Republican lawmakers don’t know the details of Donald Trump’s mass deportation plan. They just know, as Trump prepares to take office, that they support whatever it will end up being.
Do they have any legal questions about using the military for the “largest deportation program in American history,” like Trump said this week he will? Not really. Surely, they say, his team will make sure it’s conducted lawfully. The price tag and logistics? Trump will figure those out. Are GOP lawmakers concerned it might affect their constituents? They’re certain the deportation will target violent criminals first and not the many migrants who are legally authorized to live and work in the United States.
“In my eyes, this is about people that are convicted criminals and those that have been denied their asylum claims,” Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas said in an interview. “Those that are still awaiting the process, the president has never said — I’ve never heard him say — that he’s going to deport people like that.”
In interviews with more than 20 lawmakers this week, Republicans brushed off questions about an impending mass deportation program. They said they trust Trump, endorsed using whatever means are available to remove foreign gang members and criminals from the country, and unanimously expressed confidence that this operation will be fair — that it won’t target people who don’t deserve to be targeted.
“A lot of criminals have been let into the country,” Rep. John Duarte of California told NOTUS. “They need to be out of the country.”
But the president-elect has also promised to remove protected status from nationalities facing danger back home so he can deport them, including people he spread false claims about during his campaign.
Republican lawmakers don’t want to think about that.
“Every measure should be taken to deport criminal aliens out of the United States,” Rep. Mike Lawler of New York told NOTUS, pointing to gang members, drug cartels and migrants who have committed violent crimes.
What if the mass deportation isn’t as targeted as Lawler believes it will be?
“You’re getting way ahead of yourself as to what’s actually going to happen,” he said.
Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina said Trump will “get the criminals out of here first, he’ll get the violent offenders. He’ll get the gangs, cartels out. Then he’ll use judgment.”
“Everything’s on the table,” Norman added, saying he backs Trump’s decision to use military resources for the job. “I consider this an invasion of U.S. territory.”
How Trump might use military assets is unclear. National guardsmen have supported operations at the border for years, working under state authority. Some active duty military members have helped with logistics and intelligence operations on the border, in both cases relying on authorization by Congress or requests by state governors.
Anything more direct may spark legal challenges. The post-Civil War Posse Comitatus Act bars presidents from using the military for domestic law enforcement, except in certain emergencies like quelling an insurrection. Still, military legal experts say the vague exceptions laid out in that law, as well as other emergency powers available to presidents, provide relatively untested pathways to use the active duty military domestically.
“It’s a dangerous situation,” Richard Painter, the White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, told NOTUS. “The military is a red line you can’t cross, with very, very few exceptions,” he said. “And one of them is the Insurrection Act.”
Presidents have used that law to send troops to states, including during desegregation efforts and moments of civil unrest. Trump has suggested that he could invoke it upon entering the White House.
Trump’s incoming border czar, Tom Homan, has said military assets will be used “to do non-enforcement duties such as transportation, whether it’s on ground or air, infrastructure, building, intelligence.”
The Department of Defense might also assist with deportation flights to other countries, he said.
Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio firmly believes the military’s involvement won’t go beyond those uses.
“They’re not going to use the military to conduct raids in California,” he told NOTUS. “Everyone knows that it’s going to be about defending our country.”
So far, libertarian-minded Sen. Rand Paul is the lone Republican who has expressed vociferous opposition to using the military for deportations, calling a direct role for the Pentagon in such a program a “huge mistake.”
Still, plenty of other congressional Republicans suggested using active duty service members in more direct roles would be fine if needed. Those lawmakers might ultimately embrace a bill giving Trump the power to do so or applaud him if he invokes the Insurrection Act.
“It’s an emergency,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said simply when asked about using active duty troops.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis said Congress should provide Trump “every tool necessary to rid our country of people who are committing crimes, these dangerous gang members and drug traffickers and human traffickers.”
“Because NYPD’s hands are tied by a New York City sanctuary policy, he’s going to have to bring in his own law enforcement to clean up the city,” she added.
Rep. Michael McCaul, the Texas Republican who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, told NOTUS that immigration officials don’t have “all the resources” required for a large-scale deportation program.
“The military could be beneficial,” he said. The administration would have to find a way to do it legally, but “the commander in chief has a lot of direction and control over the military.”
Only a few Republicans expressed concerns. Sen. Mike Rounds, a member of the Armed Services Committee, pointed out that there are limits on how a president can use the military. “It doesn’t mean that it’s an impossible task, but it is a challenging approach, and there are other alternatives,” he said.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia also seemed to think it might not be the best use of troops at this moment.
“I doubt that he would go that route, simply because of how dangerous the world is right now,” he said in an interview. “We need our active duty forces defending our nation.”
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, too, said using active duty service members for mass deportation wouldn’t be “the best way” to “build their readiness.”
“The question is: Can you do it through the National Guard or a combination of state, federal, local law enforcement to accomplish the same goal?” he wondered.
But even the few Republicans who said they wanted to see the details first also made clear that they think Trump should act quickly.
When asked if Congress should play some role in how the mass deportation is carried out, Tillis quickly answered: “If the president has the authority to do it, I think when he gets in office, he should lock, load and go.”
If some members start to worry Trump is getting too bold, he probably won’t face much pushback from a unified Republican Congress. But Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida — who opted not to weigh in on Trump’s plans because he doesn’t know the details — told NOTUS that lawmakers will have at least one avenue to hold the administration accountable if needed.
“I’m an appropriator,” he said, referring to the committee that helps set government funding levels. “Everything requires funding, and so Congress does have a role to play no matter what.”
Republicans on Capitol Hill expect to assist Trump by passing border security legislation in the new year. But many seem content to let him lead — the latest example of a decades-long trend where lawmakers from both parties have handed more and more authority to the executive branch.
In this particular instance, it began even before Trump was reelected. Earlier this year, at Trump’s request, his allies in Congress shut down any debate on a bipartisan border security and asylum policy bill, which would have cut down on migrant arrivals. Trump wanted to keep campaigning on the topic, and GOP lawmakers were happy to avoid a tough vote.
For Republicans, Trump’s assertiveness is a feature, not a bug.
“I applaud the president’s efforts,” Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas said. “He’s being very bold.”
“Reagan said, ‘Don’t paint with soft pastels, paint with bold colors,’” Fallon added. “And that’s what the president’s doing.”
—
Haley Byrd Wilt is a reporter at NOTUS. Casey Murray and John T. Seward are NOTUS reporters and Allbritton Journalism Institute fellows.