How a Border Policy Turned Trespassing Charges into a Major Legal Trap
Our investigation began, as many journalistic endeavors do, with a spreadsheet. While analyzing federal court data in early 2025, a stark anomaly emerged: prosecutors were filing a surge of obscure trespassing charges related to military property. The volume was staggering—more cases were filed in the first months of 2025 than in the entire previous decade.
The origin of these charges traced back to the U.S. southern border. In the spring of 2024, the White House designated vast tracts of land as “national defense areas,” placing them under military authority. This move allowed troops to play an unprecedented role in apprehending undocumented immigrants, a function typically barred by the Posse Comitatus Act. Crucially, it also opened the door for prosecutors to charge individuals with violating federal laws, including a 1909 statute originally intended to keep spies away from military arsenals.
Military Trespass Cases Under Trump Administration Skyrocket
Note: Counts are of unique cases in which charges were filed under 50:797 (“Penalty for violation of security regulations and orders”) and 18:1382 (“Entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property”).
Source: Federal Justice Center’s Integrated Database.
Our team—Perla Trevizo, Abe Streep, Pratheek Rebala, and I—discovered a profound flaw in this prosecutorial strategy. Experts noted that to convict someone of trespassing on military land, prosecutors must prove the defendant knew they were on that specific property. Migrants, often fleeing desperate conditions, had no such knowledge. The land’s status had changed without public awareness. Furthermore, numerous judges have ruled that a lack of such knowledge is a valid defense against these charges.
Despite this legal hurdle, the data showed a relentless pattern. Since April 2024, at least 4,700 immigrants already facing illegal entry charges were additionally charged with military trespass. At least one individual waited over a month in jail for trial on these counts. Most tellingly, in 60% of resolved cases, the trespass charges were dropped or dismissed. Yet the filings continued unabated, creating a system where charges are used as leverage or simply result in prolonged legal limbo for defendants.
The full dataset underpinning our analysis is publicly available on our GitHub page, ensuring transparency and allowing for independent verification of our findings.
On the Ground: Confusion, Small Signs, and Contradictory Information
To understand the reality on the border, we traveled to courtrooms and remote areas in West Texas and New Mexico. What we found was a landscape of profound ambiguity. Many migrants we encountered in case files couldn’t read. At least one spoke neither English nor Spanish. The physical signage marking these “national defense areas” consisted of small, 12-by-18-inch red and white placards, spaced far apart and often faded. In many arrest locations, these signs were nowhere in sight.
Our field reporting quickly confirmed the chaos. In November 2024, I joined Abe Streep for a ride-along with Doña Ana County Sheriff Kim Stewart in New Mexico. A sheriff’s sergeant drove us along a dirt road paralleling the border, pointing out the sparse signs. He candidly stated his office had no specific maps of the military zone boundaries; their only guide were the signs themselves. Even in daylight, the text was illegible from more than a few feet away.
Later, with photographer Paul Ratje in Sunland Park, New Mexico, we stood in a dirt lot less than a mile from homes and restaurants. We could see the red-and-white signs along a adjacent border road. While photographing, a Border Patrol-branded truck approached. Inside were two U.S. Army soldiers. The passenger soldier pointed to the signs and stated the border road was part of the defense area, but the lot we stood on was not.
The next day, Perla Trevizo and I returned to the same spot. This time, a Border Patrol agent arrived and insisted the lot was within the defense area. When we cited the soldier’s contrary statement from the day before, the agent replied he had been informed by the military that access was prohibited. (An Army spokesperson later said a published map from December 2024 did not include the lot, highlighting the inconsistency.)
The confusion escalated near Tornillo, Texas. After visiting a border fence section, we were confronted by two Border Patrol vans from which soldiers emerged, one carrying a rifle. When asked to clarify the zone’s boundary, a soldier responded he was “not at liberty to discuss” it. We posed a simple question: how could anyone know if they were trespassing? He shrugged. Spokespeople for U.S.
