Orange “No Entry” signs in both English and Spanish now stretch across the New Mexico desert, marking a major shift in how the U.S. enforces its southern border. These warnings—posted by the U.S. Army—designate large swaths of land as military-controlled “restricted areas,” under the authority of a national emergency order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office.
The move signals an unprecedented expansion of military involvement in domestic border operations, allowing troops to detain individuals who cross the border illegally—despite longstanding laws that traditionally prohibit the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement.
A New Enforcement Model
Thousands of signs have been installed in parts of New Mexico and western Texas. Under the directive, U.S. military installations are overseeing hundreds of miles along the border, empowering troops to assist in immigration enforcement efforts—something typically left to Customs and Border Protection.
The Department of Defense has already designated over 480 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border as militarized zones, including new areas in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley and a planned stretch near Yuma, Arizona. Together, these areas represent nearly one-third of the total southern border.
U.S. officials say the zones are critical to filling gaps in enforcement and disrupting human smuggling routes and drug cartel activity. However, critics say the militarization undermines civil liberties, limits public access to federal lands, and blurs the line between national defense and domestic policing.
Local Reactions: Support, Concern, and Lawsuits
In rural Luna County, New Mexico, where farming and ranching coexist with deeply rooted beliefs in personal freedom, reactions are mixed. Fourth-generation farmer James Johnson said the increased military role adds “teeth” to prior surveillance-focused deployments. But others, like outdoor advocates and humanitarian workers, fear the zones are too restrictive and risk criminalizing innocent activity.
“I don’t want to go down there with my hunting rifle and all of a sudden somebody rolls up on me and says I’m in a military zone,” said Ray Trejo, a Luna County commissioner and wildlife advocate. Trejo, a former ESL teacher, also worries about the harsh consequences for migrants who unknowingly enter restricted zones.
Harsh Penalties for Trespassing
More than 1,400 migrants have been charged with trespassing on military-controlled land this year alone. First-time offenders face up to 18 months in prison—on top of standard illegal entry charges that carry additional jail time.
In one recent case, a 29-year-old Guatemalan woman with limited education appeared in court in Las Cruces, New Mexico, where the judge dismissed the military trespassing charge due to insufficient evidence but still sentenced her to two weeks in jail for illegal entry.
So far, there have been no reports of U.S. citizens being arrested under the new rules.
Border Crossings Drop, But Oversight Expands
Despite a sharp decline in migrant crossings—Border Patrol made just 137 arrests on June 28, down dramatically from over 10,000 on peak days last year—the military presence is growing.
The first military zones established in April and May now extend west of El Paso and around the border town of Columbus, New Mexico. Though Columbus Mayor Philip Skinner said he’s seen minimal disruption, the expanded oversight remains controversial.
The Department of Defense maintains that the zones are not intended to restrict lawful activities. Army spokesperson Nicole Wieman said they’re negotiating access for recreation, hunting, grazing, and mining.
Legal Challenges Mount
Federal public defenders and civil rights groups are mounting legal challenges, arguing the military’s involvement in domestic enforcement—without congressional approval—sets a dangerous precedent.
One recent case tested the legitimacy of the military zones when a Mexican man was arrested for trespassing in remote public land. While judges have issued a mix of convictions and acquittals, no definitive ruling has settled whether these zones are constitutional.
Ryan Ellison, the U.S. attorney for New Mexico, defended the government’s actions, noting successful prosecutions of repeat offenders. But civil liberties advocates like the ACLU’s Rebecca Sheff warn the expansion could be a pilot program for broader, more hostile military enforcement along the entire border.
“This is a dangerous escalation,” Sheff said. “It’s about creating fear, criminalizing migration, and testing how far the government can go.”
As court battles continue, the broader question remains: Should the U.S. military be patrolling its own soil to enforce immigration laws? For now, the desert is divided—by fences, signs, and an evolving debate over the limits of law, liberty, and power.
