sen. Roland Gutierrez (D-San Antonio), who is running for U.S. Senate, both issued statements via their official accounts on X, the social media site better known as Twitter.

The lawmakers’ remarks came after an investigation published Tuesday by Military Times and The Texas Tribune revealed how Texas Guardsmen at the state’s border with Mexico spied on migrants via WhatsApp and allegedly mishandled secret documents. At least three internal whistleblowers independently reported their peers’ actions to watchdogs, sparking an investigation that ultimately led the state to disband the border mission’s intelligence directorate in fall 2022.

The Texas National Guard inspector general faulted at least two officers for the WhatsApp work, and at least four have faced interim administrative discipline. Two officers implicated in the operation told Military Times and the Tribune that the state failed to give them clear guidance on what intelligence work was allowed, and they also claimed their commanders — now-retired Col. Kevin Boates and Brig. Gen. Monie Ulis — disregarded concerns raised by oversight personnel.

“[Gov. Greg] Abbott’s officials pushed National Guard troops to misuse federal resources for a state-sponsored spy ring & punished officers who raised concerns,” Castro, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said. “We need a full federal investigation or this incident will set a dangerous precedent for domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens.”

Abbott’s office did not immediately provide a comment for this story.

Gutierrez, an immigration attorney outside of political life, argued the intelligence operation was “unconstitutional” and said “there must be a full [Justice Department] investigation…with swift action and accountability.”

Castro and Gutierrez’s worries echo those of troops familiar with the intelligence operations who spoke to Military Times on condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from state officials. Those service members said they were worried that without clearer policies and guidance in place, governors around the country may abuse their state authority over the Guard to deploy their federally-trained intelligence personnel for dubious missions to enforce politically controversial laws.

One soldier said he welcomed the call for a federal investigation, adding that he hopes such scrutiny would help the government develop “clearer…instructions and guidelines” for intelligence operations under state authority.

If the Justice Department were to launch an investigation of Operation Lone Star’s intelligence work, it would be at least the third federal probe of the state-run border mission.

The Texas Tribune and ProPublica reported in July 2022 that the Justice Department’s civil rights division was investigating whether the state’s trespassing arrests of migrants violated federal civil rights laws.

The federal government also sued Texas for placing floating barriers in the Rio Grande in July. Mexico’s government claimed the buoys violated treaties that govern the international border, and the Justice Department claimed Texas was not authorized to install the barrier. The state had denied that claim, and the lawsuit is in progress.

When officers from the Texas National Guard showed up to their 7 a.m. meeting with federal agents from Homeland Security Investigations in El Paso, they didn’t arrive empty-handed.

Six military intelligence officials turned over a list of names at the February 2022 meeting. The Texans were part of an intelligence directorate supporting Operation Lone Star, Gov. Greg Abbott’s state-run border mission. The officers, which included the group’s top two leaders, told federal agents they’d secretly infiltrated invite-only WhatsApp group chats filled with migrants and smugglers and wanted their help investigating the targets they’d identified, according to a sworn statement attached to a whistleblower complaint filed later that month.

The Homeland Security officials in the meeting rebuffed the Texans on the spot — with one official saying that they were an investigative body and “not an intelligence agency,” the whistleblower recalled.

An investigation by Military Times and The Texas Tribune has found that Texas National Guard leaders disbanded Operation Lone Star’s intelligence wing after whistleblowers reported the WhatsApp surveillance, which targeted migrant groups to track them through Mexico, because they believed it violated long-standing rules against state-run spy operations. During the same period, another team from the intelligence directorate allegedly sent classified FBI intelligence to their Texas Guard colleagues in an apparent violation of federal secrecy laws, according to an internal incident report.

At least four intelligence officers have faced interim administrative discipline in the debacle’s wake:

• Lt. Col. David “Eric” Tyler led the border intelligence section from December 2021 to fall 2022.
• Maj. Dezi J. Rios, the intelligence wing’s deputy director, allegedly oversaw the WhatsApp collection operation.
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Eric E. Hack led the El Paso team that allegedly shared classified FBI intelligence.
• Then-1st Lt. Emmanuel L. Pierre, a military intelligence officer from a subordinate unit, allegedly began the WhatsApp intelligence operation about a month before Rios arrived at the border.

The Texas Military Department’s inspector general, with assistance from the National Guard Bureau, investigated “potential questionable intelligence activities,” the agency confirmed in response to questions for this story. The agency said in a statement that the watchdog concluded its investigation in September 2022 but has not yet shared its final report, adding that it will “finalize” discipline once leaders receive it. Leaders initially reorganized and eventually disbanded the intelligence directorate in fall 2022, folding the remaining personnel into the mission’s operations section, a source familiar with the mission’s organization said.

According to an official document that Rios provided to Military Times and the Tribune summarizing part of the investigation, the inspector general’s office found that the WhatsApp scheme was an unauthorized foreign intelligence operation and faulted Rios for overseeing Pierre’s work — a finding Rios disputes. It’s unclear if the inspector general concluded that any other officers broke the rules.

Two of the implicated officers, Tyler and Rios, told Military Times and the Tribune that senior leaders set them up to take the fall for the operation. Both claimed they shared concerns about the legality of Pierre’s WhatsApp work to the mission’s top brass at the time, Brig. Gen. Monie Ulis and Col. Kevin Boates, but were unable to convince them to end it.

According to a sworn statement Rios made June 25, he and state intelligence officials “were unable to convince [Col.] Boates or [Brig. Gen.] Ulis” to stop the WhatsApp operation. In a Dec. 27, 2021 email — obtained through an open records request — Rios claimed to have “expressed my reservations with [Col.] Boates and [Brig. Gen.] Ulis” about the WhatsApp operation to no avail.

In his sworn statement — included in his own June complaint with the inspector general alleging the state failed to set clear guidelines for intelligence activity at the border — Rios said Boates “ordered me to oversee” Pierre’s WhatsApp operation while simultaneously blocking Rios from stopping it. He filed the complaint because the investigation blocked his promotion to lieutenant colonel, he said.

Tyler, who has served in the Texas Guard for 33 years, said through his attorney that he was “disappointed that … I’m being sanctioned based [on] an investigation report that I’m not allowed to see.” The lieutenant colonel added, “I assume the reason that they won’t tell me anything or provide me any evidence is that if I somehow failed to supervise a junior officer that reported directly to [Brig. Gen.] Ulis, then Ulis should be accountable.”

Ulis was appointed as the deputy commanding general of U.S. Army South in June, a role held simultaneously with his appointment as the state’s assistant adjutant general.

Hack, Boates and Ulis did not respond to interview requests made via phone and email. Pierre declined to comment.

For this story, Military Times and the Tribune obtained more than 750 pages of internal Texas Guard records, spoke with intelligence oversight experts, and interviewed three verified Texas National Guard service members who had direct knowledge of the events. They requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from state officials and have not been accused of wrongdoing.

“Uniquely vulnerable to abuse”

When the WhatsApp intelligence operation began in fall 2021, Operation Lone Star was undergoing a multibillion-dollar expansion from a lean, volunteer-staffed outfit into a long-term domestic military deployment of unprecedented scale staffed by part-time troops who are effectively temporary state employees.

The pseudo-military mission — which at its height deployed 10,000 Guard members across the state — had growing pains, including payroll problems and poor living conditions for the service members, that occurred due to poor planning and a lack of bureaucratic preparedness. Its intelligence efforts weren’t exempt from the planning gaps.

Operation Lone Star’s commanders demanded military-style intelligence from their intelligence personnel, according to Tyler and three other troops with direct knowledge of the work.

“Everyone [in charge] wanted to pretend it was like Iraq in 2003,” one service member said in an interview. “They wanted to do Army stuff, even though this is [legally] not Army stuff.”

“All the Generals wanted to know about the next mass migration,” Tyler said through his attorney in an email when asked if he was ever pressured to violate intel rules.

According to official planning documents and three soldiers with knowledge of the mission, leaders directed the border intelligence wing to detect the “capabilities of transnational criminal organizations” in Mexico and track their “criminal activity,” in addition to predicting where migrants would try to cross the border.

Such intelligence work is essentially unheard of for National Guard members on state active duty — a state-funded status typically used for short-lived missions. Typically, Guard intelligence personnel deployed under such orders are limited to predicting and assessing the severity of disaster damage, perhaps following a storm or during riots.

The demand for intelligence posed a problem, too. According to National Guard Bureau regulations and a Guard intelligence representative, personnel on state active duty are barred from doing national security foreign intelligence work, and they’re banned from using Defense Department intelligence systems or techniques, known as tradecraft. Instead, they may, to the extent permitted by state law and regulations, support partner law enforcement agencies.

State-level intelligence oversight officials wanted to coordinate closely with the National Guard Bureau to ensure compliance. But as transgressions piled up, one state intelligence official, Chief Warrant Officer 4 X’Lenske Sampson, emailed border intelligence officers and warned of “the potential fallout if the media [were] to find out or assume the Texas National Guard is conducting Intelligence Operations on the border.”

Sampson did not respond to interview requests.

His counterparts on the border — including Tyler, the top intelligence officer there — disagreed and argued via email that federal regulations didn’t apply to their conduct on state duty so long as they didn’t use federally controlled intelligence systems and tools. Tyler’s attorney, Doug O’Connell, echoed that argument in an Aug. 16 statement to Military Times and the Tribune.

“Any competent attorney that understands basic Constitutional law will tell you that when the militia is deployed by the Governor, for a state mission, federal regulations are inapplicable unless federal funds or equipment are involved,” O’Connell said.

Tyler chafed at the restrictions.

“All I get is ‘No,’” he lamented in a February 2022 email to a state official over limits on intelligence training. “I need a way to ‘Yes.’”

The internal documents show widespread confusion and debate over what rules applied and when. And with intelligence work, the stakes are high — today’s strict oversight procedures exist because Defense Department personnel ran massive domestic intelligence operations during the Vietnam War that targeted Americans based solely on how they legally exercised their First Amendment rights.

National Guard intelligence efforts like the WhatsApp operation are “uniquely vulnerable to abuse” without prior coordination with state and federal law enforcement, said lawyer Charles McCullough, who oversaw intelligence oversight for the intelligence community’s 18 civilian and military organizations from 2011 to 2017 as its Senate-confirmed inspector general.

McCullough, who also served as the National Security Agency’s top investigator, described the authorities governing intelligence work as “overlapping and arcane,” and said that the Texas Military Department, like any agency undertaking such an effort, owed clearer guidelines to its personnel from the mission’s outset.

The former watchdog added that if commanders override concerns from intelligence oversight officials — as two implicated officers claim Boates and Ulis did — they should bear responsibility for any violations.

Michael German, a former FBI special agent who studies intelligence policy as a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, warned that if states try to run their own foreign military intelligence operations, they risk upsetting the delicate ecosystem of international diplomacy with unpredictable spin-off effects.

German also said operations like the WhatsApp scheme put intelligence operatives at risk and endanger national security.

“Having untrained people running ad hoc operations puts them at risk and dilutes the value of [real intelligence]…because it gets mixed with information that doesn’t go through the same vetting process,” he said. “Adding another layer of inappropriate [intelligence] activities isn’t making America safer.”

Burners on the border

When around 15,000 migrants of Haitian descent streamed across the Rio Grande near Del Rio in September 2021, then-1st Lt. Emmanuel Pierre found new demand for a decades-old skill set.

Pierre was born in Haiti in 1978, according to a 2017 interview. The native Haitian Creole speaker learned English and translated for U.S. and United Nations personnel before immigrating to Florida. He enlisted in the Army in 2006, and eventually became a Texas National Guard intelligence officer.

After volunteering for Operation Lone Star in early 2021, the lieutenant quickly became an assistant intelligence officer based in Weslaco with Task Force Salerno, which later became Task Force East after the border mission expanded, three sources said.

According to internal emails, Texas Department of Public Safety and Border Patrol officials tapped Pierre as a translator during the Del Rio crisis, authorizing him to wear civilian clothes.

The emails offer conflicting tales. In one version, Pierre simply translated. Other officials claimed the intelligence officer concealed his identity and did “clandestine” interviews on U.S. soil, possibly violating rules against using human intelligence “tradecraft” while on state duty.

An official from Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency of Border Patrol, denied that its agents requested Pierre — or any Texas Guardsman — for translation services during the Del Rio crisis. The Texas Department of Public Safety did not respond to emailed questions.

But all accounts agreed on one thing: Pierre carried a cellphone that had access to WhatsApp chats from migrants and smugglers. Many migrants use the encrypted messaging app to communicate internationally during their journey to the United States.

In an email to Tyler, Rios claimed that Boates, the Operation Lone Star deputy commander, purchased the phone for Pierre.

The WhatsApp chats were in English, Creole and Spanish, later emails claimed.

Texas intelligence officials were alarmed by Pierre’s conduct.

On Oct. 26, 2021, a state intelligence officer, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Matthew Sugars, emailed the border intelligence directorate to request written statements about the work a soldier — whose name was redacted in records — did with Border Patrol intelligence agents. Sugars did not respond to an interview request. Three people from the mission identified the redacted soldier as Pierre.

In the days following Sugars’ email, he and border mission officials feverishly worked to update their “guidance” for intelligence personnel on the border. But the two sides struggled to settle on a rulebook, and a final version was not completed for about 10 weeks. As they debated, the WhatsApp operation continued.

Boates, the mission’s deputy commander, shot a Nov. 4, 2021, email to Rios ordering him “to assist with analysis of the information” that Pierre received on the phone.

In order to comply, Rios began monitoring Pierre’s WhatsApp activity through a DoD computer linked to the phone, according to the whistleblower’s sworn statement and emails from state officials. Investigators later found he used the computer between Nov. 1, 2021, and April 2022, though he disputed that timeline.

Rios also assigned a junior soldier to translate Spanish messages from the migrant groups, two sources and documents confirmed. A Guardsman with knowledge of the operation said Rios “would have her just go in and ask questions,” but could not definitively say what she asked. The source noted that under federal authority, sending messages in targeted conversations, as opposed to passive listening, requires high-level approvals and strict controls.

In his June 2023 sworn statement and his contemporaneous emails, Rios insisted he used the WhatsApp-linked computer to monitor Pierre for potential wrongdoing. He reiterated this argument in interviews, and he also emphasized Boates’ alleged role directing the operation.

Because Rios wouldn’t let others use the computer, his peers and subordinates grew suspicious, a whistleblower’s sworn statement said.

Alarm bells

In late December 2021, a service member on the border mission reported Pierre’s WhatsApp work as questionable intelligence activity. It was the first of three such reports confirmed by Military Times and the Tribune.

A former signals intelligence specialist who spoke with Military Times and the Tribune likened such reports to pulling the emergency brake on a car — they often immediately shut down units for investigation.

“Even the accusation of a questionable intelligence activity could bring an office to an immediate halt,” said the specialist, who requested anonymity because he works on defense contracts.

State officials tried to do that after receiving the complaint.

Air Force Maj. Meredith Zinni, a state intelligence officer, sent an urgent email on Dec. 30, 2021, that announced the complaint against Pierre’s “continued clandestine style operations.” Zinni, who did not respond to an interview request, insisted that the WhatsApp operation “MUST IMMEDIATELY CEASE.”

In a subsequent email, Sugars also said “all actions” Pierre had taken using WhatsApp violated National Guard restrictions banning intelligence work while on state active duty. He claimed Texas Military Department attorneys agreed the actions “are violations of [state active duty] status.”

Tyler waited a week before he ordered Pierre to stop communicating with “any foreign national using WhatsApp or any other app or platform” on Jan. 6, 2022. A week later, Tyler asked Rios to help monitor Pierre for violations of that order, according to an email and a statement from his attorney.

But the lieutenant colonel also argued the state was wrong about how and when intelligence oversight rules applied, claiming Operation Lone Star and Pierre’s actions presented a “unique situation.”

Rios claimed the WhatsApp operation ended in January 2022, when he transitioned to preserving evidence of Pierre’s transgressions, according to emails and statements he wrote. But another soldier’s questionable intelligence activity report claimed Rios, through his computer, had access to the WhatsApp account and used it for more than monitoring.

The soldier’s report was made in the wake of the Feb. 1, 2022, meeting with Homeland Security Investigations officials, where the Texans purportedly presented the list of names gathered from WhatsApp for further investigation. The complainant attended the meeting, which they detailed in a sworn statement to investigators.

Rios and Tyler, who were the senior Texas Guard intelligence officials present that day, confirmed the meeting occurred but denied handing over a list of names from WhatsApp.

According to documents and Guard members with knowledge of the events, investigators stepped in after the soldier’s report and started interviews about the WhatsApp operation in March 2022. The Texas Military Department confirmed its inspector general investigation, which began at an unspecified date, brought in “National Guard Bureau intelligence oversight officials” for assistance that same month.

It’s unclear why Texas National Guard officials tapped Rios as the mission’s deputy intelligence director in October 2021. The intel officer had resigned from the San Antonio Police Department that same month after his involvement in a third road rage incident in four years led to misdemeanor criminal charges. (In May 2023, the Bexar County district attorney’s office ultimately dropped the charges against Rios. The former police officer was not arrested or charged in connection with the first two road rage incidents.)

Secrets spilled

Meanwhile, another policy debate raged over Operation Lone Star’s efforts to embed intelligence officers with federal agencies throughout Texas.

It had been months in the making.

In January 2022, the FBI’s El Paso Field Office invited Operation Lone Star to embed a small team there to bolster its intelligence ranks. The FBI’s invitation email also noted that a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, would set limits on who could work on what and when. Such agreements also delineate access to classified information.

Similar arrangements had been successful elsewhere. Under formal agreements in Laredo, a number of Texas Guard members successfully joined an anti-cartel joint law enforcement task force named Blue Indigo.

But El Paso’s FBI agreement was never signed amid various delays and leadership changes.

Meanwhile, Hack, the intelligence warrant officer whose civilian job was as an intel analyst at the FBI’s El Paso office, moved home and embedded in his old workplace as an Operation Lone Star representative. A second soldier joined him there.

An operations officer on the border mission learned of the El Paso team in late March and filed a questionable intelligence activity whistleblower report on April 1, 2022, that included screenshots of messages and phone records.

The officer argued that the collaboration violated intelligence oversight rules because there wasn’t a signed MOU.

The officer did not respond to an interview request from Military Times and the Tribune.

Within hours of the report, Tyler argued with state intelligence officials again over the legal authorities that allowed state active duty soldiers to work with federal agencies. In an April 3, 2022, email, he claimed that National Guard Bureau intelligence oversight procedures don’t apply to Operation Lone Star.

But then, in late May 2022, Hack’s team at the FBI El Paso field office allegedly “used classified systems that were not authorized” and sent classified FBI intelligence back to Operation Lone Star, according to an internal Texas Guard incident report.

A service member from the mission said the incident occurred on May 24, and the internal report said that state intelligence officials discovered it May 26.

Fallout

Within days of the alleged spill, the Texas Guard suspended Tyler’s security clearance, and investigators came calling, according to emails he sent in June 2022. The lieutenant colonel told investigators he thought they were “misled and misinformed,” arguing that any transgressions were born of “confusion.”

Hack’s military personnel record was flagged for administrative investigation on June 2, 2022, the day of the incident report, and he was sent home from the border mission. Flagged troops are blocked from awards, promotions or other favorable personnel actions.

Classified document spills can be punished as criminal offenses, but they’re often quietly handled via administrative means, according to German, a fellow at the Brennan Center. He decried the practice.

“If you’re not going to get in trouble for breaking the rules, and you have a very important issue, the rules aren’t going to be a very strong bulwark against that kind of abuse,” he said.

It’s not clear whether Hack has faced any formal discipline in either his military or civilian careers. The FBI, through an unnamed spokesperson, refused to comment on Hack or his status.

“The FBI takes the unauthorized removal, retention or transmission of sensitive information, whether classified or unclassified, very seriously and will continue its commitment to prevent any mishandling of sensitive information,” the bureau said.

Rios and Tyler were sent home from Operation Lone Star in fall 2022 amid the investigations, they confirmed to Military Times and the Tribune.

According to the partial summary of the investigative report Rios provided, the inspector general substantiated intelligence oversight violations by at least Pierre and Rios. The officer received the document, a summary of “adverse information” in a restricted Army database, because the investigation’s findings blocked his promotion to lieutenant colonel. Military Times and the Tribune could not independently confirm whether other officers had adverse findings.

But it was nearly a year before Tyler, Rios and Pierre also received administrative investigation flags on their military personnel records in May 2023 — one day after Rios emailed a Texas Military Department general to ask why his promotion had been blocked. Tyler and Rios also confirmed that their security clearances are suspended.

The three anonymous service members who spoke with Military Times and the Tribune said their experience left them disillusioned. They lost faith in the Texas National Guard’s ability to ethically execute its missions.

“If they’re willing to compromise their integrity over something like that,” one soldier asked, “who knows where they’ll stop?

A second service member said he’s fearful that other states might use federally trained intelligence troops in state-run intelligence operations unless the federal government makes an example out of Texas.

“You give intel soldiers enough tools — we’re violating many constitutional rights very quickly,” he added.

The third was shaken by what he felt was a failure by Texas National Guard leaders to use its intelligence troops in a legal and effective manner.

The service member said a Guardsman from the border intel directorate had volunteered to build a tool to track the Rio Grande’s water flow and alert leaders when conditions were unsafe for migrants and soldiers alike, but it was deemed “not important.” Spc. Bishop Evans, a 22-year-old Guard member from Arlington, drowned trying to save two migrants in April 2022.

“And that’s the frustrating thing about this,” he said. “We did all this shit, we broke all these rules. And for…”

He trailed off.

Correction, Aug. 30, 2023 at 4:49 p.m. EST: In a previous version of this story, a helicopter was incorrectly identified in a photo caption as belonging to Customs and Border Protection. It is the property of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

A recent court ruling in Texas could complicate matters further. The stage is set for a fight over control of the Guard — and this time, the states have the upper hand.

For more than a century, the federal government’s authority over the National Guard has steadily increased, as has its usage overseas.

States, who once held near-total control over their militias, sacrificed autonomy on the altar of a federal financial firehose, which gave the Defense Department leverage to shape the Guard in the image of its full-time counterparts. In return, governors now have highly trained forces at their disposal for missions at home, and they’re using them more often than ever.

Both sides have benefitted from this deal since 1990, when the Supreme Court unanimously decided the last major legal battle in favor of the DoD.

But the deal may soon be dead, experts say, after a recent court ruling in Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s legal fight against the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Army Times reviewed court documents, researched historical cases and spoke to legal scholars about the ruling, the ongoing legal battle, and its potential impact on the Guard.

“What the ruling essentially says is that state compliance with federal guidelines is completely voluntary,” said Jeff Jacobs, a retired Army Reserve two-star general, attorney and author of a 1994 book analyzing the Guard’s dual control structure. “And the only recourse the federal government has — because Texas did not dispute this — is to withdraw funding for [the state’s] National Guard.”

Jacobs warned this decision at its “logical conclusion” allows governors to block military personnel requirements, offering free rein to protect non-federalized Guard members from military punishments for everything from marijuana use to fitness tests. But even under the ruling, troops must meet all federal requirements to join.

“It gives the governor[s] a veto to play politics with every single thing that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Army or Air Force do,” the retired general warned.

Both the DoD and the National Guard Bureau declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. In an emailed statement, Abbott spokesperson Andrew Mahaleris said the governor “appreciate[s] the Fifth Circuit’s adherence to the rule of law, and Texas will not stop fighting until the brave men and women of our military receive the full benefits they have more than earned.”

The Abbott administration, later joined by Alaska’s governor, asked a federal judge in Tyler, Texas, to block the DoD’s vaccine mandate in January 2022.

In court filings, the governors claimed that “only the state, through its governor, possesses legal authority to govern state National Guard personnel” when not mobilized under federal control, regardless of who is cutting the drill checks.

Responding to the governors, the federal government contended it has the authority to set readiness requirements and enforce them. They contended that in order to receive federal pay and federal benefits — even when in a state-controlled, federally-funded Title 32 status — members of the Guard needed to comply with federal readiness requirements.

After in-person arguments in June 2022, U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker denied the governors’ request for a preliminary injunction, a rare pre-trial declaration that would have blocked the vaccine mandate for Guardsmen nationwide.

The Abbott administration appealed the denial to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the result could upend federal control of the Guard.

A shot over the bow

Within the context of the case, the court’s decision was minor, explained Jason Mazzone, a law professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’s College of Law.

A panel of three appeals judges unanimously voted to vacate — or undo — Barker’s denial of the preliminary injunction. The lower district judge must reconsider the matter in the months ahead, and final resolution could be years away.

But when appeals courts vacate district court decisions, as the 5th Circuit did on June 12, they typically publish a legal opinion, a memorandum explaining their reasoning that provides legal guidance to lower courts about the issue. According to Mazzone and Jacobs, pre-trial opinions often foreshadow later decisions.

The June 12 opinion, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham and signed onto in part by U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett, left little to the imagination. Oldham, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, ascended to the 5th Circuit on a 50-49 Senate vote in 2018. He spent the previous three years as an official lawyer for Abbott, culminating as his office’s general counsel.

The panel’s third member, U.S. Circuit Judge Carl Stewart, declined to join the opinion.

“The President of the United States asserts the power to punish members of the Texas National Guard who have not been called into national service,” Oldham said. “The Constitution and laws of the United States, however, deny him that power.”

The ruling overturned Barker’s analysis for the lower district court. Barker held that the federal government can withhold pay and punish members of the National Guard who refuse to comply with readiness requirements. That’s because Guard troops hold simultaneous and overlapping, but legally distinct, memberships in their state’s organized militia and the federal National Guard, Barker argued.

But Oldham disagreed. He analyzed the Constitution’s Militia Clauses, which were a 1780s power-sharing compromise between the federal government and the states. The states feared the potential tyranny of a federal government with a large standing Army, but the Federalists, who favored a strong central government, argued that Congress needed to defend the country.

Under that bargain, the state militia had state-appointed officers and remained under state control on a day-to-day basis, though the federal government set their training standards. The central government also gained absolute power over the militia and its members if and when it was ordered into federal service to repel invasions or suppress insurrections.

Oldham acknowledged that later laws established the National Guard as the organized state militias and increased the federal government’s oversight and funding. But the government’s proposed punishments for Guard members who refused the vaccine mandate — which Oldham said may still occur, citing Military Times’ reporting — “unlawfully usurp Governor Abbott’s exclusive constitutional authority to ‘govern’ the non-federalized Texas militia.” That includes administrative actions like withholding pay and discharging troops.

Jacobs, the retired Reserve general, said Oldham’s reasoning could allow governors to defy any federal requirement they don’t see fit to enforce on their state’s National Guard.

“Let’s say you can’t pass a [physical fitness] test,” Jacobs said. “What Judge Oldham is saying is, ‘Well, Department of Defense [and] Department of the Army, you have no authority to yank that soldier’s recognition…[and] discharge him from the Army National Guard.’”

The federal government can theoretically federalize an entire state’s Guard to undo a governor’s orders, as President Dwight Eisenhower did in 1957 when the governor of Arkansas had deployed his troops to block Black students from integrating a school. But mass call-ups require significant political will, and Oldham noted that Biden appears “unwilling or unable to do so” to enforce the vaccine mandate’s punishments.

Responding to the federal government’s argument that federal laws give it punishment options for non-federalized Guardsmen, Oldham implied such laws are unconstitutional. “Regardless of whether the Government’s reading of these statutes is correct, the Constitution forbids President Biden from bypassing the States, stepping into Governor Abbott’s shoes, and directly governing Texas’s non-federalized militiamen.”

Beyond federalizing the troops, the federal government’s only other option is to take federal funding away from the entire state’s National Guard, Oldham declared. But that idea hasn’t received serious consideration since the 1980s, when governors tried to block overseas deployments.

Not your granddaddy’s Guard

How did Oldham reach a conclusion that could reignite old debates?

The judge is an adherent of originalism, a conservative legal philosophy that places great weight on the original meaning behind the Founding Fathers’ words.

Originalist arguments often use historical analysis to examine how the Framers debated and explained the Constitution’s ideas, an approach that contrasts with other philosophies that consider the Constitution a living document and rely more on how officials and the courts have interpreted it over time.

Originalism coalesced as a theory in the 1980s and gained influence thanks to groups like the Federalist Society, who partnered with conservative politicians to place originalism-minded lawyers into federal judgeships. Five of the Supreme Court’s nine current justices are current or former members of the Federalist Society.

Mazzone, whose Militia Clause research was cited heavily by Oldham, praised the judge’s “sophisticated” analysis.

“[His] use of historical sources was very good,” said Mazzone. “I think he got the story right about the militia…its role, and concerns about who’s going to control it.”

But both Mazzone and Jacobs, the retired Reserve general, questioned whether originalism is an appropriate framework for analyzing the modern National Guard. Today’s Guard, a much smaller all-volunteer force, is highly professionalized and depends on federal funds for organization, equipment, training, paychecks, facilities and more.

Jacobs argued that Oldham “ignores the major thrust” of the 1990 Supreme Court case, Perpich v. Department of Defense, which centered around Guard members’ voluntary enlistment in the federal National Guard. “That is decidedly not the construct that was in place in the 1790s,” he noted.

“I think it’s hard to equate the National Guard with the old militia,” agreed Mazzone. “It is a very different operation.”

The old state militias were mandatory for all adult male citizens, he explained, so giving the federal government “the ability to punish” non-federalized members could have allowed it to punish any male citizen at any time. Today’s National Guard, by contrast, is an all-volunteer force.

Mazzone also contrasted the old militia with the modern Guard’s federal organization, professionalism derived from federal training, and federal funding.

“It’s much closer to being part of the federal military rather than the traditional militia,” he said. Until the early 1900s, militia members didn’t even have standardized weapons.

But in the case Oldham reviewed, neither the government nor the governors argued that the Guard isn’t equivalent to the state militias of yore — and the Guard proudly celebrates its roots in the colonial militias of the 17th century.

“I think there’s a real question about that,” said Mazzone. He argued that the original militia “doesn’t quite have an analogy today, when the numbers are quite smaller.”

What’s next?

Even after Oldham’s ruling, the legal proceedings are far from resolved. The district court will soon resume considering the preliminary injunction in light of the opinion, but a trial could be months or years away, experts said.

“This could be a year or more before we get a final resolution in the case,” Mazzone noted. “If the Biden administration loses and decides to go to the U.S. Supreme court, that could prolong the case for a couple more years while the court decides whether or not to grant review of the case.”

The scholar added that the Supreme Court “almost always grants review in a case in which a lower court has invalidated something that the federal government has done on constitutional grounds.” The “wrinkle in this case” that could see it resolved on a technicality, he noted, would be if the Pentagon backs down on punishing Guardsmen who refused the vaccine.

Moreover, today’s Supreme Court — more originalist than ever before — could take a different view on control of the Guard than their predecessors did in 1990, the experts agreed.

It’s also not clear whether Oldham’s ruling would eventually require back pay or reinstatement for Guard members punished for vaccine refusal.

Meanwhile, the opinion sparked internal conversations among National Guard Bureau lawyers, who are watching the case closely, a source familiar with the discussions told Army Times. Bureau spokesperson Deidre Foster confirmed the conversations in an emailed statement, but downplayed them as routine.

Jacobs said the ruling, should its precedent expand, raises questions about the uneasy bargain that emerged when the active duty force ceded combat power to the Guard during late- and post-Cold War drawdowns.

“It’s not an efficient organizational structure for the national defense force of a superpower, exactly for the reasons that created this litigation,” he said.

The retired general, who once commanded Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, said the government is likely to fight the case.

“I cannot fathom that DoD will just let this opinion stand,” Jacobs said. “It would throw things into chaos.”

The bill expands the maximum size of the Florida State Guard — a separate entity from the Florida National Guard — from 400 members to 1,500. The legislation also allows the force’s budget to increase tenfold, from roughly $10 million to approximately $107.6 million.

“Florida is the most military and veteran friendly state in the nation and through this legislation, we are further supporting our military, veterans and their families with the resources they need while they are serving and after they have fulfilled their duty,” DeSantis said in a press release.

DeSantis restored the state defense force last year, citing a need for a larger civilian emergency response force in a state prone to natural disasters. He is the force’s commander-in-chief, as he is for the Florida National Guard when its units aren’t mobilized and placed under federal control.

While critics blasted the move as an effort to consolidate power, DeSantis’ stated logic addressed years of pleas from the state’s National Guard officials, who reported their formations were consistently undermanned and overworked. For years, Florida has had a disproportionately small National Guard compared to its general population, with the state ranking 53 out of the 54 states and territories in its guardsman-to-citizen ratio.

Their efforts gained momentum when a bipartisan letter from Florida’s congressional delegation last year urged the National Guard Bureau for additional forces in Florida. But as a recruiting crisis made it difficult for the National Guard to reach its authorized levels, and the since-rescinded COVID-19 vaccine mandate threatened to purge experienced troops from the federally-aligned force, DeSantis looked to the history books.

What is the Florida State Guard?

The Florida State Guard is one of several active state defense forces — each distinct from their respective state or territory’s National Guard — to be used exclusively within the jurisdiction of that outfit’s state or territory, according to a Florida Senate bill analysis. It is led by that state or territory’s governor or chief executive, but unlike the National Guard, may not be called into federal service.

Florida’s original state defense force formed in 1941 to fill in for the state’s National Guard, which had been federalized into service during World War II, the analysis added. The force was deactivated and disbanded in 1947 after the return of the state’s National Guard.

Other state defense forces have filled a variety of roles in recent years, with an increasing number of states reestablishing or expanding them. Volunteers from the Texas State Guard, for example, have been patrolling the state’s border with Mexico alongside their National Guard counterparts as part of Operation Lone Star. Other states, like Virginia and California, tender state defense force commissions to military academy faculty or other outside experts.

The Florida State Guard was set to sunset on July 1 before DeSantis signed the new legislation that repeals that expiration date and establishes the Florida State Guard as a permanent component in the Sunshine State, creating the Division of the State Guard within Florida’s Department of Military Affairs.

The recent bill requires the director to organize a specialized unit within the Florida State Guard, all members of which will be “vested with authority to bear arms, detect, and apprehend while activated.”

Not everyone has supported the reactivation of the state defense force, with some, like the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, arguing it gives the governor too much power and would turn Florida into a “police state.”

To join the Florida State Guard, an applicant must be a U.S. citizen, a resident of the state and may not be an active duty service member, a member of a Reserve unit or the Florida National Guard, according to the Senate bill analysis. Former members of the armed forces interested in applying must have separated under terms no less than a general discharge under honorable conditions.

Researchers at Colorado State University are predicting a near-average Atlantic hurricane season this year with 15 named storms, of which seven could become hurricanes.

About 1,500 active duty troops will be deployed to the U.S. southern border to assist Homeland Security Department personnel in advance of an expected new wave of migrant crossing attempts later this month, according to officials close to the plan.

Homeland Security confirmed the news in an unsigned release Tuesday afternoon, saying that it requested the 1,500 troops for 90 days “due to an anticipated increase in migration.” Fox News first reported the mission on Tuesday morning.

The service members won’t handle law enforcement tasks and will instead try to “free up” border patrol agents, the release said, by focusing on “duties such as ground based detection and monitoring, data entry, and warehouse support.”

Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon’s top spokesperson, also confirmed the pending deployment in a Tuesday afternoon statement.

Ryder emphasized that the mission “is consistent” with previous Defense Department deployments to the southwest border. He said the increase in troops is temporary “until [Customs and Border Protection] can address these needs through contracted support.”

Troops are expected to start arriving on May 10, Ryder told reporters during a briefing Tuesday. They will come from active duty Army and Marine Corps units, he added, but declined to name them.

The 1,500 active troops would join 2,500 National Guardsmen who are currently deployed to the border as part of a years-long mission.

The deployment could potentially last longer than 90 days, Ryder confirmed. The Pentagon is looking at replacing them with reserve component troops or “contracted entities” at the end of that initial period, he said.

The orders come just a few days ahead of the expiration of certain coronavirus pandemic authorities to regulate border crossings into the United States. The national emergency regarding COVID-19 will end on May 11.

Homeland Security officials and outside advocates have warned that the changes could lead to a rush of migrants attempting to enter the country, particularly along the southern border.

Although the military has supported border security efforts in “every year since 2006,” according to Homeland Security, the ongoing major mission there has been underway since 2018. That year, former President Donald Trump ordered more than 5,000 troops to the region in response to immigration concerns.

Trump’s mission initially began with active duty troops, primarily from the Army, but later transitioned to mobilized National Guard members under the Pentagon’s control.

But under the Guard’s watch, the federally-controlled military border mission suffered from misconduct and leadership problems, exacerbated by undermanned leadership structures and problems getting equipment there, a December 2021 Military Times investigation found. The Pentagon is still yet to disclose the findings of a major investigation into those issues.

It’s not yet clear whether the same command overseeing the federally-mobilized Guard troops along the border — Joint Task Force North — will also gain control of the active duty forces.

The feds’ border deployment is separate from a state-led initiative ordered by Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that began in March 2021. Approximately 4,500 members of the Texas National Guard are assigned to the mission, dubbed Operation Lone Star, which experienced its own endemic issues with pay, benefits and mental health, according to reports by Military Times and The Texas Tribune.

A small portion of the Texas National Guard troops, legally considered state employees on Operation Lone Star, have been arresting migrants there. One Texas soldier shot a migrant in January.

The Homeland Security statement emphasized a key difference between troops operating under Defense Department authority and those operating under state orders.

“DoD personnel have never, and will not, perform law enforcement activities or interact with migrants or other individuals in DHS custody,” the agency said.