POSSE COMITATUS ban mil

YIKES PRIMARY 6 26 LA ICE

SEE MARTIAL LAW // FASCISM

see ice dhs trump pvt army secret police

SEE MILITARIZATION HORSEMAN

SEE “LAW AND ORDER” BS

11 24 ntbcw wacko sovereignty militia

SEE INVASION DEVIL TERM

SEE INFILTRATION RADICALIZATION BY TRUMP

SEE TRUMP JUDGE 10 25 OREGON

---

-=-=

an 8 26

Trump throws tantrum after rebuke of his National Guard deployments

-=-=

---

an 7 26

President Donald Trump could use the military to steal the 2026 midterms, which he and his fellow Republicans have panicked about losing, according to legal experts — although they emphasize that doing so would break centuries of precedent.

“Just this year, President Trump said he regrets that he did not order the National Guard to seize voting machines after the 2020 elections,” wrote Lawfare’s Natalie K. Orpett, Molly Roberts and Loren Voss on Wednesday. “Steve Bannon urged Trump to ‘call up the 82nd and 101st Airborne’ in 2026 to ‘get around every poll’ and make sure that only citizens are voting. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, when asked whether he would refuse an order to deploy troops to polling places during the midterms, avoided answering—and falsely claimed that troops were deployed to polling places in 15 states under Joe Biden.”

The scholars pointed out that “the Constitution mostly reserves to the states the authority to administer elections, with a role for Congress” but that the Elections Clause is limited enough that a sufficiently creative person could try to poke holes in it.

“It defines only states’ power to ‘prescribe’ the ‘Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections’ and Congress’s power to ‘make or alter such Regulations,’” Lawfare explained. “It says nothing about other actions that might affect elections—ensuring security, for example. However, neither the Constitution nor any founding-era law affirmatively authorizes the president to involve the military in U.S. elections, and the few statutes that address the question at all prohibit it in most circumstances.”

After reviewing the evolution of election law in terms of this issue from the Constitutional era through the early republic, the Jacksonian era, the Civil War and Reconstruction, they focused on the bill often cited as a rationalization for using the military for domestic law enforcement.

“The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), enacted in 1878, ensured that the military could be used for law enforcement only in a set of drastic situations explicitly defined in law,” Lawfare wrote. “By the late 1880s, all major cities had civilian police forces.”

They continued, “Today, the Posse Comitatus Act is widely regarded as the critical limitation on domestic military deployment. The current version of the statute bars the use of any part of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Space Force ‘as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws.’ Posse comitatus literally means ‘power of the county’; legally, it refers to a group of people mobilized by officials such as a sheriff to enforce the law or keep the peace. The Posse Comitatus Act exists to keep troops—as opposed to civilians—from filling that role. But the rule isn’t ironclad: As described in our companion piece, the act itself carves out explicit exceptions, such as the Insurrection Act.”

The military is barred from following illegal orders in terms of domestic election interference, but statute does not provide for a specific cause of action. It serves as an affirmative statement of the law — and as further proof that Congress gives elections a special status. The standard limitations on domestic use of the military were apparently insufficient to safeguard elections; Congress deemed it necessary to pass three separate statutes to confer additional protections.”

Lawfare concluded, “These laws have survived more than 160 years, across roughly 80 or so election cycles. And they haven’t gone unnoticed. The Justice Manual sets forth specific procedures for enforcing § 592. The Defense Department Directive on Defense Support of Civil Authorities, last updated in 2018, forbids ‘DoD personnel and National Guard in Title 32 status’ from ‘conduct[ing] operations at polling places and strictly refrain from activities similar to those prohibited by’ 18 U.S.C. §§ 592-594.”

Speaking with AlterNet in June, Democracy Defenders Fund Senior Counsel/Deputy Legal Director Pooja Chaudhuri explained that sending troops to the polls could very well intimidate citizens from voting.

“I think there are two things to consider,” Chaudhuri, who specializes in voting rights as well as election law litigation and advocacy, told AlterNet. “One is that the election is made up of voters, and so the outcome depends on people turning out to the polls and voting. The problem is ... the chilling effect on voters.”

Chaudhuri continued, “When voters hear that ICE may be deployed to the polls, that mail-in voting rules are changing close to the election, a lot of voters might say, ‘I'm just not going to go out and vote.’ That could happen in many different ways. There are vulnerable communities — people may come from mixed-status families — they're US citizens, but they might decide, "I'm not going to vote." So one aspect is the chilling effect on voters that all of these actions would have.”

Dan Vicuña, the Senior Policy Director for Voting and Fair Representation at Common Cause, a nonprofit good government group, elaborated on other ways Trump is meddling with America’s free elections.

“What they all add up to is a desire to avoid any accountability to the voters in the midterm elections — to ensure, to preordain the outcome of a midterm that he thinks is going to go badly for him,” Vicuña told AlterNet. “We know, from the Big Lie of the 2020 election to spurring on a violent revolt to overthrow a free and fair election, that he has no respect for democratic norms, for the voice of the people. This is entirely about his own power and his own ego. He will even invest in protecting that ego and protecting his power at the expense of the needs of the public. People are suffering with high gas prices and affordability issues, and he does not care. All that matters is protecting his power, and he has no interest in whether he does that through democratic means.”

He added, “I think this all adds up to a desire to ensure that his party stays in power and his ability to do what he wants — to attack vulnerable communities — remains intact.”

---

AHA doh: 3 26

FLYNN WANTED MIL TO GRAB BALLOTS/VOTING MACHINES; TRUMP T2 IS USING DOJ LAWFARE RETALIATION NO RULE OF LAW TO DO IT; SHERIFF / OATHKEEPER COPYCAT TO PLEASE DEAR LEADER, BUT BUILDS CRED FOR BIG LIE ~ 2026 MIDTERMS

AN 3 26

In Riverside County, California, Sheriff Chad Bianco — a Donald Trump supporter and former Oath Keepers member who is running for governor of California as a Republican — recently announced that his department had seized 650,000 voting ballots cast in a 2025 election. Bianco, at a, told reporters, "This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported.""

MS NOW's Steve Benen, in an opinion column published on March 24, argues that Bianco is conducting an "investigation that appears entirely baseless" and could be used as a "template" for MAGA Republicans to challenge election results they don't like.

"For those inclined to be charitable," Benen explains, "there is a relatively benign interpretation of these developments. It's possible, for example, that Bianco is simply trying to generate attention for his longshot gubernatorial candidacy. Relatedly, the sheriff likely realizes that ballot seizures will please the White House, which in turn, may lead to greater institutional support from his party in the coming months. The move, in other words, may very well be little more than an elaborate campaign stunt that will have little practical impact and will be largely forgotten after Bianco loses. But then, there are the less benign interpretations of what transpired."

The "Rachel Maddow Show" producer notes that Bianco's investigation "comes on the heels of Trump sending the FBI to seize election materials in Georgia in response to other assorted conspiratorial complaints."

"The broader concern is that a template is taking shape, offering precedents for law enforcement to start making plans to seize ballots in areas nationwide — after or even during official counts," Benen warns. "What's more, the more frequently this happens, the more Americans may be led to believe it's normal and routine for law enforcement officials to seize and impound ballots — despite the fact that this is neither normal nor routine."

---

AN 2 26

*This is a developing story and may be updated.

Ongoing legal fights over President Donald Trump’s attempt to send hundreds of Oregon, California and Texas National Guard troops to Portland last fall over the objections of residents and state and local leaders will come to an end.

Mary Helen Murguia, chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed Tuesday to let the federal government drop its appeal of a November decision from a lower court judge that barred the attempted Guard deployment.

Judge Karin Immergut, of the U.S. District Court in Portland and a Trump appointee, sided with Oregon and the city of Portland in their case against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Her November order barring guard deployment to the city stays in effect.

Immergut found Trump’s justification for the attempted deployment — that protests outside of a Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility since June constituted a “rebellion” against the federal government and significantly impeded its functions — was unfounded. She further found that the attempt to deploy guard troops violated the federal code and the U.S. Constitution.

Federal lawyers immediately appealed Immergut’s decision. But in late January, they reversed course, asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a single sentence to permit them to drop the case.

Lawyers for Oregon, the city of Portland and California — which joined Oregon’s lawsuit against Trump — agreed not to challenge the request for dismissal as long as the appeals court judges ensured Immergut’s decision would stand and the federal government would be required to comply with it.

“This is a win for Oregon, and it shows that no one is above the law. The federal government didn’t have a case — facts mattered. Our communities won’t be treated as a testing ground for unchecked federal power,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement. “Judge Immergut’s injunction stands, and we’ll keep defending Oregon’s laws, our values, and the safety of our cities — and if the government tries to overstep, we won’t hesitate to go back to court.”

Willamette University professor Norman Williams, a constitutional law expert, echoed Rayfield, similarly calling it a “win for the state.” And not an unexpected win. The “handwriting was on the wall,” Williams said, when the U.S. Supreme Court in December ruled against Trump in his attempt to send National Guard troops to Illinois.

The Portland ICE facility at the heart of the case is now the subject of two court cases brought against federal officers by nearby residents and the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, on behalf of protesters and journalists, who claim ICE and federal officers have used excessive force and tear gas against them.

A judge recently temporarily barred the officers from deploying less-lethal munitions and chemicals at protesters unless the agents are in “imminent threat of physical harm.” The ruling came after agents used excessive force and heavily gassed crowds of nonviolent protesters that included children and seniors.

{2:53 pm Updated with comment from Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield.}:

---

----}:

did not see nick b/c arrested just bef he arrived 17 MIN BE ABLE TO TELL KIDS STEPPED UP

only fox tv?

USMC 2 TOURS 45% RULE TO SHOOT, PIZZA WOMAN SHAKING

INFLU INSTIGATORS then run to fox cam

MOLOTOV TENTS BURN NOT BY PROTESTORS

120 DAYS SOLD HOMES

ice enjoy cruelty, post vid soc med; riot staged 2 feds in plain clothes w/ cams? drones? push out 4 blocks 70- 80 guys 4-500 rounds pepper tear, flashbangs then live on X, trump says we send ca ng

15 agents manhandle daca w expired lic; woman w small kid walked when filmed

The Truth Behind "War Ravaged Portland" | Jerrod Zisser | TMR

[

The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder

1.98M subscribers

Dec 31, 2025 The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder

Check out Jerrod Zisser on ⁨@theringoffire3228⁩ Watch the Majority Report live Monday–Friday at 12pm EST on YouTube OR via daily podcast at http://www.Majority.fm Send us IM messages during the live-stream with our free Majority Report App: http://majority.fm/app Subscribe to MR's daily AM Quickie newsletter: https://am-quickie.ghost.io

---

AN 12 25

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a rare, if temporary, loss on Tuesday, over his efforts to deploy the National Guard in Illinois.

The Court rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to send troops to Chicago. The administration had claimed that troops were needed to protect federal agents.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the Supreme Court declared, according to The Washington Post.

The Post called the ruling a “major defeat” for the Trump administration that “could have far-reaching effects,” and a “significant setback for his campaign to push troops into cities across the country over the objections of local and state leaders.”

In rebuffing Trump’s bid, NBC News reported, “the court at least provisionally rejected the Trump administration’s view that the situation on the ground is so chaotic that it justifies invoking a federal law that allows the president to call National Guard troops into federal service in extreme situations.”

“Those circumstances can include when ‘there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion’ or ‘the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.'”

The high court reportedly also cited the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the U.S. Armed Forces to enforce domestic laws.

Bloomberg Law’s Jordan Fischer reported that “In a 6-3 order, the court says at least at this stage the administration has not overcome the Posse Comitatus Act.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, calling it a “Huge loss” for the administration, wrote: “SCOTUS tells Trump no on deployment of Illinois Nat’l Guard, finding a valid exception to the Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t exist.”

Dissenting were Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil M. Gorsuch.

---

AN 10 25

White House advisers are now seriously weighing whether President Donald 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, NBC News reported Wednesday.

These talks coincide with Trump’s push to send National Guard units to several major cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland; under the pretext of fighting crime and protecting federal immigration agents from protesters.

One senior administration, who was not named, told the outlet that no decision to invoke the law is imminent. But, should the president do so, it would mark a major escalation.

Currently, the National Guard is used only in limited support roles — because under current law, active-duty troops generally cannot carry out tasks like searches or arrests.

The Insurrection Act, however, would allow such operations.

IFrame Content

Trump has already encountered legal pushback.

In Oregon, a federal judge blocked his efforts to send Guard units from other states to Portland. Facing that hurdle, Trump publicly indicated he would use the Insurrection Act “if it was necessary.” As he put it, “If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that.” He added that, at present, “it hasn’t been needed.”

Meanwhile, the report led to criticism of the Trump administration online.

John Padora, a Democratic candidate for Congress, wrote on the social platform X: "America is no longer a healthy democracy — it’s a semi-functional autocracy unraveling in real time. Trump is deploying red state National Guards into blue cities, calling them 'war zones,' threatening governors, and openly talking about invoking the Insurrection Act if they dare defy him. He’s manufacturing crisis to justify authoritarian power — and possibly suspend the 2026 elections. This isn’t leadership. It’s deliberate chaos."

Anthony Kreis, a Constitutional law professor, wrote on X: "In an ordinary time, this would be an impeachable offense."

Journalist Bastian Brauns reacted to the news and wrote: "That would have far-reaching consequences…"

Derek Martin, a nonprofit leader, wrote: "While American families worry their health insurance premiums are about to explode, the President is focused on putting troops in your neighborhood to try and look like a tough guy."

"5 alarm fire, folks," wrote journalist Wajahat Ali on Bluesky.

"Military officers are morally and legally obligated to disobey any order that would violate the Constitution," author Everett Parrott posted to Bluesky. "Every general will be held accountable for their actions when this nightmare is over."

---

---}:

AN COMM DR 10 25

Top Trump administration adviser Stephen Miller was accused of spreading dangerous “propaganda” Saturday night regarding the federal judge who ruled that the White House could not deploy 200 National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.

The White House deputy chief of staff accused US District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, of “legal insurrection” after she found that the president’s claims about violent protests at a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland were “untethered to facts,” and that residents’ expressions of opposition to ICE do not meet the high legal standard for calling the National Guard.

Miller claimed authorities in Oregon and Portland are aiding “an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers” by refusing to aid ICE agents, and claimed Immergut was attempting to assume the role of “commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces” by siding with state officials and issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the National Guard deployment, which was expected to begin this weekend.

Immergut said the state had provided “substantial evidence that the protests at the Portland ICE facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days—or even weeks—leading up to the president’s directive.”

Portland residents who oppose Trump’s mass deportation agenda began holding nightly demonstrations at the ICE facility over the summer, with some trying to block vehicles from entering and exiting the property. Crowds have dispersed quickly during the daytime, while at night federal officers have sometimes used tear gas and other weapons to move people away from the building. The Portland police have reported 27 arrests since early June at the protests, and at least two dozen people have been arrested by federal officers.

IFrame Content

While the president has described Portland as “war-ravaged,” Immergut said that the protests fall far below the threshold for ordering federal troops to Portland, which the president has the authority to do only in times of foreign invasion, a rebellion, or when local authorities are unable to maintain order.

“The protests have been such a minor issue that the normal nightlife in downtown Portland has required more police resources than the ICE facility,” said Immergut.

The judge added that the US “has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs... 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 the nation.”

Miller’s accusation that Immergut was taking part in a “legal insurrection” by rejecting Trump’s false claims about the nature of the protests was “reckless,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It’s authoritarian propaganda, plain and simple. Stephen Miller should be fired,” said the Democrat.

New York Timescolumnist David French added that Miller’s claims put Immergut in potential danger, as right-wing counterprotesters have arrived in Portland in recent days.

Immergut’s temporary order is set to expire in two weeks, but she is expected to rule on the state’s request for a more permanent injunction barring the deployment of the National Guard.

The Trump administration on Saturday night appealed Immergut’s ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously ruled that Trump could send the National Guard to Los Angeles to stop anti-ICE protests after a federal judge had decided that deployment should be halted.

In addition to seeking the National Guard deployment, the administration has reportedly discussed sending the Army’s 82nd Airborne division, which is typically deployed in hostile foreign territory, into Portland.

On Saturday, Miller repeated claims that “there is a large and growing movement of left-wing terrorism in this country” that is “well organized and funded” and ”shielded by far-left Democrat judges.” Immergut is a Republican.

“The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks,” said Miller.

Since the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk last month, the president and his allies have insisted that left-wing groups are fomenting violence, with Trump signing an executive order falsely claiming he has the authority to designate “antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization”—despite the fact that no “antifa” organization exists.

The president also signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”

On Saturday, Miller said on Newsmax that the administration intends to apply NSPM-7 in Portland, initiating investigations into what he called a “domestic terrorist network” whenever federal agents make an arrest at a protest.

Miller, said investigative reporter Jim Stewartson, “collapsed Democrats, ‘far-left Democrat judges’, and ‘antifa’ into a single domestic terror threat as a pretext for mass arrests.”

---

---}:

no lnx

Dictators have a playbook — but the media seems oblivious to it

Thom Hartmann

October 03, 2025

Most jobs have a “playbook,” a sort of instruction manual or checklist for how to do the job right, whether it’s running an assembly line, piloting an aircraft, or redoing a house’s plumbing.

Although our media seems oblivious to it, dictators have a playbook, too.

It’s one that’s been carefully followed in recent times by Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Rodrigo Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro, and numerous initially-elected leaders of other smaller nations. In previous generations the Dictator’s Playbook was followed, step-by-step, by Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco, Ferdinand Marcos, Agustin Pinochet, Josef Stalin, and Hideki Tojo (among others).

And now it’s being followed by Donald Trump and JD Vance, who are a bit more than halfway through the list. Trump’s speech on Tuesday before our assembled generals and admirals — telling them they should use our American cities as “training grounds” for the military whose job is to “kill people and break things” — is getting us closer to the final steps.

“We are under invasion from within,” Trump said, “no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways, because they don’t wear uniforms. … We’re under invasion from within.”}:

And who is this enemy that’s so bad, so evil, that Trump just declared war against? He was explicit that the “enemies” are his political opponents and average people who live in our big cities:

“The ones that are run by the radical left Democrats ... what they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places. And we’re going to straighten them out one by one. This is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”}:

What’s most astonishing about the reporting on this meeting is that none of the media I follow have even once mentioned that militarizing the nation’s cities is one of the most significant steps in the Dictator’s Playbook.

Combine that with the demand for absolute loyalty to the Dear Leader — Trump told the generals “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room” THEN ThREateded their careers? — and he’s declared himself the absolute ruler of America wielding the most lethal military in the history of the world against our nation’s own citizens.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow recently laid out five moves that dictators reliably make.

First, they identify an internal enemy to blame for social ills; Trump has spent years turning immigrants, big cities, and universities into scapegoats. Now, like every dictator listed above has done, he’s claiming that the opposition political party, the Democrats, are an “enemy within.”

Second, they turn security forces inward, exactly what Trump’s new call for turning our military against our cities represents. The moment a dictator turns military forces built to destroy foreign adversaries against his own people, the rest of the transformation becomes easier.}:

Third, they criminalize dissent and protest, insisting that when people show up in the streets it is not constitutionally protected free speech and the right “peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances” but a security “threat” to be crushed rather than heard and responded to.}:

Fourth, they intimidate or capture the press and punish truth-telling, as we’re seeing now with rightwing billionaires capturing virtually every major traditional and social media source in America.

Fifth, they seize control of independent institutions like universities, law firms, or the civil service to eliminate any professional standards that interfere with Dear Leader’s will.}:

Overlay that list with the work of historians and political scientists like Timothy Snyder, Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Jason Stanley, and M. Gessen. Their research on how democracies die all point to the same ingredients:

Deny or rewrite election results to delegitimize democracy itself.}:

Declare political opponents enemies of the state.}:

Turn independent institutions like the Department of Justice, the civil service, and the military into personal tools.}:

Flood the public square with lies so thoroughly (Steve Bannon proudly called it “flooding the zone with ----") that reality itself becomes negotiable.}:

Tolerate or celebrate political violence on behalf of the dictator, and demonize violence against his followers and mouthpieces as sedition and treason.

Demand personal loyalty instead of constitutional duty.}:

Invoke a mythic past and promise national rebirth if only the strongman is given total sovereignty.:

Use his office to rapidly enrich himself and his family while creating a patronage network of loyalists who owe their fortunes to him.}:

There is also the money. Autocrats rarely forget to convert state power into private wealth. Trump’s hotels, golf courses, and commercial properties brought in millions from foreign governments during his first time in office, as documented by House Oversight Committee findings.

His son-in-law Jared Kushner secured a two-billion-dollar investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund almost immediately after leaving the White House. Ivanka Trump picked up fast-tracked Chinese trademarks while advising her father in government.

Kleptocracy is not a side effect of authoritarianism or fascism: it’s essential, particularly when some of that fortune is shared with those willing to break the law to support Dear Leader. So far, according to reporting, Trump and his family have made at least $5 billion from his 9-month-long presidency. It’s a core feature of the Dictator’s Playbook.

And when people protest the theft of the nation’s resources and the personal enrichment based on handing out favors, dictators go after them in the most brutal ways imaginable. It begins with investigations, but never ends there. Just look at what he’s doing to James Comey and Miles Taylor.

And now Trump has issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum that essentially says Democrats, atheists, Muslims, Jews, socialists, and queer people are terrorists. Not because of anything they’ve done, but because of who they are or what they believe.

It directs the FBI, DOJ, and over 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces coordinated with police forces across the country to investigate anybody who meet it’s “indica” (indicators) of potential terrorism. They include, as Ken Klippenstein reported:

“[A]nti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, support for the overthrow of the United States Government, extremism on migration, extremism on race, extremism on gender, hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality.”

Do any of those sound like you? If Trump and Republicans continue down this road, get ready to have your life turned upside down as they tear apart your social media profiles, search your email and postal mail, surveil you, and one day bang on your door in the middle of the night.

And you don’t have to have actually done a thing. Trump’s order explicitly calls on the FBI and local police coordinating with them to “intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”

To go after you before you do anything, based entirely on who you are, who you love, what you believe, and what you say.

That is not the America our Founders, or the men and women who’ve fought and died to keep us free for 249 years, envisioned. And, again, the mainstream media almost entirely missed it while rightwing media ignored it altogether. Even though one day it may be directed against them if they say or do anything to offend Trump or his henchmen.

When Trump told the generals he would remove anyone who does not “agree with everything I say,” he also embraced the logic of tyrants who treat disagreement as insubordination.

Democracies rely on officers sworn to the Constitution, not to one man. Trump is trying to undo that distinction. He’s demanding personal loyalty backed by the threat of firing, demotion, or public shaming. Civilian control of the military that George Washington and James Madison insisted on becomes a hollow phrase when the civilian in charge demands the military serve his whims.

What once sounded like fringe rhetoric is now proclaimed loudly to the uniformed leadership of the United States. The generals who heard him are not hypothetical. They command forces, oversee operations, and embody the principle that the military does not exist to occupy American streets.

The notion that they should roll tanks into urban neighborhoods to harden troops for foreign war is not law enforcement: it’s preparation for ruling America by force, a force that may well be preparing for the November 2026 elections.

This is the kind of moment historians point back to later with disbelief. The warnings have been clear for years, but now the mask is off.

Even though our media insists on ignoring it, the Dictator’s Playbook has always included using a nation’s biggest cities as the stage for demonstrating power. It’s always required replacing officers and officials who follow the laws and traditions of a nation with loyalists who obey without question. It’s always depended on turning people against one another so Dear Leader and his lickspittles can step in as the only source of safety or authority.

Nobody can say this is a surprise: Trump pretty much campaigned on exactly what he’s doing now, and people from former intelligence, military, and FBI leaders to scholars of fascism warned us this was coming if Republicans suppressed enough votes for him to win. (Without the GOP having prevented 4.2 million registered citizen voters from voting or having their votes counted, Kamala Harris would have won and the House and Senate would today be under Democratic control).

The question now is whether Americans will accept a president who treats their hometowns as battle simulations and sees disagreement by generals and agency leaders as an offense punishable by firing, imprisonment, or exile.

As I point out in my new book The Last American President, it’ll depend on whether we’ll stand up and speak out. Or whether, like our media and so many universities, law firms, media outlets, and giant corporations, we’ll cower in fear and submit to Trump’s demands.

That is not law and order, and it’s not democracy in a free republic. It’s the language of autocracy that yesterday was spoken out loud in front of the armed forces of the United States and is echoed every time Trump attacks a reporter, media outlet, or one of his many “enemies.”

Will American democracy survive this onslaught, straight out of the Dictator’s Playbook? To a large extent, that will depend on you, me, and our elected officials summoning the courage to resist and protest loudly. And our media to call it out for what it is.

The clock is ticking, and these guys are racing for the finish line.

---

an 8 25

Duty to disobey': A stunning number of US troops know they can defy Trump's orders

---

an ah 8 25

As the Trump administration continues to push the boundaries of centuries-old constraints on domestic power, the Pentagon is reportedly developing a multi-million-dollar plan to create a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force”—armed with weapons and riot gear, ready to be deployed instantaneously to quell civil unrest anywhere in the nation.

An exclusive Washington Post report reveals that two National Guard teams of hundreds of troops, designed to be ready around the clock, would be stationed on opposite sides of the country, able to cross state lines on command.

“The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour, the documents say. They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively,” the Post reported on Tuesday.

The price tag? Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.

IFrame Content

The Post calls it “another potential expansion of President Donald Trump’s willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil,” and notes that once again, the Trump administration is on “shaky” legal ground.

Legal experts are warning against the plan.

“You don’t want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement,” Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Post. “You don’t want to normalize routine domestic deployment.”

“When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you’re going to want to use it,” Nunn added. “It actually makes it more likely that you’re going to see domestic deployments — because why else have a task force?”

The news follows President Trump’s unprecedented decision on Monday to federalize the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police force to combat what he claims is out-of-control violence, despite the nation’s capital city having decreased violent crime by double digits in 2024 and again in the first half of 2025.

In response to the Post’s report on Tuesday, The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol noted, “So of course it’s not just D.C.”

Former constitutional law professor David Wemhoff, now the editor of The American Proposition, wrote that President Trump’s “purpose is to crush, fight Americans. He has no interest in fighting much less opposing China and Russia.”

“Ah, yes,” remarked former Trump national security official Miles Taylor, “nothing says ‘land of the free’ like a standing army ready to put down the people who disagree with you.”

Progressive researcher Derek Martin, formerly of the National Security Agency (NSA), commented: “President Trump is so afraid of protests he’s preparing to use the military to suppress them. Only tyrants think this way.”

---

an new rep common dr 725

omg

New reporting based on a leaked briefing memo from a recent meeting between high-level officials at the Department of Homeland Security and Defense Department sparked fresh warnings on Saturday about the Trump administration's internal plans to increase its domestic use of the U.S. military.

According to Greg Sargent of The New Republic, which obtained the memo, the document "suggests that Trump's use of the military for domestic law enforcement on immigration could soon get worse."

The "terrifying" memo—which the outlet recreated and published online with certain redactions that concealed operational and personnel details—"provides a glimpse into the thinking of top officials as they seek to involve the Defense Department more deeply in these domestic operations, and it has unnerved experts who believe it portends a frightening escalation."

Circulated internally among top Trump officials, TNR reports the memo was authored by Philip Hegseth, the younger brother of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The younger sibling, though lesser known by the public than his controversial brother, currently serves as a senior adviser to Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem and acts as DHS liaison officer to the Pentagon.

The meeting between DoD and DHS officials and the memo centers on Philip Hegseth's push for closer collaboration between the two departments, especially with regard to operations on the ground, like those that happened earlier this year in Los Angeles when National Guard units and later U.S. Marines were deployed in the city to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and local law enforcement put down local protests sparked by raids targeting immigrants and workers.

IFrame Content

As Sargent noted in a social media post:

Strikingly, the memo says straightforwardly that what happened in Los Angeles is the sort of operation that may be necessary "for years to come." As one expert told me: "They see Los Angeles as a model to be replicated."

"To Make America Safe Again, DHS and DoD will need to be in lockstep with each other, and I hope today sets the scene for where our partnership is headed," states the memo, which also compares transnational criminal gangs and drug cartels to Al Qaeda.

Lindsay Cohn, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College, was among the experts TNR spoke with who called that comparison particularly worrying. "The conflation of a low-level threat like transnational criminal organizations with Al Qaeda, which was actually attempting to topple the United States government, is a clear attempt to use excessive force for a purpose normally handled by civil authorities," said Cohn.

Sociology professor Kim Lane Scheppele, a scholar who studies the rise of autocracy at Princeton University, was among those who raised alarm in response to the published reporting and the contents of the memo.

"Here it comes," wrote Kim Lane Scheppele. "The worst we've been waiting for."

According to TNR:

The memo outlines the itinerary for a July 21 meeting between senior DHS and Pentagon officials, with the goal of better coordinating the agencies' activities in "defense of the homeland." It details goals that Philip Hegseth hopes to accomplish in the meeting and outlines points he wants DHS officials to impress on Pentagon attendees.Participants listed comprise the very top levels of both agencies, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and several of his top advisers, Joint Chiefs chairman Dan Caine, and NORTHCOM Commander Gregory Guillot. Staff include Phil Hegseth and acting ICE commissioner Todd Lyons.

"Due to the sensitive nature of the meeting, minimal written policy or background information can be provided in this briefing memo," the memo says.

Joseph Nunn, counsel for the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told TNR it was "disturbing to see DHS officials pressuring the U.S. military to turn its focus inward even further." Nunn added that the memo suggests that "military involvement in domestic civilian law enforcement" is set to become "more common" if the policy recommendations put forth by Phillip Hegseth take hold.

Following publication of his reporting, Sargent said he wanted to flag something specific for readers.

"It looks plausible that the Hegseth brothers are trying to push military leaders further on involving military in domestic law enforcement," he noted. "Two experts I spoke with read the memo that way. There may be a bigger story here to get."

---

AN 6 25

NO LNX

Home | Trump just got a wake up call as he tries to escalate his war on defiance

Sabrina Haake, Raw Story June 15, 2025

Ever since he was ignominiously blocked from shooting George Floyd protesters, Donald Trump has been itching to sic the military on U.S. citizens. Seizing California’s National Guard and sending U.S. Marines into Los Angeles to deliberately escalate violence brings his long-festering fever dream closer to life.

Trump’s former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has recounted how, during a White House meeting in 2020, Trump looked at Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and asked why he couldn’t just shoot protesters, adding, “It was (both) a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue hung very heavily in the air.”

Milley pushed back on that suggestion and other illegal Trump impulses, eventually leading Trump to call for Milley’s execution and revoke his security detail. During Trump 1.0, Trump apparently suggested shooting protesters enough times that Esper issued a public statement opposing the use of the Insurrection Act against protesters, enraging Trump.

Trump made sure that would not happen again in his second administration by appointing a dangerously unqualified defense secretary with few moral qualms. As a Fox News host, Pete Hegseth echoed Trump’s desire to deploy the military against protesters. He defended war criminals who ‘killed the right people in the wrong ways,’ advocating “total war against our enemies… All of ’em, you stack bodies, and when it’s over, then you let the dust settle and you figure out who’s ahead.”

A trillion-dollar defense budget to kill whom, exactly?

Even though the U.S. is not at war, and Trump has shamefully abandoned our NATO military alliances, Hegseth waxes hard on “lethality,” and rails against “woke” laws that punish soldiers for indiscriminate killings. Trump/Hegseth seek a trillion-dollar defense budget, not to defend America from foreign enemies who are now Trump’s mentors, but to attack “enemies within,” i.e., Americans who oppose Trump’s agenda.

None of this, including Trump’s deliberate escalation of violence in LA, was unforeseen. Who can forget how Kamala Harris was panned as histrionic when she said Trump would sic the military on U.S. citizens, following his promise to do just that? In October, 2024, Trump said he’d use the military against the biggest threat to America — Americans who don’t support him.

“I think the (main problem we face) is the enemy from within,” Trump said, adding: “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

Both he and Hegseth have already weeded out military officers who would honor their oaths to the Constitution over illegal orders from Trump. This week, Hegseth inadvertently confirmed that the military, under Trump, will become a domestic force when he testified before Congress, saying, “We’re entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland.”

It’s galling that no congressman has connected the dots and asked about explosive military spending that Trump/Hegseth have signaled will be used against Americans.

Dubious legal grounds

As of this writing, Trump has not declared martial law, but recent Trump history, paired with his glaring mental illness, suggests it’s “when,” not “if.”

Trump’s plan to use troops to impose his domestic agenda is decidedly un-American. Today it includes deportations and manufacturing civil unrest; tomorrow, Trump’s goons will round up journalists who criticize him, judges, Democrats, and political opponents, as just happened Thursday when Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) was tackled to the ground for trying to ask Kristi Noem questions.

If you have any doubt, watch Trump’s illegal and partisan address at Ft. Bragg, where he led troops in uniform to wildly “boo” journalists, California’s governor, and LA’s mayor. If you have any lingering naivety, still hoping soldiers will honor their oaths and not follow America’s Hitler, that speech will erase it.

For now, Trump is acting in LA pursuant to a presidential memorandum deploying the National Guard under a rarely used federal law, 10U.S.C.§12406. Under that code, a president possesses the power to federalize the National Guard only when there is “a rebellion or danger of rebellion” against federal authority, or when the president cannot execute federal laws. As Trump sees it, this assessment depends on his own untrained and undisciplined opinion. Under that statute, however, the National Guard can only support other law enforcement officers and defend federal property.

The Posse Comitatus Act also remains in effect, prohibiting the use of the military as a domestic law enforcement agency, except in extraordinary circumstances not yet present in LA despite Trump’s best efforts. The Insurrection Act of 1807, the authority under which Hegseth sent active Marines to LA, is a broader set of statutes granting Trump the power to use military force in specific circumstances, including suppressing armed rebellion, civil disorder, or other extreme circumstances where the states are unable to maintain public order.

Gov. Gavin Newsom formally objected to Trump sending troops, because California in general, and LAPD in particular, have sufficient resources to maintain order. Newsom knows that when US Marines start shooting civilians, whether in LA, Chicago, or New York, violence will ratchet up to the necessary threshold to circumvent Posse Comitatus and allow Trump to declare martial law.

Sabrina Haake is a 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her columns are found @ Alternet, Chicago Tribune, Howey Political Report, Indiana Democrats’ Kernel of Truth, Inside Indiana Business, MSN, Out South Florida, Raw Story,Salon,Smart News, South Florida Gay News, State Affairs, and Windy City Times. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

---

SEE INFILTRATION RADICALIZATION BY TRUMP

an 6 25

Navy vet shakes with rage over 'grotesque MAGA merchandise'

D. Earl Stephens June 14, 2025 }:}:

By now, you have most likely heard of the disgraceful appearance by Donald Trump at Fort Bragg in North Carolina on Tuesday.

The convicted felon’s remarks to Army personnel were partisan, incendiary, anti-American and belong in a dumpster and/or Mar-a-Lago, not a United States military base.

Except it was even worse than any of us thought ...

Thanks to some stellar reporting by Military.com, we are learning today that U.S. taxpayers essentially funded a vulgar MAGA rally at a U.S. Army facility.

The appearance by the president of the United States of America had NOTHING TO DO with the morale and good order of our troops and everything to do with HIM, as he stirred these young men and women into a partisan frenzy.

Things were so out of hand, that there were actually booths set up to sell grotesque MAGA merchandise and memorabilia to our troops. This didn’t just cross a line, it obliterated it, and was against myriad Defense Department regulations.

From military.com reporting:

substackcdn.com

I am admittedly shaking with rage as I type this, friends, because as a veteran I could have never conceived of something like this in my lifetime. These are the kinds of things that happen in other troubled countries — many of which WE actually have helped to liberate with our blood in the past.

I want to keep this missive brief, because I encourage you to read and share widely the comprehensive piece that I linked to above. Please do this.

As the retired managing editor of Stars and Stripes, the editorially independent newspaper that serves the troops and their families overseas, I want to commend the continued good work the folks at Military.com are continuing to do stateside. I assure you they are experts on the military, and wedded to top-notch journalism. Their work has never been more important as the U.S. slides toward fascism.

We are in the most precarious moment in our nation’s history since the beginning of the Civil War. Anybody who is not reporting it this way is dangerous, completely out of their depth, and should not be taken seriously.

Since day one of this anti-American administration I have been warning with some precision that we were heading toward this terrible juncture, and I wish nothing more than to report to you that I was wrong.

Turns out, I actually underestimated the pace of our descent into authoritarianism. Unless there is some significant pushback by our military, fellow citizens, the press, the Democrats and the reprehensible Republican Party, it is hard to see how we survive this.

Before signing out, I am again calling on our military leadership past and present, and fellow veterans everywhere, to speak out loudly against this ongoing attack THAT WE KNOW IS WRONG.

For now, stay strong, lean on each other, and call your political representatives (202-224-3121) to make your voices heard.

---

RWW

06/11/2025

*Commentary

President Donald Trump’s illegal moves to turn the U.S. military against American citizens on American soil are the latest and most dangerous actions in a scheme by MAGA figures to erode constitutional checks and balances and allow Trump to impose his will on the country by asserting dictatorial powers like a tyrannical king or an American Caesar.

The protests in Los Angeles were apparently sparked by White House official Stephen Miller’s lust for higher deportation numbers and demand that ICE make more arrests of people without criminal convictions—despite the administration’s claims to be prioritizing deportation of violent gang members.

Miller has falsely described people’s efforts to protect their neighbors from terrifying abductions as “rebellion” and “insurrection” to justify Trump declaring emergency powers and deploying the National Guard and Marines. Trump has done the same, referring to the localized and mostly peaceful protesters as “an insurrectionist mob.”

It’s not that Trump needed much convincing. Trump has long admired and envied the power wielded by dictatorial leaders. As The Bulwark’s Joe Perticone has noted, “Trump has fantasized about using the military against citizens for much of his political career.”

Trump reportedly regrets not deploying the military against racial justice protests in the summer of 2020. Before the 2024 election he talked about using the military against “the enemy from within.” Before he was vice president, J.D. Vance declared that “we need to be really ruthless when it comes to the exercise of our power.”

In his first term, Trump encouraged violent policing – he “gave police permission to be brutal,” in the words of journalist Adam Serwer. Since his return to power, the Justice Department has abandoned efforts to curtail abusive police violence—while Trump freed the violent Jan. 6 insurrectionists who attacked and injured Capitol Police on Trump’s behalf.

After Trump lost the 2020 election, MAGA activists like Michael Flynn and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes urged him to declare martial law to stay in power rather than acknowledge defeat. Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who reportedly argued that Trump could use the military to put down protests that would erupt if he refused to leave office, has remained on Trump’s teamand is now working at the OMB for Russ Vought, a key architect of Project 2025 and its plans for Trump to push the far-right’s agenda without regard for the law.

Since returning to power in January, the president and his henchmen have proven that predictions that a second Trump term would be for more dangerous to democracy were correct. Trump’s recent threat that anyone who dares protest his military parade—a multi-million-dollar birthday present to himself—would be met with “very heavy force” is a reflection of his tyrannical and antidemocratic contempt for checks and balances and disdain for dissent.

Far-right MAGA activists are urging Trump to go even further. Former White House aide Steven Bannon has declared that the Los Angeles protests are a sign that “we’re in the Third World War.” He wants Trump to order the arrest of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass if they resist the administration’s hostile takeover of Los Angeles. (The state of California is suing Trump over his deployment of the National Guard over the governor’s objections.)

While most Americans do not approve of Trump deploying the marines against protesters in Los Angeles, Republican members of Congress are cheering him on, a sign of how thoroughly the GOP has been corrupted and cowed by Trump’s demands for cultish loyalty. Meanwhile, Trump has continued to corrupt and politicize the military, firing the military’s top lawyers and telling soldiers that protesters in Los Angeles are “animals” and a “foreign enemy.”

People For the American Way is calling on Americans to resist the Trump administration’s dangerous escalation of violence and authoritarian disregard for the Constitution and law by participating in one of this weekend’s No Kings protests that are taking place around the country.

---

AN 6 25

KPFA? TRUMP BLEW CRED ON J6 COP BEATERS, TRYING TO RECLAIM TRAD GOP

President Donald Trump is vigorously defending his use of U.S. Marines and federalized California National Guard troops in response to tense protests in Downtown Los Angeles. And he is doing so despite the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, both of whom believe he is making a tense situation worse. Many Trump critics are saying that while Newsom has every right to deploy California National Guard troops if he decides it is necessary, the president is crossing a dangerous line by deploying them at the federal level.

On Sunday, June 8, Trump told reporters, "If we see danger to our country and to our citizens, we’ll be very, very strong in terms of law and order. It's about law and order."

But journalist Will Saletan, in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on June 11, lays out some reasons why Trump is far from a symbol of "law and order."

"Don't believe it," Saletan warns. "Trump is using the Guard and the military to enforce his will, not the law. The evidence of his insincerity is what he did four years ago: When rioters were on his side, he didn’t call in the Guard. He embraced the criminals, pardoned them, and purged the law enforcement officials who prosecuted them."

IFrame Content

Saletan continues, "He's a despot and a scofflaw. In the Los Angeles uprising, Trump — like every authoritarian before him — claims to be saving his country from chaos. 'Violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents,' he declared on Sunday afternoon. 'These lawless riots only strengthen our resolve.'"

In 2024, Trump was facing four criminal indictments, one of which — Manhattan District Attorney Alvil Bragg Jr.'s hush money/falsified business records case — found him being convicted on 34 felony counts. The three other cases, however, never went to trial.

"Insurrectionist mobs, lawless riots, videos of violence — we've heard such alarming descriptions before," Saletan argues. "And on January 6, 2021, we saw how little Trump cared about them…. In short, everything Trump decries in Los Angeles happened on January 6th, and more. A violent, insurrectionist mob swarmed and attacked police. And instead of bringing in the Guard 'RIGHT NOW,' Trump watched the assault, encouraged the mob, and waited to see whether it would keep him in power."

Saletan adds, "In fact, when he returned to office this year, Trump pardoned nearly everyone who had pleaded guilty to or had been convicted of assaulting police on January 6th."

*Will Saletan's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

---

AN 6 25

On Sunday, June 8, Trump told reporters, "If we see danger to our country and to our citizens, we’ll be very, very strong in terms of law and order. It's about law and order."

But journalist Will Saletan, in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on June 11, lays out some reasons why Trump is far from a symbol of "law and order."

IFrame Content

Saletan adds, "In fact, when he returned to office this year, Trump pardoned nearly everyone who had pleaded guilty to or had been convicted of assaulting police on January 6th."

*Will Saletan's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

---

AN 6 25

Military and political experts, veterans, and journalists are condemning President Donald Trump’s political rally at Fort Bragg on Tuesday, warning he crossed a critical line by delivering overtly political and authoritarian-themed remarks before U.S. Army troops. They also expressed alarm that uniformed soldiers appeared at ease booing his political opponents—another troubling breach of military norms. Some now say the time has come for generals to publicly speak out.}:

The commander in chief entered the event to "Hail to the Chief," and as he took to the stage, his "MAGA anthem," "Proud to Be an American," played. For nearly one hour, in about 9,000 words, Trump delivered a political stump speech. He attacked his political opposition, Democrats, including President Joe Biden and his administration, California Governor Gavin Newsom ("Newscum") and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass. He attacked transgender Americans. He attacked the Democratic U.S. Senators who opposed the nomination of Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary, calling them "a very hostile group of people that I think really don't want to see America be great again."

He got the soldiers to boo "the fake news" media, and President Joe Biden. He told them the 2020 election was "rigged and stolen."

He attacked the people in Los Angeles protesting his deportation policies, describing it as "anarchy," while telling the soldiers that defending their civil rights was not the reason Americans fought overseas:

IFrame Content

"Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third world lawlessness here at home like is happening in California. As Commander in chief, I will not let that happen. It's never going to happen. What you're witnessing in California is a full-blown assault on peace, on public order and on national sovereignty carried out by rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion of our country."

He thanked the generals, and mentioned some by name. He talked about "the real generals," as opposed to the ones Americans see on television.

Critics are warning of grave consequences.

"This is the most unacceptable and egregious politicization of our troops we’ve ever seen," wrote veterans' activist Paul Rieckhoff, an Army combat veteran, responding to video of Trump getting the soldiers to boo the press, President Joe Biden, and the mayor of Los Angeles.

Trump goaded active duty troops at his Fort Bragg speech to boo:

The Media, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Mayor Karen Bass, and Joe Biden pic.twitter.com/1v9amsi7rv

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) June 10, 2025

"And it’s not a one off. It’s a strategy," added Rieckhoff, who is also the founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). "And one we’ll see in full and dangerous display this weekend at his military birthday parade for himself. Trump wants the world to think our great military is HIS military. And wants to coerce and manipulate troops into making them think it is too. And driving down their public trust and approval by the minute. Trump has created America’s greatest civil-military relations crisis since the Civil War. And it’s just getting started."

Retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman, a former Director of European Affairs for the National Security Council (NSC), warned: "America’s Generals and Admirals are terrified. They are cowed. They seem unlikely to hold the line and live up to their oaths to serve the U.S. Constitution."

Lamenting that "the Generals stay silent," he added: "Our democracy is in great danger. This morning I wonder if we crossed a line and there’s no going back."

Army combat veteran Fred Wellman, a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School who is now the host of the podcast “On Democracy.” responded to Vindman by saying, "The silence is deafening."

Retired U.S Army lieutenant general Russel L. Honoré, who served as the commander of Joint Task Force Katrina, blasted Trump's speech: "Damn @POTUS Speech At #FortBraggwas inappropriate, criticizing previous administration, and Generals while speaking to troops , I never witnessed that S..t like this in 37 years in Uniform."

Author and former Under Secretary of State Richard Stengel observed, "Unlike other militaries, American soldiers do not swear an oath to the state, or a person, or a monarch, but to the Constitution. Trump calls them 'his' military—but they are ours, and they swear to 'support and defend the Constitution,' not one man."

Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and Russia expert, at The Atlantic targeted the generals for staying silent.

He wrote, "senior officers of the United States military have an obligation to speak up and be leaders. Where is the Army chief of staff, General Randy George? Will he speak truth to the commander in chief and put a stop to the assault on the integrity of his troops? Where is the commander of the airborne troops, Lieutenant General Gregory Anderson, or even Colonel Chad Mixon, the base commander?"

"Where is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine? He was personally selected by Trump to be America’s most senior military officer. Will he tell the man who promoted him that what he did today was obscene?"

Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, often seen on cable news, called Trump's speech "a disgraceful politicization of the active Armed Forces. He is the Commander in Chief. The only loyalty of the Armed Forces is to the Constitution. Their focus is on protecting America from foreign enemies. Grave danger."

Watch the video above or at this link.

---}:

---

AN 6 25

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is being called out by critics after dramatically shifting her stance on the president's use of the National Guard. The controversy stems from Noem's recent endorsement of President Donald Trump's decision to deploy troops in Los Angeles in response to protests against immigration arrests — a move that stands in stark contrast statements she made previously about such actions.

On Sunday, Noem appeared on CBS's "Face The Nation" to defend Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. She claimed the action was necessary due to "bad decisions" by California Governor Gavin Newsom and emphasized that the decision was made for "the safety of this community."

Noem said, "And that's one of the reasons why these National Guard soldiers are being federalized: So they can use their special skill set to keep peace."

However, Noem's current position directly contradicts her previous statements on the federalization of National Guard troops.

Just last year, when Joe Biden was president, Noem vehemently opposed such actions, stating they were an assault on states' rights. During a February 2024 interview on Fox News with Sean Hannity, which Noem herself shared on social media, she declared, "We will defend our rights because the last several years, we've seen Democrats take away our freedom of religion, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of speech. We can't let them take away our states' rights too, especially our right to protect ourselves."

IFrame Content

This apparent flip-flop has not gone unnoticed. Critics, including Governor Newsom, have been quick to point out the inconsistency in Noem's positions.

---

an 6 25

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem reportedly requested that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth grant law enforcement powers—including the authority to detain and arrest—to the thousands of military troops President Donald Trump deployed to Los Angeles to suppress anti-deportation protests. Such powers are typically barred under federal law, and experts warn the move marks another step toward the administration invoking the Insurrection Act.

In a memo, Secretary Noem alleged protestors included "invasive, violent, insurrectionist mobs that seek to protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations, and who seek to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens,” as the San Francisco Chronicle first reported.

"The military is generally barred under federal laws from taking part in domestic law enforcement. Noem’s request may be a step toward the administration sidestepping those laws by invoking the Insurrection Act, two legal experts said in interviews," the Chronicle added.

Syracuse University Professor of Law Emeritus William Banks told the Chronicle that Noem's move is "a grave escalation" that "may presage the invocation of the Insurrection Act.” Professor Banks is an internationally recognized scholar on constitutional law, national security and counterterrorism law, as well as emergency powers and government surveillance and privacy, according to his biography.

IFrame Content

Secretary Noem also requested “drone surveillance support” and weapons and logistics assistance. President Donald Trump has ordered 700 U.S. Marines and federalized up to 4,000 National Guard troops to go to Los Angeles to help tamp down the protests.

The Associated Press on Monday suggested the protest area itself was small: “Protests over the president’s immigration crackdown spared much of Los Angeles from violence. Weekend clashes swept through several downtown blocks and a handful of other places.”

Other experts weighed in as well.

Vermont Law and Graduate School professor emeritus Stephen Dycus, an expert in national security law and the Insurrection Act, told the Chronicle that "this could be viewed as a preparation for invoking the Insurrection Act, or it could be viewed as part of a larger effort to frighten people who otherwise would exercise their first amendment guarantee of free speech and protest.”

California Democratic state Senator Tom Umberg, a retired Army colonel and JAG officer, "said he found the letter’s requests alarming."

“It looks like a preparation for a military assault,” Umberg said. “This looks like a subterfuge to create some sort of rationale for some sort of invocation of the Insurrection Act.”

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration expert and senior fellow at the American Immigration Council explained that the "reason that there is civil unrest in multiple cities throughout the country is because the Trump administration ordered ICE to engage in near-indiscriminate arrests, rounding up otherwise law-abiding people with no criminal records."

Political scientist Dr. Norman Ornstein, a contributing editor for the Atlantic, wrote, "this is a prelude to invoking the insurrection act and declaring martial law."

---

April 28, 2025

How Turning the Border into a Military Zone Evades Congress and Threatens Rights | Brennan Center for Justice

President Donald Trump has turned a 60-foot-wide strip of federal land that spans three states on the southern border into a “military installation” to “address the emergency” he previously declared over unlawful immigration and drug trafficking. Trump’s memo authorizing this action seems designed to sidestep the Posse Comitatus Act, which normally bars federal armed forces from conducting domestic law enforcement. The apparent plan is to let the military act as a de facto border police force, with soldiers apprehending, searching, and detaining people who cross the border unlawfully.

This move could have alarming implications for democratic freedoms. Moreover, it continues a pattern of the president stretching his emergency powers past their limits to usurp the role of Congress and bypass legal rights. He has misused a law meant to address economic emergencies to set tariffs on every country in the world. He declared a fake “energy emergency” to promote fossil fuel production. And he dusted off a centuries-old wartime authority to deport Venezuelan immigrants, without due process, to a Salvadoran prison notorious for human rights violations.

As presidential overreaches pile up, they underscore the urgent need for Congress and the courts to reassert their roles as checks on executive authority.

The Posse Comitatus Act and the Military Purpose Doctrine

Last week, the military announced that soldiers deployed on the New Mexico–Mexico border will have “enhanced authorities” because they are on land that has now been designated part of Fort Huachuca, Arizona — a military installation located more than 100 miles away. The new authorities include the power to “temporarily detain trespassers” on the “military installation” and “conduct cursory searches of trespassers . . . to ensure the safety of U.S. service members and Department of Defense (DoD) property.”

Searching and apprehending migrants would ordinarily run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal armed forces from directly participating in civilian law enforcement activities unless doing so is expressly authorized by Congress or the Constitution. The law stems from an Anglo-American tradition, centuries older than the Constitution, of restraining military interference in civilian affairs. It serves as a critical check on presidential power and a vital safeguard for both personal liberty and democracy.

Nonetheless, several exceptions exist. The most significant is the Insurrection Act — a law that Trump floated using to address unlawful migration (although for now, his secretaries of defense and homeland security are reportedly recommending against such a move). In authorizing soldiers to conduct apprehensions and detentions on lands that have been newly designated as a “military installation,” the president is relying on a lesser-known loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act known as the “military purpose doctrine.”

The doctrine, conceived by the executive branch and endorsed by the courts, holds that an action taken primarily to further a military purpose does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act even if it provides an incidental benefit to civilian law enforcement. A textbook example is the circumstance in which a person has driven drunk onto a military base. Soldiers may legally detain the intruder until civilian law enforcement arrives to take them into custody. This does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act because the primary purpose of the military’s activity is not to enforce the laws against driving while impaired, but to maintain order on the base and protect military assets and personnel.

Having turned much of the southern border into a “military installation,” the administration now takes the position that anyone crossing the border without authorization in those areas is not just violating immigration law but also trespassing on a military installation. Federal troops thus have a legitimate military reason, the argument goes, to apprehend, search, and detain migrants without violating the Posse Comitatus Act and without the president needing to invoke the Insurrection Act at all.

Evaluating the Legality of the Order

Using the military purpose doctrine to justify direct military involvement in immigration enforcement is a transparent ruse to evade the Posse Comitatus Act without congressional authorization. The doctrine is meant to apply only in cases where any law enforcement benefit is purely incidental. Here, the situation is the opposite.

The nominal justification for apprehending and detaining migrants who cross the border is protecting the installation. But the installation itself was created to apprehend and detain migrants, as well as to secure their removal. In the memo, this is described as “sealing the border” and “repelling the invasion” at the border. No matter how the Trump administration frames those activities, however, they are civilian law enforcement functions. He cannot turn them into military operations by misusing the language of war. These civilian law enforcement activities are not “incidental” — they are the reason for creating the installation. And apprehending migrants who “trespass” on the installation is the primary way in which this law enforcement mission will be furthered.

This use of the military is fundamentally different from the border deployments that have occurred in recent presidential administrations, from George W. Bush to Joe Biden. The military’s role until now has been limited to logistical support, such as assisting border agents with surveillance, infrastructure construction, and transportation. Providing such support does not constitute direct participation in law enforcement, so it does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Having soldiers perform core law enforcement duties like apprehending or detaining people, however, steps over the legal boundary.

The move also skirts a separate statute requiring congressional approval of any Pentagon takeover of more than 5,000 acres of federal lands except “in time of war or national emergency.” Here, in order to transfer control of land from the Interior Department, Trump is relying on a declaration of national emergency he issued on January 20 to address the “invasion” at the southern border, in which he asserted that “our southern border is overrun.” But on March 2, Trump triumphantly posted on social media that “the Invasion of our Country is OVER,” adding that in the preceding month, “very few people came.” His administration continues to tout the fact that unlawful border crossings are now at their lowest level in decades. U.S. Customs and Border Protection data from March confirms a 95 percent decline in monthly unauthorized crossings.

Leaving aside the question of whether an emergency, properly defined, existed on January 20 (it didn’t), the Trump administration has made a powerful case that there is no emergency now. Trump should be revoking the emergency declaration, not relying on it to transfer federal lands to the Department of Defense.

Why It Matters

Aside from legal concerns, there are practical reasons why the U.S. armed forces shouldn’t be enforcing immigration law. Federal troops are trained to fight and destroy an enemy; they’re generally not trained for domestic law enforcement. Asking them to do law enforcement’s job creates risks to migrants, U.S. citizens who may inadvertently trespass on federal lands at the border, and the soldiers themselves. And it pulls our armed forces away from their core mission of protecting the United States from foreign adversaries at a time when the military is already stretched thin.

Using the military for border enforcement is also a slippery slope. If soldiers are allowed to take on domestic policing roles at the border, it may become easier to justify uses of the military in the U.S. interior in the future. Our nation’s founders warned against the dangers of an army turned inward, which can all too easily be turned into an instrument of tyranny.

Trump’s misuse of emergency powers similarly has larger implications. Emergency declarations unlock enhanced powers contained in 150 different provisions of law. Many of these are far more potent than the ability to transfer federal lands to the Department of Defense. They include the authority to take over or shut down communications facilities, freeze Americans’ assets, and control domestic transportation. If emergency powers can be invoked for border security at a time when unlawful border crossings have reached a historic low, there is little to prevent a president from declaring fake emergencies to invoke these alarming powers.

The Role of the Courts and Congress

Unfortunately, the president’s abuses could be difficult to check. The Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute, and those who violate it may be prosecuted. But it’s unclear whether violations may serve as a basis for migrants to challenge their detention. As for Trump’s misuse of emergency powers, courts generally are reluctant to probe a president’s decision that an emergency exists (although in this case, the administration’s own statements might be sufficient to overcome the presumption of deference). And as the law currently stands, it is very difficult for Congress to terminate a national emergency declaration or undo actions that presidents take using their emergency powers.

These challenges highlight the urgent need for Congress to establish meaningful checks on the use of emergency powers and domestic deployment authorities. Last year, legislation that would have made it much easier for Congress to terminate emergency declarations passed out of committees in the House and Senate with near-unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans. Similar legislation was introduced in January by Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona. The Brennan Center has also proposed several key changes to the Posse Comitatus Act that would close the loopholes that threaten to swallow the law.

It may not be possible to pass these reforms soon, but the fight against executive overreach is not just a short-term one. Understanding the ways in which Trump’s actions threaten the rule of law today can help build support for enacting reforms in the future.

---

AN 4 25

On Monday, President Donald Trump issued a new executive order just shy of the 100th day of his second term that has some experts and academics sounding the alarm.

Trump's new order, which is entitled "Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens," makes various declarations about the administration's commitment to supporting law enforcement professionals in the opening paragraphs. However, one section further down specifically mentions the U.S. military and the administration's intent to have enlisted service members participate in civilian law enforcement actions.

"Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of agencies as appropriate, shall increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement ... [and] shall determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime."

"The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall utilize the Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs) formed in accordance with Executive Order 14159 of January 20, 2025 (Protecting the American People Against Invasion) to coordinate and advance the objectives of this order," the order continued.

IFrame Content

That section in particular prompted Lead Matthew Noe, who is the lead collection & knowledge management librarian at Harvard Medical School, to call the order "legitimately frightening." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based writer Susan Keiser posted to Bluesky: "Serious Question: Is this martial law[?]" Former criminal defense investigator Andrew H. Sowards responded to the order by simply declaring: "Not good."

"We're already a police state," Daily Beast columnist David Rothkopf skeeted (the accepted term for Bluesky posts). "But now, thanks to this EO, moreso."

Deploying the U.S. military within American borders to act as a police force would be a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is a 143 year-old law prohibiting the president from ordering the military to double as law enforcement. As the Brennan Center for Justice explained in 2021, Congress passed the law during Reconstruction in order to prevent the military from being used to enforce Jim Crow laws in former Confederate states after the Civil War. Additionally, deploying the military to conduct law enforcement activity violates parts of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution — which were ratified in direct response to the British military's abuse of colonists prior to the Revolutionary War.

Click here to read the full executive order.

---

In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the Air Force’s and Army’s top judge advocates general (JAGs). Last month, he commissioned his personal lawyer as a Navy JAG. He is nowreportedly paving the way to make major changes within the JAG Corps—including how military lawyers advise on the law of war and prosecute those who violate it. These moves raise concerns that the JAG Corps could be compromised by partisan appointments and bad faith interpretations of the law, with wide-ranging consequences for how the U.S. military conducts operations and disciplines personnel.

Secretary Hegseth and the JAGs

On the evening of Feb. 21, President Trump fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, C.Q. Brown, the chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Lisa Franchetti, and the vice chief of staff of the Air Force, Gen. Jim Slife. On the same night, without any notification, Secretary Hegseth cut the top two uniformed lawyers of the Air Force and Army (referred to as “TJAGs”), Lt. Gen. Charles L. Plummer and LTG Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, respectively—the Navy position, previously filled by Vice Admiral Christopher French (retired as Rear Admiral), is currently filled by Acting Judge Advocate General Rear Admiral Reynolds. In what was described as the Defense Department’s “Friday night massacre,” many_ commentators_ were more alarmed by Hegseth’s removal of the TJAGs than the president’s firing of the chairman. The actions taken were also unprecedented—no secretary of defense in recent memory has targeted JAGs in this way.

As described by experts, judge advocates, like other servicemembers, fill non-partisan roles. The thousands of lawyers serving in the JAG Corps are tasked with providing independent, neutral, and fact-based legal advice on domestic and international law across the rank and file, up to the highest-level commanders. Under 10 U.S.C, no officer or Department of Defense employee—political or career—may interfere with the ability of JAGs to give independent legal advice.

In firing the TJAGs, Hegseth did not point to any misconduct to justify his decision. His only stated reasons were that he considered the TJAGs not “well-suited” for the job, and he wanted to avoid “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.” While troubling for him to imply that only loyalists to the president should be in these positions, the secretary’s public statements prior to assuming his post made plain that he views military lawyers as obstructionists and the laws they advise on, including the Geneva Conventions, as outdated and too restrictive. To illustrate his opinion of military lawyers, in his book he recalled a time during his military service when he used a degrading te_rm_—“jagoffs”—to describe them.

Further changes are also reportedly afoot. On March 7, the secretary commissioned his personal lawyer of the last eight years, Timothy Parlatore, to be a Navy commander in the JAG Corps as a reservist. The New York Times reports that Parlatore is assigned to a unit serving the secretary of defense and will “focus on improving how the military’s uniformed lawyers are trained.” After the commissioning, the Guardian reported that once Hegseth replaces the TJAGs, he is planning a “sweeping overhaul” of the entire JAG Corps. Parlatore is picked to oversee this effort, reportedly aimed at ensuring more expansive legal interpretations to ensure greater latitude for battlefield tactics and more leniency toward service members who commit war crimes.

JAGs as Advisers and Prosecutors

Based on his statements, Hegseth appears to consider JAGs as problematic in two ways: (a) in their role as legal advisers to servicemembers in the field and secretaries of the military departments and (b) as prosecutors of servicemembers accused of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a body of laws that govern the military justice system, particularly when it comes to law of war violations. His objection does not appear to be with any single individual, but rather, with the entire profession; in fulfilling these roles as advisers and prosecutors, he views JAGs as interfering with efficient war-fighting, or, as he describes it, a “warrior’s ethos.”

*JAGs as Advisers

Hegseth has questioned the JAG’s role in providing advice in the context of the battlefield. He has argued that applying “restrictive” rules of engagement makes it difficult to “defeat our enemies.” His ad hominem attack in his book occurred in the context of a presentation from a JAG on the rules of engagement when launching a rocket-propelled grenade. Hegseth claimed the protocols described were “going to get people killed.” With the February firings, the secretary also questioned the TJAGs’ role in advising the secretaries of the military departments, describing them as potential “roadblocks” to orders from the president.

There are a few separate issues to parse here.

First, it is important to clarify that JAGs generally do not play a decision-making role. JAGs act as advisers to commanders and civilian officials who make critical decisions for the U.S. military, such as the development of battlefield strategy and the military’s rules of engagement (which include layers of policy in addition to bare minimum legal requirements). Even though JAGs advise on questions about how the Geneva Conventions are interpreted, those questions are ultimately answered by civilian lawyers and policymakers.

Second, JAGs are only roadblocks insofar as their professional role is to stop illegality. For example, on the battlefield, JAGs fill an important role in advising on the laws that constrain militaries and combatants, such as mitigating harm to civilians, refraining from inflicting unnecessary suffering, and providing protections to prisoners of war. In the Pentagon, JAGs fill the critical role of providing legal advice on the domestic and legal implications of the actions of the Department. U.S. officials have long understood that compliance with the law, including the law of war, protects in many ways, e.g., from criminal prosecution and in maintaining legitimacy. The institutionalized legal advice across the Defense Department only acts as an obstacle to unlawful acts.

Third, the record shows that the U.S. military is perfectly capable of fighting wars with JAGs in place to support the military’s compliance with U.S. law and related policies. In the conflicts that followed the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. military has fought wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan; conducted annual security cooperation exercises and trainings with dozens of foreign forces around the globe; carried out secret missions with U.S. special forces; supported law enforcement on the southern border; and much more.

*JAGs as Prosecutors

Secretary Hegseth has also expressed disdain for JAGs who prosecute service members returning from tours in war zones. As a Fox News host, he publicly and privately lobbied President Trump during his first term to clear three service members accused of or prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump pardoned_ _two of them and reversed a third’s demotion. One of those service members was Eddie Gallagher, a Navy Seal (represented by Hegseth’s current attorney, Timothy Parlatore) accused of executing civilians, including stabbing to death a teenaged ISIS prisoner (“Good story behind this. Got him with my hunting knife.” he texted a friend. He later claimed that the teenager was going to die and that his unit had planned to “do medical treatments on him until he’s gone”.) After an about-face on the stand from one of the key witnesses in his unit, Gallagher was acquitted of most charges, but found guilty of taking a photo with a corpse in violation of the UCMJ.

Based on statements from Hegseth, he considers these kinds of war crimes prosecutions to be “second guessing” servicemembers, an action equivalent to “throwing them under the bus” after they come home from war. He believes that “the benefit of the doubt should go to the guys pulling the trigger” and said that the Navy was “on a witch hunt against Eddie Gallagher” for not killing “ISIS in the way they want him to.”

This perspective, if extended across the board, would be a recipe for rampant impunity for U.S. troops who commit war crimes, encouraging further violations.

Potential Consequences of Hegseth’s Actions

The Friday night firing of the TJAGs and the reported preparation to overhaul the JAG Corps and review the Defense Department’s law of war interpretations could curtail legal review of military actions, with serious consequences.

First, if the secretary of defense is willing to fire the highest ranking JAGs to ensure Defense Department leadership receives legal advice that doesn’t interfere with his agenda, it could well have a chilling effect on the JAGs whose independent and principled legal advice might impede the administration’s policy preferences. If the firings, coupled with statements from the secretary about JAGs and the law, chill advice during military operations, it will almost surely lead to more law of war violations.

Second, Hegseth’s civilian general counsel is likely to channel the secretary’s impulses to loosen rules on civilian protection. JAGs have traditionally seen the law of war as protective of U.S. interests and therefore have resisted novel or watered-down interpretations. Losing the independent advice of JAGs means losing an important advocate for that perspective on the law of war.

Third, strong lawyers could be critically important during the coming period for precisely the reason that Hegseth has suggested they need to be removed: It could be a very precarious time in terms of the legality of the things the military is asked to do. These could include domestic actions that would seem to run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act. Or they might involve international actions that the president has at various times entertained that the military would have to carry out—such as using force to take Greenland; taking military action against Iran; striking drug cartels in Mexico; or seizing control of the Panama Canal. Having credible JAGs in place may not have much impact on whether the military is ultimately used on these missions, but it at least can help ensure that commanders have sound legal advice when they make crucial decisions about missions.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, if the secretary is firing JAGs now—before they offer legal advice on any issue of consequence—it sends a message that even the most principled TJAGs likely will not thwart this administration if it is determined to take illegal action.

A new administration has the right to effectuate its own lawful policies, which can include firing and hiring lawyers. But the manner in which this happened at the Department of Defense was unprecedented. And it raises concerns that what Secretary Hegseth wants is not good lawyering, but instead carte blanche. That would be detrimental for the soldiers who might have to carry out unlawful orders, the country they represent, and the innocent people who could, as a result, lose the few protections afforded them amid the brutality of war.

---

===

mma

the Trump administration is planning on deporting millions and millions of immigrants. Fox News is pretending the focus will be much narrower.

“Border Czar” Tom Homan: “If you’re in the country illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder. The bottom line is: Every illegal alien is a criminal.”

Written by Charis Hoard, Torri Lonergan, Pete Tsipis & Chloe Simon

Published 11/18/24

Fox News is downplaying President-elect Donald Trump’s planned “mass deportations” by saying the effort will prioritize migrants with “criminal records.” But two of his top picks to oversee immigration policy have echoed what he and the vice president-elect have threatened: The deportations will include all undocumented immigrants in addition to migrants here legally and mixed-status families.

Trump has announced that his former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director, Tom Homan, will oversee immigration policy in his second administration and his former senior adviser Stephen Miller will serve as his deputy chief of staff on policy. Both Homan and Miller have expressed support for Trump’s plan to enact mass deportations of immigrants from the United States, with Miller recently proclaiming at a Trump rally that America is for “Americans only.”

## Tom Homan and Stephen Miller have experience enforcing draconian immigration policy for Trump and plan to further his agenda in the second term

- Trump has pledged to deport all undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants as well.This policy could impact more than 22 million people who live in the country's 5.8 million mixed-status families, where one or more family members are undocumented. The mass deportations could also target the 530,000 people who are part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which offered protections for “young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, temporarily shielding them from deportation and providing them work authorization with possible renewal every two years.” The Guardian [11/8/24; Pew Research Center, 7/22/24; Poynter, 11/13/24; Immigration Forum, 5/21/24; Media Matters, 11/15/24]

- As part of his deportation agenda, Trump is expected to end an asylum parole program for people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela which allowed “qualified nationals” to apply for temporary stay in the U.S. if they were sponsored by someone who had U.S. citizenship or legal status. Trump is also expected to begin his plans of mass deportation in his first 100 days in office, and he has backed calls for a “national emergency” plan to secure military resources to carry out the mass deportations. Global Refuge, [10/23/24; Politico, 11/18/24; Newsweek, 11/18/24]

- During a campaign rally, Vice President-elect JD Vance said, “Our message to illegal aliens is, ‘Pack your bags, because in four months you’re going home.’”Vance has also cast doubt on the status of legal migrants, calling thousands of Haitians who are in the United States legally “illegal aliens” and suggesting they will be deported under Trump. YouTube,[; Cleveland.com, 9/19/24]

- Trump has named Tom Homan “border czar” for his second term.Homan served as acting director of ICE in the first Trump administration and is credited as the “intellectual father” of the Trump administration’s family separation policy; he has since stated that he didn’t “give a shit” about being sued due to the policy. Homan has long pushed anti-immigrant rhetoric and misinformation on Fox News, where he became a paid contributor in 2018. NPR, [11/11/24; Media Matters, 6/14/19, 8/8/22, 10/11/23, 8/11/19; The Hill, 3/3/23]

- Stephen Miller will be Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy in his upcoming administration. Miller served as a senior adviser to Trump during his first administration and was the architect of the administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy that led to thousands of immigrant children being separated from their families. Miller also advocated for separating immigrant families going through civil court proceedings, which would have added 25,000 more immigrant children to the 3,000 who were already separated. NPR, [11/11/24; NBC News, 8/20/20; CNN, 11/11/24]

## Fox News figures and guests have claimed Trump’s policy will primarily or initially focus on undocumented people with criminal backgrounds

- Fox correspondent Griff Jenkins claimed that “border czar Tom Homan says the priority will be those with criminal records.” However, Jenkins also noted that “Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nanette Barragán tells Fox News, ‘The president-elect has even admitted that innocent women and children could get caught up in the operations.’” Fox News, *Special Report with Bret Baie*r, [11/12/24]

- Former Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz said Trump “is going to focus on those security threats, those, you know, folks with terroristic ties, those national security threats, the folks that are bringing in narcotics, and criminal aliens first” before moving to the “migrant population that we see all over this country.”Fox News, *Your World with Neil Cavuto*, [11/12/24]

- Fox anchor Dana Perino attempted to downplay mass deportations by saying that “Homan has been very clear the criminals come first,” but former Border Patrol chief Rodney Scott said that “no one will be off the table.” Perino asked, “Criminals, if that's the first target for people who broke the law who are here that are violent, why wouldn't a governor like her [Massachusetts’ Maura Healey] want them out of her state?” Scott referred to the crime of “illegally coming into the U.S.” and said that “no one will be off the table, meaning that when ICE goes in to arrest those individuals and they stumble on other illegal immigrants, other crimes at the same time, agents will be able to take care of all those crimes at the same time.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 11/12/24]

- Fox host Sean Hannity talked about deporting “millions of criminal illegal immigrants,” listing “gang members, cartel members, drug dealers, people that we know are murderers and rapists, and those that are known terrorists.”He did not mention the nonviolent undocumented migrants who would be deported alongside them. Fox News, *Hannity*, [11/12/24]

- Former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker said terrorists and criminals “should expect to leave the country immediately,” dodging a question from Fox anchor Martha MacCallum about people who are “afraid that their families will be separated.” Fox News, *The Story with Martha MacCallum*, [11/12/24]

## Homan has claimed that that “no one is off the table” and that the “biggest deportation in U.S. history” is “coming soon"
- Homan has repeatedly said that the “biggest deportation in U.S. history” is “coming soon.”Homan claimed that those who “clearly” don't “qualify for asylum,” families who “arrive without authorization,” and people “sneaking in” will be deported. Twitter/X, [12/12/23, 2/1/24, 11/16/23, 12/2/23]

- When asked on60 Minuteswhether there was any way to conduct deportations without separating families, Homan stated, “Of course there is. Families can be deported together,” suggesting that legal migrants or even U.S. citizens in mixed-status families could be deported too. CBS News’ Cecilia Vega pressed Homan for specifics, asking, “So you are carrying out a targeted enforcement operation. Grandma's in the house. She's undocumented. Does she get arrested too?” Homan replied that “it depends,” saying, “Let the judge decide.” CBS News, [10/27/24]

- Homan suggested that “the vast majority” of undocumented migrants will be deported. Homan: “When you have an historic illegal immigration crisis, where millions enter the country illegally and the vast majority will be ordered removed by a judge because they either don’t show up in court or they simply don't qualify for asylum, it will result in an historic deportation operation.” Twitter/X, [11/20/23]

- Homan asserted that “nine out of 10” undocumented immigrants will “get an order of removal based on immigration court data.” Homan also claimed, “A judge orders them to be removed. We’re going to find them and we’re gonna remove them.… If there’s no consequence, we can’t fix the border. We’re going to have a consequence in the Trump administration.” Twitter/X, [11/19/23]

- On The Charlie Kirk Show, Homan claimed that “90% of these people crossing the border would not qualify for asylum” and would be “removed by a federal judge.” He continued: “So what is the option? If they stay, millions more come. We have to enforce the law, no apologies.” He also once again claimed that he will “run the biggest deportation operation this country’s ever seen.” Salem Radio Network, *The Charlie Kirk Show*, [12/18/23]

- Homan recently encouraged migrants, including noncriminals, to self-deport because “we know who you are, and we’re going to come and find you.” After he was announced as Trump’s pick for “border czar,” Homan appeared on Fox News’ Hannity and claimed, “While we’re out prioritizing the public safety threats and national security threats, if you want to self-deport, you should self-deport because, again, we know who you are, and we’re going to come and find you. … But for those others, the noncriminals, you want to self-deport, I’m all for it. Because when they self-deport, they can put their orders — everything in order – their family business, if they have homes or whatever – they can put all that in order and leave with their family all together.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [11/11/24]

- Homan claimed, “If you’re in the country illegally, it’s not OK. If you’re in the country illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.”While appearing at the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Fest in 2024, Homan said, “No one’s off the table. If you’re in the country illegally, it’s not OK. If you’re in the country illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder. The bottom line is: every illegal alien is a criminal. They enter the country in violation of federal law. It's a crime to enter this country illegally.” Media Matters, [7/16/24]

## Miller has promoted “mass arrests and mass deportations,” which he said would include deporting “everyone coming and everyone Biden resettled”

- Miller has repeatedly called for mass deportations, often framing them as the opposite of Democrats' supposed “mass importation.” In February 2024, Miller said that the U.S. should “deport everyone coming and everyone Biden resettled.” Twitter/ X, 2/20/24, [2/29/24, 9/14/24, 10/6/24]

- At Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, Miller said, “America is for America and Americans only.”Politico, [10/28/24]

- During an interview, Miller suggested that the U.S. military be used to help carry out mass deportations.Miller also advocated for building mass detention facilities that “hold upwards of 50, 60, 70 thousand illegal aliens while you are waiting to send them someplace, somewhere that would be willing to accept them.” Media Matters, [9/28/24]

- Miller posted that “the only public policy solution is mass arrests and mass deportations” when retweeting a video of pro-Palestine protesters kicking a door. Miller also wrote, “One-third of NYC residents are foreign-born, so one can imagine the proportions in this mob.” Later on, Miller wrote “Mass Deportation” when retweeting a video of a pro-Palestine protest. Twitter/X, [11/11/23, 11/29/23]

* Miller suggested that the only way to avoid an Islamic State group terror attack is to deport undocumented immigrants.Miller tweeted, “Biden let ISIS terrorists into America. Now, no one can find them. Only a matter of time until they attack — unless Trump is elected to launch mass deportations.” Twitter/X, [6/26/24]

### Right-wing media are celebrating Trump’s impending mass deportations

11/15/24

### Newsmax host: “I am very excited to watch Tom Homan execute the largest deportation the world has ever seen”

11/13/24

Charlie Kirk tells Tom Homan: “I would love to meet with you privately about a communications strategy”

11/12/24

===