By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A senior White House official, Anthony Salisbury, inadvertently revealed plans to deploy the 82nd Airborne Division to Portland via Signal messages. The Minnesota Star Tribune obtained images of the messages, which were sent to other high-ranking officials, including a senior adviser to the US defense secretary, discussing the potential deployment due to potential backlash of using the army. While the defense secretary initially preferred the National Guard, Trump’s administration ultimately deployed 200 members of the National Guard, contradicting initial reports. This incident adds to a pattern of intelligence leaks within the Trump administration, highlighting security concerns.
Read the original article here
White House official inadvertently reveals plans to send elite army unit to Portland, and the implications of such a move are immediately apparent. It’s a stunning revelation, the kind that makes you sit up and take notice. The use of Signal by a top White House official, Anthony Salisbury, a deputy to the influential Stephen Miller, in a public space, raises all sorts of red flags. Why Signal? What were they discussing that needed to be shielded? And, most alarmingly, what’s the context surrounding this usage?
The core of the issue here is the rumored deployment of an elite army unit to Portland. The suggestion, even hinted at, carries massive weight. The 82nd Airborne, for instance, isn’t just any unit. They are battle-hardened soldiers, trained for combat zones, not for patrolling the streets of an American city. The very idea is unsettling, a clear overreach of power. It’s a blatant disregard for the line between military and civilian authority, a line that must be protected.
What’s really concerning is the potential for this to become a precedent. The article referenced reveals that a previous administration seriously considered sending the 82nd Airborne into cities during social justice protests. The fact that such a plan was even on the table, and only stopped by the Secretary of Defense’s opposition, should be a wake-up call. The desire of a top advisor to “get us to yes,” as the article puts it, is deeply troubling. It highlights a mindset that prioritizes executive power over the rule of law.
This isn’t just about optics; it’s about the fundamental structure of our democracy. Deploying the military to quell dissent can easily escalate tensions, leading to violence and the erosion of civil liberties. The fact that such a plan seems to be on the agenda once again indicates a dangerous pattern. It’s the kind of move that echoes historical instances of authoritarianism, where the military is used to suppress internal opposition.
The implications extend far beyond Portland. The potential for this to ignite further unrest, to create a climate of fear, and to further divide the nation is incredibly high. It also raises questions about the motivation behind this action. Is this a genuine concern about public safety, or is it a strategic maneuver? Is it a way of provoking a response, then using that response to justify further actions?
The article also touches on the unconstitutionality of deploying troops in this way, especially given the intended mission. It touches on the First Amendment rights of those who would be protested against, and what their response might look like. There are multiple viewpoints of the deployment within the military itself, and how it might crumble.
The use of Signal by these officials suggests that the discussions are particularly sensitive and intended to be hidden. This compounds the seriousness of the situation. If they felt the need to use encrypted communications, what are they trying to hide? This lack of transparency feeds suspicion and mistrust. It also speaks to the level of incompetence and lack of forethought.
It’s worth noting that the timing of this, as well as the fact that the plans are coming out through accidental revelation. It suggests that this action might be perceived as a show of force or an attempt to intimidate. Why Portland? Is there a specific threat that warrants such a response, or is it part of a broader strategy?
Ultimately, this isn’t just a matter of local politics or law enforcement. It goes to the heart of the values this country stands for. The deployment of elite military units to American cities represents a serious assault on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It is a dangerous escalation that should be met with swift and decisive opposition.