NSPM-4 Shifts Border Control to Pentagon, Testing Limits of Civilian Rule
Yesterday, the President signed National Security Presidential Memorandum-4 (NSPM-4). On the surface, it may look like another routine border security measure. But read carefully, and something far more serious comes into view: a major shift in power from civilian government to the military—one that could stretch, or even break, the limits of our Constitution.
Framed as a national security directive, NSPM-4 orders the Department of Defense to take military control of certain federal lands along the southern border. It gives the Secretary of Defense sweeping authority to declare National Defense Areas, repurpose public lands for military use, and take any actions deemed “reasonably necessary” to “repel invasions” and “seal” the border.
This memo doesn’t just signal a policy change. It signals a moment. A turning point. One we cannot afford to ignore.
I. The Constitution Was Designed to Prevent This
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the President—has the power to decide how the military is used and how public lands are managed. Article I, Section 8 is clear: only Congress can “repel invasions,” “govern the armed forces,” and control what happens to federal territory.
The President is Commander in Chief, yes—but only within the legal framework Congress provides. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 further limits the use of the military for law enforcement inside the United States.
NSPM-4 crosses these lines. It puts the military in a position of domestic authority—on U.S. soil, with vague orders, and without the checks our system is built to enforce.
That’s not how power is supposed to work in a constitutional democracy. And it’s not a hypothetical problem. It’s happening right now.
II. A New Definition of “Invasion”?
The memo justifies this move by claiming the need to “repel invasions.” That phrase appears in the Constitution—but it was never meant to apply to immigration.
In American law, “invasion” has always referred to an armed attack by a foreign military or paramilitary force. Here, the memo appears to use the term to describe groups of migrants, asylum seekers, or unauthorized border crossers.
If a President can call that an invasion, and then send in the military—on their own authority—what else might be labeled an “emergency” next?
What we’re seeing is not just rhetorical inflation. It’s the slow erosion of legal meaning. And when words lose their meaning, laws lose their force.
III. Military Control Over Civilian Land
NSPM-4 also gives the Pentagon authority over large stretches of public land—without going through the process required by law. Under the Engle Act of 1958, withdrawing federal land for military use requires advance notice to Congress, public hearings, and environmental review.
This memo skips all of that. It cites the Engle Act—but then waives the very safeguards that make it lawful.
And it goes further: it gives the military the power to label civilian areas as National Defense Areas. Historically, this designation was temporary, specific, and rare. NSPM-4 uses it as a blank check.
This is more than a change in policy. It’s a change in who controls public space—and how.
IV. When Emergency Becomes Routine
Democracies don’t always collapse in a single blow. More often, they hollow out from the inside, as people grow accustomed to the slow expansion of unchecked power.
NSPM-4 may be remembered as such a moment. A shift from civilian oversight to military control. From public process to unilateral action. From normalcy to something else.
Even without declaring martial law, this directive reshapes the way our country thinks about borders, law enforcement, and emergency powers. It begins to normalize the use of troops for domestic policing, and the use of national security language to bypass democratic rules.
What begins at the border rarely stays there.
V. If This Reaches the Courts
If NSPM-4 is challenged in court, several legal arguments will be tested. The President appears to be acting without Congress’s approval—or even in defiance of it. That places his authority, in the words of the Supreme Court’s Youngstown decision, “at its lowest ebb.”
The memo also brushes aside the limits of the Public Lands Clause and the Engle Act. And it echoes past legal warnings about relying too heavily on military judgment in civilian affairs.
These are not distant questions for legal scholars. They’re immediate questions for every American paying attention.
VI. What This Moment Means
This memorandum is a test—not just of our courts, but of our national character. Will we enforce the limits we’ve placed on power? Or will we let them slide when the word “security” is invoked?
A country can protect its borders. It can uphold the rule of law. But the real danger lies not in defending our territory, but in surrendering our principles along the way.
Today’s directive crosses a line. Not one of geography, but one of governance.
We cannot cross it quietly. And we cannot let it stand unchallenged.