SANTA FE, N.M.: Several hundred immigrants have been charged with unauthorized access to a newly designated militarized zone along the southern US border in New Mexico and western Texas since the Department of Justice introduced the new approach in late April.
President Donald Trump’s administration has transferred oversight of a strip of land along the US-Mexico border to the military while authorizing US troops to temporarily detain immigrants in the country illegally — though there’s no record of troops exercising that authority as US Customs and Border Protection conducts arrests. The designated national defense areas are overseen by US Army commands out of Fort Bliss in the El Paso area in Texas and Fort Huachuca in Arizona.
The novel national security charges against immigrants who enter through those militarized zones carry a potential sentence of 18 months in prison on top of a possible six month sentence for illegal entry. The full implications are unclear for migrants who pursue legal status through separate proceedings in federal immigration court.
The Trump administration is seeking to accelerate mass removals of immigrants in the country illegally and third-country deportations, including Venezuelans sent to an El Salvador prison amid accusations of gang affiliation. The administration has deployed thousands of troops to the border, while arrests have plunged to the lowest levels since the mid-1960s.
The federal public defender’s office in Las Cruces indicates that roughly 400 cases had been filed in criminal court there as of Tuesday as it seeks dismissal of the misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor charges for violating security regulations and entering restricted military property. Court records show that federal prosecutors in Texas — where a National Defense Area extends about 60 miles  from El Paso to Fort Hancock — last week began filing the military security charges as well.
Las Cruces-based federal Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth is asking for input from federal prosecutors and public defense attorneys on the standard of proof for the trespassing charges “given the unprecedented nature of prosecuting such offenses in this factual context.”
Public defenders say there needs to be proof that immigrants knew of the military restrictions and acted “in defiance of that regulation for some nefarious or bad purpose.”
New Mexico-based US Attorney Ryan Ellison, appointed in April, says hundreds of “restricted area” signs have been posted in Spanish and English to warn that entry is prohibited by the Department of Defense, along New Mexico’s nearly 180-mile  stretch of border.
In a court filings, Ellison has said there’s no danger of ensnaring innocent people when it comes to immigrants who avoid ports of entry to cross the border in willful violation of federal law — and now military regulations.
ACLU attorney Rebecca Sheff said basic freedoms are at risk as the government flexes its power at the border and restricts civilian access.
“The extension of military bases ... it’s a serious restriction, it’s a serious impact on families that live in the border area,” she said.
The Department of Justice has warned Wormuth against issuing an advisory opinion on legal standards for trespassing in the military area.
“The New Mexico National Defense Area is a crucial installation necessary to strengthen the authority of servicemembers to help secure our borders and safeguard the country,” Ellison said in a court briefing.
Democratic US Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico expressed concern Wednesday in a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that anyone may be stopped and detained by US Army soldiers for entering a 170-square-mile  area along the border previously overseen by the Department of Interior and frequently used for recreation and livestock ranching.
Hegseth has emphasizing a hard-line approach to enforcement.
“Let me be clear: if you cross into the National Defense Area, you will be charged to the FULLEST extent of the law,” he said in a post on the social platform X.

ISTANBUL: Delegations from Kyiv and Moscow are set to hold their first direct talks on the possibility of ending the war in Ukraine for more than three years.
Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky has announced he will travel to Turkiye, while Russia’s Vladimir Putin indicated he will not attend the talks.
Despite the flurry of diplomacy and US President Donald Trump’s call for a swift end to the fighting, Moscow and Kyiv’s demands appear to be far apart.
Russia has repeatedly demanded to keep the territory in southern and eastern Ukraine that it occupies and for Kyiv to cede even more land.
Moscow in 2022 annexed four Ukrainian regions — Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson — despite not having full control over them.
Russia also annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 and has held it ever since.
President Vladimir Putin last year demanded Ukraine pull its forces out of parts of those regions that its army still controls as a prerequisite to any peace settlement.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said recognition of Moscow’s ownership of these territories was “imperative” for any negotiations.
Kyiv has said it will never recognize its occupied territories, including Crimea, as Russian.
But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Kyiv may be forced to try to secure their return through diplomatic means — effectively conceding that Russia could maintain control over some land in any peace deal.
Russia has also demanded that Ukraine be barred from joining the NATO military alliance and has repeatedly said it wants Zelensky removed from office.
Russia had intended to topple Zelensky when it launched its invasion in 2022, with Putin calling in a televised address for Ukraine’s generals to oust him in a coup d’etat and then open talks with Moscow.
Putin in March floated the idea of Ukraine being put under a UN-backed “temporary administration,” refreshing his call to essentially remove Zelensky.
Russian officials have throughout the war called for the “de-militarization” and “de-Nazification” of Ukraine — casting Kyiv as a neo-Nazi “regime.”
Kyiv, the West and independent experts have rejected those narratives.
Russia has also sought at times to limit the size of Ukraine’s army, wants Ukraine to be declared a neutral state and for Western countries to stop supplying it weapons.
Zelensky has for months been calling for “security guarantees” for Ukraine to stop Russia invading again.
His top demand would be for Ukraine to be admitted to NATO, or for Ukraine to fall under the military alliance’s Article Five collective defense term.
Trump has however, dismissed the possibility of Ukraine joining the bloc and Russia says NATO membership would be “unacceptable.”
Instead, Kyiv is pushing for some other form of Western military commitment that would deter Moscow.
Britain and France are leading discussions about a possible European troop deployment to enforce any ceasefire, among a group of countries dubbed the “coalition of the willing.”
But Zelensky and Kyiv still want Washington to back-up any “security guarantee.”
Moscow has said it would not accept troops from NATO countries being deployed to Ukraine in any capacity.
Zelensky wants an immediate, full and unconditional ceasefire to cover combat on air, sea and land.
He accepted a US proposal for that in March but Putin rejected it.
Putin has instead ordered two short “truces” — over Easter and to cover Russia’s May 9 Victory Day celebrations.
Air attacks dipped during the periods but Ukraine accused Moscow of violating both on hundreds of occasions.
In his late-night address from the Kremlin calling for the direct Russia-Ukraine talks, Putin said he did not “exclude” that some kind of ceasefire could be agreed between the sides.