Report on the Domestic Deployment of U.S. Federal Troops and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

This report details the domestic deployment of approximately 20,000 U.S. federal troops within the first six months of the Trump administration for immigration enforcement purposes. These actions, spanning at least five states, raise significant concerns regarding their alignment with international commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The deployment challenges fundamental legal and democratic norms, misallocates national resources, and undermines efforts to build peaceful, just, and inclusive societies.

2.0 Scale and Scope of Federal Deployments

According to Pentagon statements, nearly 20,000 personnel from the National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have been deployed on U.S. soil. However, official data is inconsistent, with the Army stating it does not maintain a running tally, a practice that impedes accountability and contravenes the principles of transparent institutions (SDG 16.6).

2.1 Geographic Distribution of Federal Forces

• Arizona
• California
• Florida
• New Mexico
• Texas

Further deployments are anticipated in states including Louisiana, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

2.2 Legal and Democratic Implications

Experts report that these deployments for civilian law enforcement purposes violate the Posse Comitatus Act. This erosion of legal norms is a direct challenge to SDG 16, which seeks to build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The use of the military as a domestic police force is identified as a potential tool of oppression, moving the nation away from the rule of law and towards an authoritarian model.

3.0 Southern Border Operations: Joint Task Force-Southern Border (JTF-SB)

The administration has directed the military to assist the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in securing the southern border, resulting in the deployment of over 10,000 troops under U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

3.1 Creation of National Defense Areas (NDAs)

A significant development is the establishment of four new NDAs, effectively militarizing one-third of the U.S. southern border. This action undermines SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by creating heavily securitized zones that disproportionately affect migrant populations.

1. South Texas NDA: 250 miles along the Rio Grande, managed by the Air Force.
2. Yuma NDA: 140 miles near the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in Arizona, managed by the Navy.
3. New Mexico NDA: 170 miles of noncontiguous land.
4. West Texas NDA: 63 miles between El Paso and Fort Hancock.

3.2 Operational Activities and Resource Allocation

Despite thousands of patrols, including joint patrols with the Mexican military, JTF-SB personnel conducted only seven temporary detentions. This discrepancy highlights a significant misallocation of resources, where vast sums are spent on military operations with minimal law enforcement outcomes. This expenditure detracts from potential investments in sustainable development initiatives (SDG 17).

3.3 Militarization and Equipment

The use of military-grade hardware, originally designed for foreign battlefields, signifies a profound militarization of domestic policy. This approach is antithetical to the promotion of peaceful societies under SDG 16.

• Stryker armored vehicles
• Black Hawk helicopters
• MRAP armored vehicles
• Advanced scout surveillance systems
• Black Hornet microdrones and surveillance balloons
• Naval warships, including the USS Stockdale and USS Spruance

4.0 Urban and State-Level Deployments

Military forces have also been deployed in major urban centers and coordinated with state-level operations, further blurring the lines between military and civilian roles and impacting community well-being.

4.1 Los Angeles Operations: Task Force 51

Over 5,500 troops were deployed to Los Angeles, primarily to guard federal facilities against protests related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. This action suppresses civic engagement and protest, which are essential components of an inclusive society (SDG 16.7).

• Troops participated directly in ICE raids, including an operation in MacArthur Park and on state-licensed marijuana nurseries.
• These raids disrupt community life and local economies, working against SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
• The death of Jaime Alanís Garcia during a raid in Camarillo represents a failure to protect life and ensure safety, a core tenet of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 16.1 (Reduce all forms of violence).

4.2 Florida and Other State-Level Actions

The mobilization of forces in Florida and other states to support ICE’s “interior immigration enforcement mission” extends the federal anti-immigrant agenda nationwide. State-led initiatives, such as Texas’s Operation Lone Star, compound these effects.

• Florida National Guard members are securing a remote migrant detention center, contributing to a system that challenges human rights and access to justice (SDG 16.3).
• The targeting of individuals based on immigration status is a clear violation of SDG 10.2, which calls for the inclusion of all, irrespective of origin.

5.0 Analysis: A Challenge to Sustainable and Democratic Governance

The administration’s use of military force for domestic immigration enforcement is framed as a response to a national security threat. However, the justification, such as citing a non-existent “rebellion” for the California deployment, lacks a factual basis.

5.1 Undermining SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The normalization of military involvement in civilian law enforcement, the disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act, and the lack of institutional transparency represent a severe regression from the principles of SDG 16. By aiding ICE operations, which have been described as functioning like a secret police force, the military becomes complicit in actions that erode public trust and the rule of law.

5.2 Contradicting SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The entire operational framework is built on an “anti-immigrant agenda,” which inherently promotes discrimination and inequality. The actions taken directly target and marginalize a vulnerable population, in direct opposition to the goal of reducing inequalities within and among countries.

5.3 Conclusion

The domestic deployment of the U.S. military for immigration control represents a significant departure from democratic norms and a direct challenge to the achievement of multiple Sustainable Development Goals. The strategy undermines the rule of law, exacerbates inequality, disrupts communities, and constitutes a misallocation of resources that could otherwise be directed toward fostering a just, peaceful, and sustainable society.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article’s central theme is the degradation of justice and democratic institutions within the United States. It details the use of the military for domestic law enforcement, which experts in the article claim violates the Posse Comitatus Act, thereby undermining the rule of law. The text also highlights a lack of transparency and accountability from government and military bodies, pointing to a weakening of institutional integrity.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article explicitly frames the military deployments as serving an “anti-immigrant agenda.” The actions described, including raids, detentions, and the militarization of the border, specifically target a particular group (immigrants), thereby promoting inequality and undermining the social inclusion and safety of this population.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The issues discussed extend into urban environments, affecting community safety. The article describes an “assault on MacArthur Park” in Los Angeles, a public recreational area in an immigrant-heavy neighborhood. This action directly impacts the goal of ensuring public spaces are safe and inclusive for all residents.

Identifiable SDG Targets

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

   The article points to a failure to meet this target by describing “military-style assaults” and “violent, racist kidnappings.” It also reports a specific death: “One man, Jaime Alanís Garcia, died while trying to flee from the raid in Camarillo.”

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   This target is directly undermined by the actions described. Experts cited in the article state that the deployments “violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a bedrock 19th-century law.” The detentions and raids, particularly those targeting specific communities, challenge the principle of equal access to justice.

3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article provides clear evidence of a lack of transparency. It notes, “the Army said it has no running tally of how many troops have been deployed,” and “No one actually knows how many troops have been involved in border operations this year.” This demonstrates a failure of institutions to be accountable and transparent.

4. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   The federal deployment of troops to Los Angeles occurred “over the objections of local officials and California Gov. Gavin Newsom,” indicating a decision-making process that is not responsive to or participatory with state and local levels of government.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

   The article describes a government-led “anti-immigrant agenda” and a “nationwide campaign of violent, racist kidnappings,” which are clear examples of discriminatory policies and practices that create unequal outcomes for a specific demographic group.

2. Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people.

   The militarized approach to the border, the use of military force in immigration raids, and the resulting death of an individual are contrary to the principles of safe and orderly migration policy.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

1. Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces.

   The article describes an “assault on MacArthur Park, a recreational hub in one of LA’s most immigrant-heavy neighborhoods,” which “roust[ed] a summer day camp for children.” This action directly compromises the safety and inclusivity of a public space.

Implied Indicators for Measuring Progress

Indicators for SDG 16

• Adherence to national law: The article provides a qualitative indicator of regression by citing expert opinion that the deployments are a “violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.”
• Transparency of government operations: The inability of the press to obtain precise figures on troop deployments (“the Army said it has no running tally”) serves as an indicator of a lack of institutional transparency.
• Violence and death rates: The article provides a specific data point: “One man, Jaime Alanís Garcia, died,” which is a direct indicator related to violence from law enforcement actions.
• Responsiveness of decision-making: The federal government proceeding with deployments “over the objections of local officials and California Gov. Gavin Newsom” is a qualitative indicator of non-responsive governance.

Indicators for SDG 10

• Number of detentions based on migrant status: The article mentions specific figures, such as “seven temporary detentions,” “one temporary detainment,” and “more than 200 people” detained, which can be used as indicators for policies targeting a specific population.
• Fatalities related to migration policy enforcement: The death of one individual while fleeing a raid serves as a critical indicator of the lack of safety in migration management.

Indicators for SDG 11

• Incidents affecting the safety of public spaces: The “assault on MacArthur Park” is a specific event that serves as a qualitative indicator of public spaces becoming unsafe due to militarized law enforcement actions.

Summary Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theintercept.com