On January 30, 2018, President Trump issued Executive Order 13823, tasking the Secretary of Defense with reviewing and recommending detention policies for individuals designated as suspected terrorists. The order required the Department of Defense to submit a comprehensive report within 30 days outlining existing authority and practices for holding high-value detainees long-term, effectively opening the door to potential expansion of military detention operations beyond the constraints established by the Obama administration.

The order directly affects detainees held in military custody and the operational scope of the Department of Defense. By requesting formal recommendations on detention authority, the executive order created institutional momentum toward broader detention practices that could encompass longer holding periods and expanded interrogation protocols. Military personnel responsible for implementing detention policies became empowered to operate under potentially revised guidelines, while detainees themselves faced the prospect of extended confinement with fewer legislative constraints than civilian detention frameworks impose.

This action reflects a broader pattern in the Trump administration's foreign policy approach toward terrorism and military operations. When considered alongside subsequent military escalations—including the 2026 troop deployments to the Middle East for the Iran maritime blockade and the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany to pressure European allies on Iran policy—the detention order appears part of a comprehensive hardline security posture. The continuation of the national emergency declaration regarding Iran maintained expansive executive authorities that complemented this detention review, creating an interconnected system of emergency powers and military flexibility with minimal legislative oversight.

The legal status of detention practices derived from this order remains contested territory. While the Department of Defense report was completed, the substantive expansion of detention authorities depends on existing wartime statutes and constitutional frameworks that courts have historically scrutinized. Congressional oversight mechanisms remain available but have not effectively constrained implementation, leaving the primary legal check to judicial review of individual detention cases rather than prospective policy evaluation.