Easy Question—No Straight Answer: Duckworth Exposes DoD’s Legal Gap

WASHINGTON — In a tense exchange on Capitol Hill, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois exposed what she described as a dangerous legal void at the heart of the Trump administration’s domestic security strategy: the absence of clear protections for U.S. service members who might intervene to stop federal agents from harming civilians during domestic operations.

The confrontation unfolded during a Senate hearing focused on the potential deployment of active-duty troops to support federal law enforcement amid immigration enforcement actions. Ms. Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran and double amputee, framed the issue not as an abstract policy debate but as a real-world moral and legal dilemma facing troops ordered into American cities.

“There was no rioting in Chicago before ICE was sent in,” Ms. Duckworth said, disputing the administration’s justification for federal intervention. She accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents of abusing civilians, citing incidents in which officers used tear gas on bystanders, pointed weapons at unarmed residents, and detained people without filing charges. Federal judges, she noted, have repeatedly found no legal basis for such actions.

The senator’s central concern was what happens if troops are placed alongside federal agents whose conduct is under judicial scrutiny. She posed a stark hypothetical: If a service member witnesses a federal agent using excessive force against a child, is that soldier expected to intervene — and if so, would the government protect them from legal consequences?

Her question was pointed and deliberately narrow. Would the Department of Defense commit to providing legal protection to a Title 10 service member who steps in to stop a federal agent from wrongfully harming a civilian?

Pentagon officials did not provide a clear answer.

Instead, a department lawyer repeatedly deferred responsibility to the Department of Justice, explaining that legal representation for service members typically falls outside the Defense Department’s purview. The response appeared to frustrate Ms. Duckworth, who pressed the point several times, warning that ambiguity could leave troops exposed to prosecution for doing what many Americans would consider the right thing.

“Federal law enforcement officers have a legal duty to intervene to stop excessive force,” she said. “Uniformed service members do not.”

That distinction, she argued, creates a perilous gap. Soldiers ordered into domestic law enforcement roles are not trained for civilian policing and lack explicit legal authority — or protection — if they act against another federal agency. Without clear rules, they face an impossible choice: intervene and risk their careers and freedom, or stand by as civilians are harmed, potentially shattering public trust in the military.

Ms. Duckworth’s warning went beyond legal technicalities. She suggested that the administration’s approach risks politicizing the armed forces and using their respected image to shield controversial enforcement actions. Across the country, she noted, federal agents have increasingly adopted military-style uniforms and tactics, blurring the line between civilian law enforcement and the armed forces.

That blurring, she argued, is dangerous.

When civilians cannot easily distinguish between professional soldiers and heavily armed federal agents, misconduct by one can taint the reputation of the other. “I fear the day when Americans stop thanking our troops for their service because they’re afraid of our troops,” she said.

A senior military officer testifying at the hearing acknowledged the concern, saying he had received no guidance from the Department of Homeland Security or the Pentagon on how to clearly distinguish troops from federal agents operating nearby. He suggested that visual markers or modified uniforms could help, but conceded that no such measures had been ordered.

The exchange underscored a broader anxiety among lawmakers about the administration’s repeated efforts to deploy or threaten to deploy the military in domestic settings — efforts that courts have, so far, largely blocked. Critics argue that such moves stretch the boundaries of the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of federal troops in civilian law enforcement, and risk entangling the military in political and legal conflicts for which it is ill-suited.

Supporters of the administration counter that federal agents need protection and that extraordinary measures are justified to enforce immigration law and maintain order. But Ms. Duckworth’s questioning suggested that even if one accepts that premise, the current framework leaves too many unanswered questions.

At its core, she said, the issue is about preserving the military’s constitutional role. Service members swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a president or a particular agency. Forcing them into situations where lawful conduct is unclear, she argued, undermines that oath and erodes the public’s confidence in an institution that depends on discipline, restraint and legitimacy.

By the end of the hearing, Ms. Duckworth had not secured the “yes or no” answer she sought. But her message was unmistakable: without clearer laws and explicit protections, domestic deployments risk harming not only civilians caught in enforcement actions, but also the men and women ordered to carry them out — and the fragile trust between the military and the society it serves.