Executive Order 9066: The Authorization of Japanese American Internment
Main articles: Internment of Japanese Americans, Internment of German Americans, and Internment of Italian Americans
Executive Order 9066 Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas
Number: 9066 President: Franklin D. Roosevelt Signed: February 19, 1942 Federal Register details: Federal Register document number 42-1563 Publication date: February 25, 1942
Repealed by: Proclamation 4417, "Confirming the Termination of the Executive Order Authorizing Japanese-American Internment During World War II", February 19, 1976
Sign posted notifying people of Japanese descent to report for incarceration A Japanese-American owned grocery store, Oakland, California, March 1942 A Japanese-American girl imprisoned in an Arkansas internment camp walks to school in 1943.
Executive Order 9066, a directive issued by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, stands as a stark monument to the erosion of civil liberties during World War II. This order granted the Secretary of War the authority to designate specific geographical areas as "military areas" from which any and all persons could be excluded. In practice, this translated into the forced removal and incarceration of an estimated 125,000 individuals of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast to hastily constructed "relocation centers" located further inland. The chilling irony, often overlooked in the rush to secure the nation, was that two-thirds of those displaced were not foreign nationals but American citizens, born and raised within the very country that was now stripping them of their rights.
It is a point of historical contention, and frankly, a persistent stain, that the scale of internment for Americans of Asian descent far outstripped that for their European counterparts. While German and Italian Americans were indeed subjected to internment, their confinement fell under the purview of Presidential Proclamation 2526 and the provisions of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, a distinctly different legal framework than the sweeping military powers invoked by Executive Order 9066. The deliberate targeting of a specific ethnic group, cloaked in the guise of national security, is a subject that warrants more than just academic dissection; it demands a visceral understanding of the human cost.
Transcript of Executive Order 9066
The official pronouncement, devoid of immediate emotional context, reads as follows:
Executive Order No. 9066
Executive Order
Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas
Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.
I hereby further authorize and direct the commissioner of War and the Military department Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military personnel Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area here in above authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.
I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Departments, independent establishments and other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food, clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities, and services.
This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority heretofore granted under Executive Order No. 8972, dated December 12, 1941, nor shall it be construed as limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with respect to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or the duty and responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas hereunder.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The White House,
February 19, 1942.
Background to the Order: A Cascade of Fear and Prejudice
The seeds of Executive Order 9066 were sown in the immediate aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941. While the nation grappled with the shock of war, a parallel undercurrent of fear and xenophobia, particularly directed towards Japanese Americans, began to surge. This wasn't a spontaneous eruption; it was a culmination of decades of ingrained prejudice and racially motivated legislation. Even before the war, Japanese immigrants, often ineligible for citizenship due to their ancestry, faced discriminatory Alien land laws, were barred from voting, and could not even testify against whites in court. The very fabric of American society, it seemed, was already woven with threads of exclusion for those of Asian descent.
President Roosevelt, it must be noted, was not a passive observer of these sentiments. His private writings and public stances from the 1920s reveal a disturbing predisposition. He penned articles in the Macon Telegraph expressing concern over "white-Japanese intermarriage" and lauded California's restrictive land ownership laws for Japanese immigrants. More alarmingly, as president in 1936, he privately mused about identifying and isolating Japanese citizens and non-citizens in Hawaii in the event of war, stating, "every Japanese citizen or non-citizen on the Island of Oahu who meets these Japanese ships or has any connection with their officers or men should be secretly but definitely identified and his or her name placed on a special list of those who would be the first to be placed in a concentration camp." This chilling foresight, coupled with his silence in the face of pleas from advisors like John Franklin Carter to defend the rights of Japanese Americans, paints a grim picture of his pre-war attitudes. Even as Attorney General Francis Biddle and other senior officials cautioned against mass incarceration, arguing it was neither necessary nor legally sound, Roosevelt pressed forward. The president's personal views, it appears, were not merely a reflection of public sentiment but a driving force behind the eventual policy.
The proclamation of war on December 7, 1941, provided the immediate pretext. However, the subsequent issuance of Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, was not a hastily conceived reaction but a deliberate policy decision, deeply rooted in pre-existing biases. The order itself was a masterpiece of obfuscation, deliberately avoiding specific mention of "Japanese" or "Japanese Americans." Instead, it bestowed upon the Secretary of War and his designated military commanders the sweeping authority to define and enforce exclusion from any designated "military area." This vagueness, however, was a thin veil. As Attorney General Francis Biddle himself admitted in a 1943 letter to Roosevelt, "You signed the original Executive Order permitting the exclusions so the Army could handle the Japs. It was never intended to apply to Italians and Germans." This admission underscores the targeted nature of the order, despite its broad wording.
To ensure compliance, Congress swiftly enacted Public Law 77-503 on March 21, 1942. This legislation, debated for a mere hour in the Senate and thirty minutes in the House, codified the executive order by making violations of military directives a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $5,000 in fines and a year in prison. The architect of this law was War Department official Karl Bendetsen, who would later ascend to direct the Wartime Civilian Control Administration, overseeing the very incarceration the law facilitated.
Under the broad interpretation of Executive Order 9066, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, commanding the Western Defense Command, issued directives that explicitly targeted "all people of Japanese ancestry." This led to the forced eviction of approximately 112,000 men, women, and children from the West Coast. They were not simply asked to relocate; they were dispossessed and confined in American relocation camps and other internment sites scattered across the country.
Even Hawaii, a territory with a substantial Japanese-American population (nearly 40%), was not entirely spared from Roosevelt's intent. On February 26, 1942, he conveyed to Secretary of the Navy Knox his belief that "most of the Japanese should be removed from Oahu to one of the other islands." However, the logistical challenges, the immense cost, and the quiet opposition from local military commander General Delos Emmons rendered this plan impractical. Consequently, the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans in Hawaii never materialized on the scale seen on the mainland. This contrast, particularly given Hawaii's strategic importance and vulnerability, lent credence to the later conclusion that the mass removal from the West Coast was driven by factors other than genuine "military necessity."
The government's actions were further undermined by its own intelligence reports. Prior to Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt had commissioned a secret study, the Munson Report, to assess the loyalty of Japanese Americans. Submitted in November 1941, the report concluded that there would be no "armed uprising of Japanese" and that, for the most part, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs." A subsequent investigation in 1940 by Naval Intelligence officer Kenneth Ringle, submitted in January 1942, echoed these findings, finding no evidence of fifth column activity and strongly advising against mass incarceration. These reports, along with others from the FBI, Office of Naval Intelligence, and Military Intelligence Division, which had been monitoring Japanese-American communities for years, were summarily ignored.
The tragic reality was that over two-thirds of those incarcerated were U.S. citizens. Many others had resided in the United States for decades, building lives and contributing to their communities. The first-generation Japanese Americans born in the U.S., the Nisei, overwhelmingly identified as Americans. Crucially, and this cannot be stressed enough, not a single Japanese-American citizen or national residing in the United States was ever convicted of sabotage or espionage. The justification of "military necessity" crumbled under the weight of these facts.
The internment apparatus comprised ten so-called "relocation centers" scattered across the United States. These euphemisms masked a brutal reality: two camps were situated in Arkansas, two in Arizona, two in California, with one each in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado.
World War II Camps Under the Order: Life Behind Barbed Wire
The implementation of Executive Order 9066 fell under the purview of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, who was tasked with providing relocated individuals with essential accommodations. He delegated the unenviable task of administering the removal of West Coast Japanese to Colonel Karl Bendetsen. Throughout the spring of 1942, General John L. DeWitt issued directives through the Western Defense Command, mandating that all individuals of Japanese ancestry present themselves for removal.
The initial phase involved temporary assembly centers. These were often repurposed fairgrounds and horse racing tracks, where living quarters were frequently converted livestock stalls. As the more permanent and isolated War Relocation Authority camps were constructed, the incarcerated population was transferred via truck or train. These permanent camps, designed for long-term confinement, featured tar-paper-walled frame buildings situated in regions with harsh climates, characterized by bitter winters and scorching summers. The camps were not open resorts; they were guarded by armed soldiers, and the perimeter was fortified with barbed wire fences—a detail often omitted from the carefully curated photographs released to the public. These settlements, some housing up to 18,000 people, functioned as self-contained cities, providing rudimentary medical care, food, and educational facilities, largely managed by the government but often staffed by the inmates themselves. Adults were offered "camp jobs" with meager wages ranging from 19 per month.
The living conditions were, to put it mildly, dire. Overcrowding was rampant, with inhabitants crammed into barracks offering minimal privacy and inadequate sanitation. The specific location of some camps, such as one in Utah's desert, subjected residents to extreme temperature fluctuations and harsh weather, compounding the daily misery. Education and religious services were conducted within these same barracks, further underscoring the bleakness of existence. The evidence overwhelmingly points to these camps as environments of profound hardship and deprivation.
Opposition: Whispers of Dissent in a Climate of Fear
Despite the pervasive atmosphere of wartime anxiety and the broad public support for the internment—a March 1942 poll indicated majorities believed the policy was justified—there were individuals and groups who bravely voiced their opposition. Their efforts, though often marginalized, represent crucial acts of conscience.
Norman Thomas, the chairman of the Socialist Party of America, emerged as a vocal critic. He actively worked to defend the civil rights of Japanese Americans, maintaining contact with those incarcerated and engaging with organizations dedicated to their cause. In July 1942, he published "Democracy and Japanese Americans," a critical examination of the camps' conditions and the legal underpinnings of the order. By late 1943, Thomas was unequivocal in his condemnation, stating that "Congress and the President have created a dangerous precedent by adopting wholesale the totalitarian theories of justice by discrimination on the basis of racial affiliation."
Eleanor Roosevelt, while publicly supporting her husband's administration, harbored private reservations about the necessity of the camps. She advocated for a more targeted approach, focusing on genuine security threats rather than mass detention, and maintained that "the laws of the United States should apply equally to all citizens, regardless of race or nationality." Her private concerns, though not translating into public defiance, highlight the internal conflict within the administration.
Termination, Apology, and Redress: A Long Road to Acknowledgment
The release of internees was a protracted and often reluctant process. Despite persistent urgings from Attorney General Francis Biddle and Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes in 1943 and 1944, Roosevelt remained hesitant, possibly influenced by political considerations, such as the need to secure California's electoral votes. It wasn't until December 1944, following the landmark Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Endo, which ruled against the continued detention of loyal Japanese Americans, that Roosevelt suspended Executive Order 9066. The camps were gradually emptied, with detainees released to resettlement facilities and temporary housing, and all facilities were shuttered by 1946.
A formal acknowledgment of the injustice came much later. On February 19, 1976, President Gerald Ford signed Proclamation 4417, officially terminating Executive Order 9066. In a significant gesture, he issued an apology, stating: "We now know what we should have known then—not only was that evacuation wrong but Japanese Americans were and are loyal Americans. On the battlefield and at home the names of Japanese Americans have been and continue to be written in history for the sacrifices and the contributions they have made to the well-being and to the security of this, our common Nation."
The path toward reparations began in 1980 when President Jimmy Carter signed legislation establishing the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC). This commission was mandated to conduct a thorough governmental study of Executive Order 9066 and its ramifications, not only for Japanese Americans on the West Coast but also for Alaska Natives in the Pribilof Islands.
In December 1982, the CWRIC released its findings in the report titled Personal Justice Denied. The report definitively concluded that the incarceration of Japanese Americans was not a matter of military necessity but was instead the product of "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." The commission recommended a series of legislative remedies, including a formal Government apology and redress payments of $20,000 to each surviving internee. Additionally, a public education fund was to be established to prevent such injustices from recurring, a provision enshrined in Pub. L. 100–383.
On August 10, 1988, acting on these recommendations, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Subsequently, on November 21, 1989, President George H. W. Bush approved an appropriation bill to facilitate these payments, which were disbursed between 1990 and 1998. Surviving internees began receiving their individual redress payments and a letter of apology. This act of restitution extended not only to Japanese Americans but also to members of the Aleut people of the Aleutian islands in Alaska, who had also been forcibly relocated.
Life After the Camps: Rebuilding from the Rubble of Injustice
The years following the war were a period of profound challenge for Japanese Americans. Having endured the loss of their liberty and, in many cases, their homes, businesses, property, and savings, they were forced to rebuild their lives under the shadow of immense personal loss. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 eventually repealed the discriminatory Immigration Act of 1924, reinstating the possibility of naturalization for those born in Japan and allowing for renewed immigration.
Many Japanese Americans returned to the West Coast with the expectation of reclaiming their former lives, only to find their assets seized by the government. In some instances, the federal government provided trailers as temporary housing, a stark contrast to the homes they had lost. The once-thriving Asian American community saw a significant decrease in its population as many, disillusioned and traumatized, chose to start anew elsewhere. The psychological toll of being incarcerated without cause, coupled with ongoing racism from fellow Americans, inflicted deep and lasting trauma. While the $20,000 redress payment offered a measure of financial recompense, many Japanese Americans harbored anxieties about increased xenophobia and the potential minimization of their wartime suffering.
In navigating the profound injustices inflicted upon their community, Japanese Americans demonstrated remarkable resilience. They gradually worked to overcome the stigma of criminalization and incarceration, eventually leading to the designation of February 19—the anniversary of Executive Order 9066's signing—as a National Day of Remembrance, a solemn occasion for national reflection.
Court Challenges: The Fight for Legal Vindication
The constitutionality of Executive Order 9066 and its enforcement mechanisms were challenged in a series of landmark court cases.
Korematsu v. United States
Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old American citizen, defied the exclusion order, unlike his parents who abandoned their home and nursery. Korematsu attempted to circumvent the order by undergoing plastic surgery to alter his appearance and adopting the name Clyde Sarah, claiming mixed Spanish and Hawaiian heritage. His defiance led to his arrest on May 30, 1942, for violating the exclusion order. His case, championed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argued that the order violated the U.S. Constitution. Despite these efforts, the district court found him guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, upheld the exclusion order, citing "military necessity" as justification. The court's reasoning, however, has been widely criticized and is now considered a dark chapter in American jurisprudence.
Hirabayashi v. United States
Among the restrictions imposed by Roosevelt's order was a curfew for all individuals of Japanese descent, in effect from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. Gordon Hirabayashi, a university student who viewed the curfew as a direct violation of his rights, deliberately defied it as an act of civil disobedience. His arrest led to his case being elevated to the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the curfew, again invoking the rationale of "military necessity." Hirabayashi was subsequently sentenced to six months in prison.
Yasui v. United States
Minoru Yasui, an American citizen born in Oregon and a graduate of the University of Oregon School of Law, found himself in a similar predicament. He had briefly worked for the Japanese government but resigned after Pearl Harbor. Upon returning to Oregon, his attempt to enlist in the U.S. Army was rejected. In December 1941, Yasui was arrested for violating the military curfew. Seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the curfew, he deliberately turned himself in to the police at 11 p.m., five hours after the designated curfew began. Convicted of violating the curfew, he was fined $5,000 and sentenced to one year in prison. His appeal reached the Supreme Court, which, in line with the Hirabayashi decision, upheld the curfew's constitutionality based on perceived military necessity.
Reopening and Justice: Unearthing the Truth
The tide of legal opinion began to turn in the 1980s. In 1983, researchers Peter Irons and Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga made a pivotal discovery: a copy of Lieutenant Commander K.D. Ringle's original Navy report, which had been deliberately withheld from the defense. This report, commissioned to assess the loyalty of Japanese Americans, concluded that they did not pose a significant threat to U.S. security. This evidence directly contradicted the government's claims of "military necessity" and revealed that Executive Order 9066 was predicated on false pretenses and racial animus.
Armed with this crucial evidence of government misconduct, the cases of Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Yasui were reopened. On November 10, 1983, a federal court overturned their convictions. This legal victory marked a significant step towards acknowledging the systemic injustice. In recognition of his lifelong fight for civil rights, the state of California passed a bill in 2010 naming January 30 as Fred Korematsu Day, the first day named in honor of an Asian American. The Supreme Court officially vacated the conviction in Korematsu v. United States in 2018, a belated but necessary repudiation of its earlier decision.
Legacy: Remembering the Past to Safeguard the Future
February 19, the anniversary of Executive Order 9066's signing, is now observed as the Day of Remembrance, a day dedicated to commemorating the unjust incarceration of Japanese Americans and reflecting on the fragility of civil liberties during times of crisis. In 2017, the Smithsonian launched an exhibit, featuring the work of artist Roger Shimomura, to provide context and interpretation of the wartime treatment of Japanese Americans.
In February 2022, marking the 80th anniversary of the order, renewed efforts were made to pass the Amache National Historic Site Act, advocating for the historical designation of the Granada War Relocation Center in Colorado. This initiative underscores the ongoing commitment to preserving the memory of this dark period and ensuring that such injustices are never repeated. The legacy of Executive Order 9066 serves as a perpetual reminder that the protection of fundamental rights requires constant vigilance, even—and perhaps especially—in times of perceived national peril.