Tag: national guard
'Indication Of Dictatorship': Retired National Guard General Denounces Trump Deployment

'Indication Of Dictatorship': Retired National Guard General Denounces Trump Deployment

Former National Guard Vice Chief Major General Randy E. Manner strongly criticized President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to U.S. cities, saying it is a "full indication of dictatorship and intimidation in the use of the military."

During an appearance on CNN Wednesday, Manner compared the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials conducting raids across the country to the Gestapo of 1930s Germany, adding that they "act like a mob."

The retired major general went on to say that the administration is “trying to create false flags" in which ICE agents are killed so it can secure a pretext to expand its use of the military.

Manner also observed that National Guard troops are different from ICE agents.

"They cover their faces. They want anonymity. They look like a bunch of Proud Boys," he said of ICE officials, but he added that the National Guard troops "are not undisciplined thugs."

"They are your sons and daughters in uniform, and you should treat them that way," he said of the National Guard.

President Donald Trump has escalated deployment of federalized National Guard troops in multiple U.S. cities under the guise of curbing “crime,” even as state and local leaders (from Illinois to Oregon and D.C.) have filed legal challenges arguing these moves violate the Constitution, the Posse Comitatus Act, and states’ sovereignty.

Earlier on Wednesday, NBC reported that White House advisers are now seriously weighing whether Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act — an obscure law from the early 1800s that permits the use of active-duty military troops within U.S. borders for law enforcement duties.

Republican Judge Demolishes The MAGA Mythology Of 'War-Torn' Portland

Republican Judge Demolishes The MAGA Mythology Of 'War-Torn' Portland

Fox News propagandists cheered last month when President Donald Trump directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to send 200 National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, claiming the move was necessary because, in host Jesse Watters’ words, the entire city “has been under siege by antifa for four months.” But a Trump-nominated federal judge blocked the deployment on Saturday, noting that protests in the city have been “small and uneventful” for months and writing that the president’s order “was simply untethered to the facts.”

After Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C., in August and suggested he would do the same in other U.S. cities, right-wing media spent September trying to turn Portland into the president’s next target. They created and fed the narrative that Portland is a “chaotic city” consumed by “civil insurrection” in which “every weekend is war.” While news reports from the city portrayed the protests as minor, MAGA pundit Steve Bannon told his audience, “Antifa's burning down Portland every night. … They've taken control of Portland.”

The president responded to the overheated commentary of his most zealous supporters. In a September 27 post to Truth Social, Trump ordered Hegseth to send troops to protect “War ravaged Portland” from “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” and claimed he was “authorizing Full Force, if necessary.”

But after Hegseth directed 200 members of the Oregon National Guard to the city over the objection of Gov. Tina Kotek, the state of Oregon and the city of Portland sued in federal court, arguing that the president had exceeded his legal and constitutional authority.

District Court Judge Karin Immergut — a stalwart of the GOP legal community who worked on Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton, served as a U.S. attorney under President George W. Bush, and was nominated to the bench by Trump himself — agreed. On October 4, she issued a temporary restraining order which blocked the deployment.

Trump-appointed judge: Portland protests “were small and uneventful”

Immergut wrote in her ruling that Trump had not met the standard under the statutory authority he invoked, which only allows the president to federalize National Guard units in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when the federal government has been rendered otherwise unable to execute the law.

She explained that contrary to Trump’s depiction of the situation in Portland, her review determined: “As of September 27, 2025, it had been months since there was any sustained level of violent or disruptive protest activity in Portland. During this time frame, there were sporadic events requiring either PPB monitoring or federal law enforcement intervention, but overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”

The judge added that the federal government produced “only four incidents of protesters clashing with federal officers in the month of September preceding the federalization order,” calling these “inexcusable, but they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces.”

She further wrote that the standard the federal government tried to set “would allow the President to call in the National Guard whenever one law enforcement office receives support from another office, which is a routine aspect of law enforcement activity. If the President could equate diversion of federal resources with his inability to execute federal law, then the President could send military troops virtually anywhere at any time.”

Immergut concluded that Trump lacked the statutory authority to federalize the guard in this case “because the situation on the ground belied an inability of federal law enforcement officers to execute federal law,” adding: “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”

That’s not how Fox presented Portland to its viewers

Fox hosts pulled out the stops to present the city as a violent hellhole crying out for the federal intervention the president had ordered.

“Left-wing terror is at record highs,” Watters declared on his September 29 broadcast. “They're shooting at Teslas, Trump, Charlie, and ICE. After sending in the Guard into L.A. and D.C., Trump is going for round three — Portland.”

“This weekend, he directed the secretary of war to send 200 National Guardsmen to protect war-ravaged Portland, and he is authorizing them to use full force if necessary, because federal facilities in Portland have been under siege since the start of the summer,” Watters continued, adding, “Every weekend, antifa has been on the warpath.”

Watters claimed two nights later: “Portland has been under siege by antifa for four months. The Guard is there to get things under control, but Portland Democrats say they want to deport the Guard because the protests are mostly peaceful.”

On September 29, host Laura Ingraham similarly claimed that Portland was “getting a dose of Trump-style safety” because an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility and “the areas around it have been under siege regularly in Oregon, and it continued this past weekend.” She added that Oregon was “rushing to court siding with criminals and against public safety.”

The same night, host Sean Hannity accused Oregon and Portland of “typical radical, predictable left-wing sanctuary state and city lies” because officials there supposedly won’t acknowledge that the “city’s on fire” and consumed by “a whole lot … of violence, lawlessness if you ask me.”

Their arguments are wildly overstated on the facts. But there’s so much more at stake, as Immergut pointed out in her ruling.

“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” she wrote. “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation.”

Fox’s star hosts apparently disagree, and are standing with Trump as he tries to send the nation hurtling toward martial law.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Trump Is Trying To Make Us Forget The Epstein Scandal -- So Don't

Trump Is Trying To Make Us Forget The Epstein Scandal -- So Don't

"Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents," Donald Trump declared at his 2025 inauguration. Hold that thought.

Trump is now using the immense power of the state to distract from a scandal that could bring him down. That is, his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a fiend who sexually trafficked girls young enough to be in junior high.

Watch how Trump uses the power of the state to change the subject. Note how his weaponizing of government to go after foes — or just attract attention — escalates into sheer spectacle.

It's no longer just insulting celebrities. No, he needs the big guns to force attention away from deeper questions about his close dealings with Epstein. He needs to send the National Guard into cities that didn't want them, bomb boats that may or may not be carrying drug smugglers and send immigrants who may or may not be undocumented to third-country dungeons.

News channels have jumped all over FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's mafioso threats against news media that don't do Trump's bidding. He apparently intimidated ABC/Walt Disney into firing Jimmy Kimmel after the late-night comedian made comments at odds with state-sanctioned opinion. Carr used to make fiery defenses of free speech.

This is a serious story, but critics shouldn't let Trump lead them astray from the story that undoubtedly terrifies him: his relationship with the predator who provided rich men with underage sexual partners.

Ignore Carr. He is a toady, a hollow man barren of principle. And did Attorney General Pam Bondi claim that the state could investigate businesses that refused to print memorial vigil posters for Charlie Kirk? Yes, but not gonna happen.

The burning question isn't whether Trump knew Epstein, liked Epstein or even partied with him. We know he did all those things, but those activities are not necessarily criminal.

The question is whether he participated in the sexual abuse of minors. Proof that Trump availed himself of Epstein's young adolescents has yet to be produced. But evidence that he may have is piling up.

Many questions could be answered in the release of all the Epstein files. Trump used to call for that, but when the possibility drew near, he invented a new story: The files are part of a Democratic hoax.

That didn't get much traction. Recent polls show at least 80 percent of the public — including independents and many Republicans — wants all the documents released.

Another hint that Trump may have been deeply involved is his treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell, who recruited and groomed Epstein's victims. Convicted of the sex trafficking of minors, among the most serious federal crimes, Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Why was she summarily moved to a low-security facility that offered Pilates?

Upon Maxwell's arrest in 2020, Trump responded, "I wish her well, frankly." He clearly wants her on his side.

How can Trump explain the affectionate birthday letter he sent to Epstein? It contained typewritten text, a drawn outline of a naked woman and the signature "Donald" written in a way that resembled pubic hair. The letter was reported by The Wall Street Journal, a conservative Murdoch-controlled publication that treads carefully.

We can expect Trump's diversions to become ever more flamboyant as information dribbles out about Epstein's clientele. There's no accounting for the elastic moral standards of Trump's most slavish devotees, but even some of them might have trouble with the sexual abuse of 14 year-olds.

Countering the immense power of the state to distract the public is not easy. But we must. We should ask what ought to concern us more, comedians or sex traffickers of young teens. You choose.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Our Inner Cities Deserve Respect -- And Anti-Crime Policies That Work

Our Inner Cities Deserve Respect -- And Anti-Crime Policies That Work

“Of course, Baltimore,” said Donald Trump when ticking off the list of cities that required federal forces to quell the hordes of violent urban criminals who live in the president’s head, if not in reality.

It’s clear he never bought into the nickname coined to counter the city’s negative image. No “Charm City” for a man who fails to see any positives in a place he recently called a “hellhole,” and not for the first time.

Right now, the administration’s attention has turned to Chicago, likely the next target of his plan to interfere with law enforcement operations — and whatever else he can get away with — in cities led by Democrats.

Trump, always spoiling for a fight, is ready to take on a federal judge’s ruling of overreach in Los Angeles, not to mention Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (who fits the profile).

However, the president would never leave out his go-to for all things dysfunctional in a blue city led by a Black mayor, in Baltimore’s case Brandon Scott. That’s the same man some Republicans blamed when a cargo ship crashed into the city’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, casting Baltimore’s mayor and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore as both incompetent and all-powerful.

Then again, it’s easy to spew nonsensical contradictions, along with every inner-city and racist trope, when you don’t see citizens who live in certain parts of certain cities as human beings.

You only had to listen to Trump’s answer to an invitation by Moore to walk the city’s streets, to actually learn something about the places and the people he so glibly and destructively malign. He only sees teenage “thugs” to be put behind bars, charged as adults and thrown into prisons, places where you don’t have to attend school but where you learn plenty.

“I’m not walking in Baltimore right now. Baltimore is a hellhole,” Trump said. “This guy, I don’t even think he knows it.” Yes, “this guy,” not “Governor Moore,” the better to disrespect a state leader who happens to be Black.

To be fair to the president, he is not alone in the judgments he makes from afar.

As someone who grew up in West Baltimore, I am well aware of the city’s reputation.

Even people who should know better seem both surprised and disappointed when, instead of sharing tales of being a child lookout for drug dealers, in a scenario straight out of The Wire, I talk about my less dramatic reality of backyard birthday parties, trips to the library, and doing chores for neighbors.

That’s not to say the neighborhood of my youth was crime-free. And that was before a drug epidemic rendered too many familiar row houses vacant shells I see on visits to relatives.

Unfortunately, I have seen more than one childhood friend caught up in addiction or one mistake that landed them in the system instead of a counseling or treatment center the well-heeled on the other side of town always seemed to have access to.

But I never forgot the people they were or could be still if they had the support, programs, and, yes, luck that blessed me.

People get a lot wrong when judging inner cities across America.

Its residents crave attention from law enforcement and their government. They pay their salaries, and they are outraged when everything from medics to 911 seems to lack a sense of urgency when responding to their emergencies.

In my experience, they just want to be treated fairly and respectfully, to be on the other end of that mission “to protect and serve.” They would welcome after-school programs and community violence-prevention strategies more than troops, tanks, and National Guard members from Tennessee and Mississippi who may see them as perps rather than people trying to live safe and productive lives.

And they have learned to be very suspicious of politicians who say things they obviously don’t mean. Donald Trump isn’t serious about “law and order,” not when one of his first acts as president was pardoning criminals who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and injured more than 100 law enforcement officers.

If the Trump administration and its compliant allies in a GOP-controlled Congress really wanted to help rather than dominate the Americans in the cities he dismisses, they would just support the policies that have been proven to bring crime rates down.

But then they would have to admit they could learn a thing or two from those Democratic Black mayors.

Johnson does not downplay Chicago’s gun violence, which, while decreasing, still left 58 people shot over the holiday weekend. He said at a news conference that many of those guns on the city’s streets are trafficked to Illinois from nearby states, including GOP-led Indiana. “Chicago will continue to have a violence problem as long as red states continue to have a gun problem,” Johnson said.

“If the president was absolutely certain,” he said on NPR, that “driving violence down in the city of Chicago and cities across America was his actual goal, he would not have taken over $800 million away from violence prevention efforts.”

In an interview on NPR, Baltimore’s Scott talked about what has brought down violence in his city, one that as of July had seen 84 homicides, the fewest recorded in more than 50 years, one of many hopeful statistics Trump refuses to acknowledge or believe.

“We actually go to those who are most likely to be the victim or perpetrator of gun violence. They get a letter directly from me. We knock on their door and say, ‘We know who you are. We know what you do. Change your life. We’ll help you do it. But if you don’t, we’re going to remove you via law enforcement,” Scott said.

“Those who have taken us up on change in their life — over 90 percent of them have not reinjured, revictimized, or recidivated in crime.”

It makes perfect sense, to nurture people with hopes and dreams who need guidance and a pathway to success. But first you have to see those kids, and yes, many are kids like I once was, as human beings worth investing time and money in, as young people worth saving.

Mary C. Curtis has worked at The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, The Charlotte Observer, as national correspondent for Politics Daily, and is a senior facilitator with The OpEd Project. She is host of the CQ Roll Call “Equal Time with Mary C. Curtis” podcast. Follow her on X @mcurtisnc3.

Reprinted with permission from RollCall.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World