Military

First Convictions for Migrants Who Crossed into New Military Border Zones

U.S. Army soldier during a security halt near Cloverdale, N.M.

U.S. attorneys in New Mexico and Texas are announcing some of the first convictions against migrants who crossed into newly created military zones along the southern border -- a tactic by the Trump administration to deter crossings and increase legal penalties.

Two Mexican citizens pleaded guilty to a violation of defense property security regulations and trespassing on military property -- misdemeanor charges that can carry up to a year in prison and/or fines, the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Mexico announced Thursday. The men were also convicted of reentry after deportation.

The announcement of the first convictions by the U.S. government follows legal headwinds for President Donald Trump's administration in its efforts to use the military properties and their corresponding different legal status to expedite removal of migrants.

Military.com reported that judges in New Mexico and Texas have thrown out dozens of charges against migrants who had been accused of crossing into the military border zones. In some instances, the placement of warning signs -- and whether migrants could actually see them and read them -- was brought up as a major argument in court ^[2].

Both of those convicted had been arrested June 1 by Customs and Border Protection agents after already being apprehended in the zone a month prior; during the first apprehension, they were "advised in Spanish that unauthorized entry into the restricted military area was prohibited and subject to federal prosecution," the District for New Mexico said in a news release.

"These first convictions reflect the resolve of the United States Attorney's Office to do its part in securing our nation's southern border," U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico Ryan Ellison said in the release.

That national defense zone was created after a narrow stretch of 170 miles of federal land was transferred to the U.S. Army ^[3], which has allowed troops to work alongside Border Patrol agents in apprehending those who cross onto the desert land. Because of the unusual legal status of the area, migrants who step foot in the zone are now being treated as if they've trespassed onto Fort Huachuca ^[4] in nearby Arizona.

Other convictions are starting to accumulate as part of the increased enforcement and expanding authorities on the southern border.

On Tuesday, in the Western District of Texas, an Ecuadorian national was found guilty by Senior U.S. District Judge David Briones of one count of improper entry and one count of entering military property, according to a news release. The military zone in Texas, which stretches more than 60 miles from El Paso to the small community of Fort Hancock, is now considered an extension of Fort Bliss ^[5].

A spokesperson for the Western District of Texas did not respond to a phone call from Military.com seeking to clarify whether that was the first such conviction in the state.

Jennifer Kavanagh, the director of military analysis at the Defense Priorities think tank in Washington, D.C., told Military.com in an interview Friday that whether 'the recent deployment ^[6] of Marines and National Guardsmen ^[7] to respond to protests in Los Angeles or the expansion of desert land to become defense zones, the Trump administration's desire to push the limits of the military's ability to support law enforcement activities is purposeful.

"This is sort of very much a legal gray area, and so I think part of the Trump administration's goal here is to set precedents that they can exploit," Kavanagh said.

The competing and at times seemingly contradictory legal outcomes of cases tied to the military zone are evidence of the novelty of the tactic now being undertaken by the Trump administration.

Earlier this month, in one case, a migrant from Peru faced a case in Texas related to trespassing in the El Paso military zone and was ultimately acquitted on those charges, Military.com reported.

"They must assume they're going to lose some, but every case they win is a precedent they can call on for the future," Kavanagh said.

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here ^[9].

Hegseth Demurs on Possible US Military Action Against Iran Amid Trump Saber-Rattling

Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sidestepped questions Wednesday about possible American military action against Iran as President Donald Trump continued to dangle the idea of the U.S. getting directly involved in Israel's military campaign against the Islamic Republic.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Hegseth was asked by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., whether U.S. military action is being considered.

"Most of what I can or should say would be reserved for a classified setting," Hegseth responded. "Obviously, any decisions on this matter are at the presidential level."

Pressed again by Shaheen on whether he's been asked to provide Trump with military options, Hegseth said he "wouldn't disclose that in this forum."

"Our job -- the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and I -- at all times is to make sure the president has options, is informed of what those options might be, and what the ramifications of those options might be," he added.

The hearing -- Hegseth's fourth and final appearance before Congress in a week -- came as Israel and Iran have been exchanging missile fire in a conflict that is raising fears of an all-out war in the Middle East.

Late last week, Israel began its largest-ever military operation against Iran in a move that it maintains is necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The operation has killed top Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists, and damaged key nuclear facilities.

Iran, which maintains its nuclear program is peaceful -- and which U.S. intelligence publicly assessed ^[2] as recently as March as not having decided to build a nuclear weapon -- has responded with its own missile barrages against Israel.

Israel has reportedly been pushing the U.S. to join its campaign against Iran, particularly by providing its so-called bunker-buster bomb, called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, to demolish Iran's underground Fordo nuclear enrichment facility.

That bomb can be dropped only by U.S. B-2 Spirit ^[3] aircraft, which would put U.S. troops directly into the conflict.

Asked Wednesday whether destroying Fordo would lengthen or shorten the overall conflict, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, who was testifying alongside Hesgseth, demurred.

"I can't split that hair, given the complexities of the war that's ongoing there," Caine said.

For his part, Trump has been both cryptic and threatening about his intentions.

At the same time Hegseth was testifying Wednesday, Trump told reporters that he "may do it or [he] may not" strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

"Nobody knows what I'm going to do," Trump said.

The president also revealed that Iran recently reached out to try to negotiate, but suggested the time may have passed for negotiations.

"I said it's very late to be talking," Trump said. "There's a big difference between now and a week ago, right? Big difference."

During his first term, Trump tore up a nuclear deal with Iran that had been negotiated by former President Barack Obama. Prior to Israel's strikes on Iran last week, he was trying to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran, a deal that reportedly was poised ^[4] to look very similar to the one he scuttled.

Trump's Wednesday comments came after a series of saber-rattling posts on his Truth Social social media website Tuesday. Among his posts, he said that "we" -- seemingly implying U.S. involvement -- "now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran." He also posted a demand for "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"

Despite the posts, U.S. officials said Tuesday the military remained ^[5] in a defensive posture.

Asked Wednesday about his call for unconditional surrender from Iran, Trump said the post meant that "I've had it. OK, I've had it. I give up. No more."

Iran has threatened retaliation if the U.S. gets involved in the conflict. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that "any military involvement by the U.S. in this field will undoubtedly result in irreparable damage for them," according to The Associated Press ^[6].

Any Iranian retaliation could put the thousands of U.S. troops spread across the Middle East in the crosshairs, and The New York Times reported Tuesday ^[7] that Iran is preparing for strikes on U.S. bases in the region if the U.S. joins Israel's military campaign.

The escalating conflict has alarmed some in Congress. Earlier this week, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced a resolution in the Senate and Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a resolution in the House that would prevent U.S. military action against Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Defense hawks, though, are cheering on Israel's operations and pushing for U.S. involvement.

"Iran's military and leadership is in complete disarray right now because of the bold actions by Israel," Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, before pressing Hegseth on whether now is the time to "reestablish deterrence against this terrorist regime by making sure one way or the other they never have the capacity to enrich or produce a nuclear bomb."

Hegseth responded by noting Trump previously gave Iran a 60-day deadline to either agree to a nuclear deal or face military action.

"At the Defense Department, our job is to stand ready and prepared with options, and that's precisely what we're doing," Hegseth said. "The question is, in the coming days, exactly which direction that goes."

Commemorating the 250th Anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill

The Second Continental Congress authorized the creation of the Continental Army, June 14, 1775, and just three days later, the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought between British and Colonial forces in Charlestown, Mass., which is now a neighborhood of Boston.

Medal of Honor Monday: Army Air Corps 2nd Lt. Joseph Sarnoski

Over the skies of the South Pacific, Army Air Corps 2nd Lt. Joseph Raymond Sarnoski gave his life to keep his aircrew safe during a dangerous World War II reconnaissance mission.

Sidebar

Magazine menu