Across the country, debates about immigration policy have taken on new urgency as federal authorities seek solutions to address unprecedented challenges at the border. Communities, lawmakers, and military leaders are now grappling with a fresh controversy surrounding the use of key military installations for purposes far removed from their original mission. The latest developments have prompted heated discussions over how best to balance national security, humanitarian responsibilities, and political priorities in an era of heightened polarization.
At the center of this debate is a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plan to utilize military bases in New Jersey and Indiana as temporary housing facilities for individuals who crossed the U.S. border illegally. According to the Defense Department, portions of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey and Camp Atterbury in Indiana are slated to be converted into “temporary soft-sided holding facilities.” The decision followed an order issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, drawing sharp criticism from a coalition of Democratic lawmakers representing the affected states.
Democratic Lawmakers Speak Out
Several prominent New Jersey Democrats issued a joint statement expressing their strong opposition to the DHS plan. They argued that using military installations to detain undocumented immigrants risks undermining the core mission of the armed forces and could compromise military readiness.
“This is an inappropriate use of our national defense system and militarizes a radical immigration policy that has resulted in the inhumane treatment of undocumented immigrants and unlawful deportation of U.S. citizens, including children, across the country,” the group wrote.
The statement was signed by Reps. Herb Conaway, LaMonica McIver, Donald Norcross, Rob Menendez, Frank Pallone, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Josh Gottheimer, and Nellie Pou, along with Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim. They further warned that the move could set a dangerous precedent by using the nation’s armed forces as a domestic political tool.
“Using our country’s military to detain and hold undocumented immigrants jeopardizes military preparedness and paves the way for ICE immigration raids in every New Jersey community,” the lawmakers added. “We have the greatest military in the world, and using it as a domestic political tool is unacceptable and shameful.”
The Military Bases at the Center of the Plan
Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, located in central New Jersey, is the only tri-service base in the country jointly operated by the Air Force, Army, and Navy. Spanning 42,000 acres, it supports approximately 45,000 military and civilian personnel, making it one of the largest and most strategically important military installations on the East Coast.
Camp Atterbury, near Edinburgh, Indiana, is a 34,000-acre Army and Air National Guard base that has long served as a training site for brigades and other units preparing for large-scale military operations. Both facilities were previously used in 2021 to shelter thousands of Afghan refugees during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Lawmakers argue that repurposing the bases for immigration detention could disrupt ongoing training programs and reduce operational readiness. However, the Defense Department has assured lawmakers that all necessary steps will be taken to avoid compromising military functions.
Political Reactions and Comparisons
The backlash from Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey and Indiana is particularly notable given the relatively broad support many in the party expressed for using military bases to house Afghan refugees in 2021. At the time, a Pew Research Center survey found that approximately 75% of Democrats favored admitting Afghan refugees into the United States.
Critics argue that the current plan differs significantly, both in scope and in how detainees will be treated. While the Afghan evacuees were admitted through formal resettlement programs, the individuals expected to be housed at these military facilities are migrants who crossed the border illegally and are awaiting asylum hearings or deportation proceedings.
Some lawmakers have also questioned the timing of the plan, which comes just weeks after President Trump signed the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” into law. This sweeping piece of legislation allocates between $150 billion and $170 billion for immigration enforcement over the next several years, with $45 billion specifically earmarked for expanding detention facilities.
Local Concerns and Detention Infrastructure
New Jersey already hosts two privately operated immigration detention centers: Delaney Hall and the Elizabeth Detention Center. Both facilities have drawn scrutiny in recent years for alleged mistreatment of detainees and substandard conditions.
Delaney Hall made headlines in May when Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested and charged with trespassing after confronting federal immigration authorities at the facility. Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) was later federally charged for allegedly interfering with federal officers during the same incident. These high-profile confrontations have only amplified concerns about expanding detention infrastructure in the state.
For now, the Defense Department has not provided a timeline for when the new holding facilities might open, citing ongoing coordination with DHS and operational considerations. Lawmakers say they were notified about the plan in a letter from Defense Secretary Hegseth, who assured them that the move would not affect essential military training or readiness.
Broader Context: Immigration Enforcement Under Trump
The decision to expand immigration detention facilities is consistent with the broader enforcement agenda championed by President Trump. Under his administration, DHS has leaned heavily on detention facilities to house migrants awaiting asylum hearings or deportation.
Earlier this month, the administration opened a new detention center in Florida’s Everglades region, located in an area surrounded by alligators and nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz.” This facility was touted by officials as an innovative solution to overcrowding at existing centers but drew criticism from immigrant advocacy groups who argued that the remote location would make it difficult for detainees to access legal representation.
During a recent appearance on Fox News Channel’s Special Report, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) — widely considered a potential contender in the 2028 presidential race — acknowledged that Trump’s team deserves some credit for its efforts to strengthen border security. “I know that we all know the solution is you’ve got to be able to secure the border, you have to be able to work to get violent criminals out of our neighborhoods,” Moore told host Bret Baier.
The Path Forward
As the debate continues, the fate of the New Jersey and Indiana military bases remains uncertain. Lawmakers opposed to the plan are urging their Republican colleagues to join them in blocking the repurposing of the bases, warning of long-term implications for military readiness and civil liberties.
Supporters of the plan, meanwhile, argue that the federal government must explore all available options to manage record numbers of border crossings and alleviate pressure on existing detention infrastructure. They contend that military bases offer the space, security, and logistical resources necessary to house detainees humanely and efficiently.
Immigration policy experts warn that the issue is unlikely to be resolved quickly. With border apprehensions at historic highs and legal challenges mounting against various enforcement measures, the Biden administration — and potentially future administrations — will continue to face difficult choices about how to balance national security, humanitarian concerns, and political realities.
For communities near the affected bases, the uncertainty is palpable. Local officials are seeking clarity about how many detainees might be housed at the facilities, what security measures will be in place, and how the presence of the holding centers could affect local economies and public services.
One thing is certain: the controversy has reignited broader questions about the role of the U.S. military in domestic affairs and the appropriate boundaries of immigration enforcement. As Congress prepares for another round of contentious budget negotiations, the issue is poised to remain front and center in the national conversation.
Whether the proposed holding facilities ultimately open or not, the debate underscores the complexity of America’s immigration challenges — and the deep divisions over how best to address them.
Adrian Hawthorne is a celebrated author and dedicated archivist who finds inspiration in the hidden stories of the past. Educated at Oxford, he now works at the National Archives, where preserving history fuels his evocative writing. Balancing archival precision with creative storytelling, Adrian founded the Hawthorne Institute of Literary Arts to mentor emerging writers and honor the timeless art of narrative.