By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Illinois, while allowing federalization to remain in place. This decision follows the Trump administration’s appeal of a previous ruling that temporarily halted the deployment of troops. The action comes as President Trump considers using the Insurrection Act and has faced pushback from Democratic leaders in Illinois and Oregon, who are challenging the deployment of National Guard troops in their states through ongoing litigation. Furthermore, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel in California is currently reviewing a similar case involving the deployment of National Guard troops in Oregon.
Read the original article here
Appeals court blocks Trump from deploying National Guard in Illinois. This is a significant development, and it’s worth unpacking what’s at stake.
The core of this issue seems to be about where the National Guard should be. In this particular instance, the Governor of Illinois, Pritzker, pointed out that Texas was preparing for wildfires and floods, and the Texas National Guard should be there, not in Illinois. This raises a critical point about resource allocation and the potential for political maneuvering.
The concerns extend beyond just this single instance. There’s a broader fear that federalized troops might be deployed to areas where opposition to Trump is strongest, potentially to crack down on dissent, restrict civil liberties, and even detain individuals based on vague criteria. This is further complicated by the rhetoric used by Trump, which has often been described as cruel and dehumanizing towards certain groups and areas of the country.
The worry is that Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act, bypassing state authority, and potentially invalidating the Posse Comitatus Act. This act currently limits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Giving Trump this power would allow him to order the military to enforce his will. The natural next step could be declaring martial law. This action, which has been a possibility considered in the past, would further consolidate power and potentially undermine democratic processes.
Looking back, even Republican governors from states with high crime rates were sending troops to Washington D.C. while showing hesitancy in requesting troops from Trump for their own cities. This creates a concerning dynamic.
At its heart, this appears to be about more than just public safety. It’s about centralizing authoritarian control, specifically over Democrat-run cities. There is a concern that this will lead to the illusion of safety and, as elections approach, that this military presence would be used to suppress voting. This is further compounded by the historical use of “law and order” as a conservative dog whistle.
The rhetoric from Trump and his supporters is designed to incite violence and hostility, often targeting minorities, immigrants, and marginalized groups. The goal is to punish political opponents and create an atmosphere of fear. This approach is borrowed directly from the playbook of fascist regimes, including using divisive rhetoric to justify military occupation and scapegoating minority groups.
There’s the possibility that the Trump administration might be seeking an incident to escalate these authoritarian measures. Some believe they may be hoping for a violent response to justify more military incursions across the country.
Ultimately, the core issue seems to be about creating a pretext to declare war against political opponents. The underlying causes of crime, violence, and extremism are being ignored. With the Trump administration dictating who or what conforms to the vague definition of a “domestic terrorist,” the aim is to suppress civil liberties, crackdown on dissent, and arrest anyone who gets in the way. It’s all about instilling fear and controlling the narrative, regardless of court decisions.
This battle for control of the military’s deployment is a critical one. Losing public support might be the only thing that can hinder Trump’s efforts. If he gains complete control of the military, the risk of civil unrest becomes very real.