The Independent’s reporting highlights a developing situation where the Trump administration is deploying federal law enforcement to Democratic-led cities, with Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker accusing the administration of using the situation as a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act. Pritzker argues that Trump is exaggerating the violence in cities like Chicago to justify military intervention, a move that is facing legal challenges. Trump has stated he would consider invoking the Act if necessary, but the governor and other officials believe state and local police can handle any situation, and his actions appear to violate the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act, which was last invoked in 1992, could suspend that Act, potentially allowing federal troops to enforce domestic law.
Read More
Trump open to invoking the Insurrection Act is a chilling prospect that, frankly, feels like it’s been brewing for quite some time now. The idea that he might use this power to bypass the normal legal processes is deeply unsettling, especially considering the potential for abuse. It’s worth remembering that this Act was intended for situations where state authorities are unable or unwilling to maintain order, not as a tool for personal political gain.
It’s hard to ignore the sense that there’s a deliberate strategy at play. The rhetoric, the dog-whistles, the attempts to portray certain events as “insurrections”—it all seems designed to create the conditions where invoking the Act would be, at least in his mind, justifiable.… Continue reading
In response to President Trump’s plan to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a federal lawsuit on Sunday seeking to block the move. The lawsuit, filed in the name of the State of Oregon and City of Portland, argues that the deployment infringes on state and local sovereignty and violates federal law. The state and city maintain that the use of troops is unwarranted, especially given the limited size of recent protests, and they believe that the troops will escalate tensions and disrupt local law enforcement’s ability to manage the situation. The state will be seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent troop arrival.
Read More
Following ICE raids in Los Angeles, protests erupted, prompting President Trump to illegally federalize the National Guard and deploy 2,000 Marines, despite Governor Newsom’s objection and the absence of any rebellion. This action, deemed unlawful by legal experts and military leaders, risks escalating the situation due to the Marines’ lack of crowd-control training. Newsom subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the deployment, while the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act further heightens concerns about the use of the military against civilians. This unprecedented mobilization presents a significant legal and ethical dilemma for service members.
Read More
President Trump threatened forceful suppression of any protests against his planned military parade, describing potential protestors as “people who hate our country.” This threat follows his earlier consideration of invoking the Insurrection Act to address protests in Los Angeles, where he claims to have prevented widespread violence through the deployment of National Guard troops. He justified his actions by citing instances of violence at the protests and criticized California Governor Newsom’s handling of the situation. Trump views protests as personal affronts and has a history of advocating for the use of state violence against demonstrators.
Read More
Over 700 Marines have been mobilized to Los Angeles, joining approximately 1,700 National Guard members already deployed. This deployment, ordered by President Trump without the consent of state or city officials, significantly escalates the military presence at the protests. The Marines’ specific role remains unclear, though they are expected to augment the National Guard and are prohibited from law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act is invoked. The action is unprecedented, with Governor Newsom calling it “unwarranted,” while the Marines’ deployment is described as supporting federal personnel and property.
Read More
President Trump’s Sunday stumble boarding Air Force One, following comments about deploying troops to quell protests, drew immediate social media mockery. This incident contrasted sharply with Trump’s past criticism of President Biden’s physical gaffes. The event occurred after Trump addressed the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act. The juxtaposition highlighted the double standard some perceived in media coverage of such incidents.
Read More
Trump’s potential invocation of the Insurrection Act is a looming concern, fueled by a confluence of factors that suggest a deliberate strategy unfolding. A joint Department of Defense and Homeland Security report, due within 90 days of a presidential executive order, will recommend whether or not to invoke this Act concerning illegal migration. The urgency surrounding this report is palpable, given its potential to significantly expand presidential power.
The recent shake-up at the Pentagon, notably the dismissal of key military personnel, including the nation’s top uniformed officer and senior legal advisors from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, is deeply troubling.… Continue reading
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report details the investigation into President-elect Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election, concluding that sufficient evidence existed for conviction. However, Trump’s subsequent election rendered prosecution impossible due to Department of Justice policy against indicting sitting presidents. The report also reveals consideration of more serious charges under the Insurrection Act, ultimately forgone. Despite Trump’s legal challenges and claims of a politically motivated investigation, the report was released, detailing threats against witnesses and officials stemming from Trump’s public statements.
Read More
Democratic Senators Warren and Blumenthal urged President Biden to issue a policy directive restricting President-elect Trump’s ability to deploy U.S. troops domestically without explicit state or local requests for assistance, citing concerns about Trump’s past statements and potential misuse of the Insurrection Act. The senators’ proposed directive would limit military deployment to situations where state authorities are overwhelmed or unable to act, emphasizing the need to adhere to the Posse Comitatus Act’s restrictions on domestic law enforcement. This preemptive measure aims to counter Trump’s expressed intentions to utilize the military for domestic purposes, including immigration enforcement and suppressing perceived internal threats. The senators also requested that future administrations consult Congress before using the military domestically.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood