Rios took notes of “key talking points” from Clark’s address and distributed them among workgroup members. According to these notes, Clark spoke of the need for the federal government to “provide protec- tion” to states under threat from “transna- tional criminal organizations.” In service of this federal “protection” of states, the notes stated, “the President has authority to employ military.” “Recent events have led to the miscon- ception that the military cannot be used at borders due to” Posse Comitatus, Rios wrote — though the former Army colonel mangled it as “possession comitatus.” Federal military forces may provide support to civil authorities, and often do in emergencies such as natural disasters. But they are prohibited from acting as enforcers of civilian law. Federal active- duty military and state National Guards have been employed at various times in support roles on the border by state governments and Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. Because state National Guard units are under state and not federal control, they are not generally seen as being subject to the prohibitions of Posse Comitatus. But therein lies the rub for supporters of extreme presidential power. Which may be why Clark cited code under the Insurrection Act that would allow Trump to seize control of state National Guard units and deploy them along with active- duty military forces — in a domestic law enforcement capacity — to quell “insurrections.” Clark went on to urge the use of capa- bilities that would merge domestic law enforcement with the military, in Trump’s hands. As such, Clark told the assembled Project 2025 participants that they needed to “become experts” on sections of federal law codified under the Insurrection Act. For example, Clark told the assembled Project 2025 crowd they needed to bone up on Section 253 of the Insurrection Act, which states that “the President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” For an entity called the Border Security Workgroup, these were hardly border security laws. Strangely, according to Rios’ notes, the chief rationale cited by Clark in his attempt to tie such extraordinary actions to border security was the Army’s deployment during the 1915 Bandit War, during which bandits from Mexico attacked towns in Texas. The episode was not an actual declared war, nor was it an instance in which the Insurrection Act was invoked. According to documentation obtained by CRN and New Times, Clark’s guidance didn’t sit right with at least one member of the Border Security Workgroup. A few days later, Rios received an email from John Whitley, a veteran who participated in several Project 2025 workgroups and served for a brief period in 2021 as the acting secretary of the U.S. Army. “I don’t know if (the Department of Defense) has ever been used for interior enforcement,” Whitely wrote. “I wasn’t sure if the brunch speaker was saying that DoD could or not. I suspect that (National Guard) could be used in a similar role to the border with logistical support and the like.” When domestic law enforcement has required help, it’s generally been the National Guard that has provided it in supported roles, Whitley continued. Clark — or “the brunch speaker,” as Whitley labeled him — “may have been saying DoD could be used in other ways, e.g., active duty in a direct interdiction role (e.g., with arrest authority). We could obviously do that if it is legal and the President decides to do it.” But, he added, “I am not sure it would be helpful for a few reasons.” Using the military in such a way would be “much more politically contentious and, thus, undermine their support and increase the risk of failure,” Whitley prophetically warned. Military interven- tion probably wouldn’t help the Department of Homeland Security much, he added, since DHS has Border Patrol and ICE agents to make arrests. Nor would it help the Department of Defense, he wrote, going on to describe the shell game the Pentagon would need to play in order to cycle active, reserve and National Guard components while still meeting the Pentagon’s other foreign deployment obligations. CRN and New Times sent questions to Whitley about his participation in the Border Security Workgroup and his thoughts and reservations related to Clark’s guidance and involvement. He has not responded. As well-reasoned as Whitley’s reserva- tions may have been, they apparently didn’t move Rios, the workgroup’s leader. A day after Whitley expressed his concerns, Rios sent an email to group members recounting the key points of Clark’s Insurrection Act guidance. He also made an announcement. “I have asked Mr. Clark (and/or his colleagues),” Rios wrote, “to participate in the Border Security Work Group.” ‘OPERATION DEMONSTRATE RESOLVE’ The Border Security Workgroup appar- ently took Clark’s guidance and ran with it. Throughout the rest of the year, its members worked to develop plans to link military forces with all levels of domestic law enforcement. Emails show there were more Project 2025 brunches at the Army Navy Country Club, and the group also received continued guidance from Project 2025 leadership and its “DoD leads.” That included Clark. Emails show that Clark was included in Border Security Workgroup correspon- dence relating to this ongoing guidance and development of hybrid military/domestic law enforcement plans. The group also received guidance from “Chris Miller (Project 2025 DoD lead)” at multiple points, according to records. Former Trump acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller wrote the “Mandate for Leadership” chapter on the Department of Defense, in which he called for “true alignment” between the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security for “border protection operations” and “defense of critical U.S. infrastructure.” Miller did not respond to inquiries from CRN and New Times. Following guidance from “Chris Miller (Project 2025 DoD lead),” the Border Security Workgroup crafted a number of avenues through which active military forces — as well as National Guard units, operating either under the command of willing governors or under imposed federal command — could support law enforcement or serve in a direct law enforcement capacity. To be very clear: Documentation shows that the group envisioned these militarized “border security” operations taking place in all 50 states, not just at the border. The group’s “main operational effort” was planning for the creation and imple- mentation of a new nationwide “multi- jurisdictional” fusion center-style system of law enforcement. Plans produced by the group by the end of 2024 proposed linking military forces with every level of American domestic law enforcement — local, state, tribal and federal — through the new fusion-center-style command system. This system would be overseen by a “Commander of Domestic Security Operations” appointed by, and answering only to, Trump. Dubbed “Operation Demonstrate Resolve,” the plan was to be rolled out in phases as the administration pursued its mass immigrant deportation and other national security efforts. “Demonstrate Resolve” timelines contained in documents produced by the group bear a striking, though imperfect, resemblance to actions undertaken by the administration throughout the first year of this Trump presidency. A draft policy paper produced by the group toward the end of 2024 recommended plans to facilitate the deployment of up to one million Army soldiers — reserve, active forces and National Guard — on American soil, noting that the president would need to declare an emergency to initiate such a deployment. (Trump did just that soon after taking office, allowing him to deploy troops at the border, and he has threatened, attempted or executed military deployments to a number of cities.) The group also prepared several draft emergency decla- rations for Trump. Other Border Security Workgroup documents seem to propose deployment of these military forces to all 50 states over the course of 2025 and 2026, with the initial militarization of the Southwest border serving as “‘pilot’ for future operations.” Importantly, as proposed by the group, following initial phases of immigrant deten- tions and deportations, the new militarized fusion center-style system would persist. It would shift to “sustained operations” so as to mitigate “all threats.” >> p 14 13 Protesters demonstrate by U.S. Marines guarding a federal building on June 2025 in Los Angeles. (Mario Tama/Getty Images) Christopher Miller was the acting Secretary of Defense in the last months of Donald Trump’s first presidency. (Tom Williams-Pool/Getty Images) Insurrectionist Brunch from p 9
