Trump’s Reckless Deployment of 4,000 Troops in Los Angeles Threatens Public Safety and Democracy

President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, compounding the initial 2,000 troops dispatched just days prior. California Governor Gavin Newsom made this announcement, criticizing the move as reckless and detrimental to both public safety and the morale of U.S. troops.

According to Newsom, the first contingent of troops was left without proper provisions, as only about 300 ended up in the city, with the remainder stationed in federal buildings. He argues that the deployment is primarily intended to satisfy Trump’s inflated ego rather than to address any real safety concerns.

The deployment escalated tensions in Los Angeles, already heightened by ongoing protests against the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The situation was further aggravated when Trump ordered approximately 700 Marines to assist in protecting federal personnel, a move that Newsom has deemed “un-American.” He emphasized that the esteemed role of the Marines should not be to confront civilians over issues stemming from a malicious and authoritarian political agenda.

Newsom accused Trump of fabricating a crisis, asserting that the National Guard was being misused for political purposes related to recent protests against ICE raids. This militarization of local enforcement has prompted California’s attorney general to file a lawsuit against Trump, arguing that such actions represent an overreach of executive power.

The unrest in Los Angeles and Trump’s harsh military response underscore the growing pattern of authoritarian tactics employed by his administration in dealing with dissent. Instead of fostering dialogue and understanding, Trump resorts to increased military presence to intimidate citizens, further threatening the democratic principles of the nation.

Trump’s Deployment of 500 Marines in LA Escalates Tensions Amid Immigration Protests

President Donald Trump has escalated tensions in Los Angeles by authorizing the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard troops amid ongoing protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions. The deployment, which involves about 700 U.S. Marines, aims to protect federal personnel and property in the wake of civil unrest fueled by perceived abuses during immigration enforcement operations. California Governor Gavin Newsom has vehemently opposed this militarized response, declaring it a dangerous attempt to bolster Trump’s fragile ego rather than a genuine concern for public safety.

Newsom, who filed a lawsuit against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier on the same day, criticized the initial deployment of National Guard troops, claiming that most were left idle without adequate provisions. He pointed out that the first batch of National Guard members lacked essential supplies like food and water and were not effectively utilized. Newsom’s tweet highlighted the absurdity of federal troops being stationed without clear orders amid escalating protests that cry out for responsible management.

The deployment reflects a perilous trend, as Trump’s administration utilizes military force to suppress dissent, bringing Marines into domestic situations where their lack of proper training for managing civilian protests can create more chaos than resolution. Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned Trump’s actions as inflammatory, questioning the appropriateness of involving Marines in domestic law enforcement, potentially violating civil rights and constitutional freedoms.

Trump’s Administration has taken a particularly confrontational stance, with Trump even suggesting potential arrests of Newsom for allegedly obstructing federal immigration enforcement. This alarming rhetoric only fuels further conflict between state and federal authorities. Legal experts assert that Trump’s order exceeds his constitutional authority, marking the first time since 1965 that a president unilaterally deployed state National Guard without the governor’s request.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted Trump for using military personnel as a political distraction, asserting it undermines state sovereignty and exacerbates tensions without delivering real solutions. The chaotic situation in Los Angeles encapsulates the broader disdain Trump and his administration exhibit towards democratic norms and the rule of law, choosing instead to wield state power against their opponents in an increasingly authoritarian fashion.

(h/t: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/06/09/trump-sued-national-guard-la-california-newsom.html)

Trump’s Reckless Military Strikes in Yemen Highlight a Dangerous Shift from Diplomacy to Force

The United States has initiated extensive military strikes in Yemen, following threats from President Donald Trump to employ ‘overwhelming lethal force’ against the Houthi militants until they halt their attacks on shipping. This aggressive posture represents yet another instance of Trump’s reckless and militaristic foreign policy that prioritizes violence over diplomacy.

Trump’s administration has gained notoriety for its approach to international conflicts, often favoring military action over negotiation. The strikes, positioned as a response to ongoing threats, reflect a pattern of behavior that undermines global stability while showcasing Trump’s penchant for dramatizing situations to bolster his perceived strength.

Critics point out that rather than fostering peaceful resolutions, Trump’s heavy-handed tactics risk further entanglement in conflicts, exacerbating humanitarian crises. The U.S. military actions have sparked concerns among global observers regarding the long-term implications for innocent civilians and regional security.

Furthermore, Trump’s willingness to resort to violence not only endangers lives abroad but also reflects a broader authoritarian trend within his administration. This reflects a disturbing normalization of militaristic rhetoric and action that stands in stark contrast to the values of democracy and diplomacy.

The development raises fundamental questions about the direction of U.S. foreign policy under Trump and the moral implications of employing lethal force in a complex geopolitical landscape. Critics argue that this approach serves the interests of the wealthy elites and militarists rather than the American public or global peace efforts.

(h/t: https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-launches-large-strikes-yemen-183456613.html)

Trump’s Controversial Gaza Takeover Proposal Risks Human Rights Violations and Regional Instability

Former President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial plan suggesting that the United States should assume control over the Gaza Strip and force the displacement of approximately two million Palestinians currently residing there. During a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump blatantly declared, “The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we’ll own it,” expressing a desire for Palestinians to relocate to neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt.

Trump’s rhetoric, which echoes dangerous notions of ethnic cleansing, paints Gaza as a “hellhole” while advocating for its redevelopment under U.S. control. His remarks not only disregard the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people but also provoke widespread condemnation from advocacy groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s National Executive Director Nihad Awad condemned Trump’s comments as a “non-starter,” emphasizing that such actions would further exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and violate fundamental human rights.

The reaction from neighboring Arab nations has been overwhelmingly negative, with leaders in Jordan and Egypt rejecting the idea of accepting Gaza’s residents. Trump’s misleading portrayal of his proposal as a pathway to peace fails to address the underlying issues of the ongoing conflict and the suffering of the Palestinian population. Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of violence and displacement that further entrenches systemic inequities in the region.

By promoting this takeover, Trump is not only attempting to impose an unethical solution on a deeply complex situation but also risking the stability of U.S. foreign relations in the Middle East. His comments suggest a lack of understanding or respect for international laws governing territorial integrity and human rights. This plan reflects a broader trend within the Republican Party’s approach to foreign policy, characterized by militarism and disregard for humanitarian norms.

The implications of Trump’s Gaza takeover plan could be devastating, potentially leading to increased violence and further destabilizing the region. As Trump and his allies continue to espouse harmful ideologies that undermine democracy and human rights, the need for accountability and truthful discourse has never been greater.

(h/t: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/02/04/trump-says-us-will-own-and-develop-gaza-strip.html)

Trump’s Gaza Plan Promotes Displacement and Militarism, Threatening Palestinian Rights

During a recent press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former President Donald Trump made alarming statements regarding Palestinians in Gaza, suggesting they should permanently relocate and that the U.S. would take over the Gaza Strip. He claimed, “The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it,” a statement that raises serious ethical and humanitarian concerns about the rights of the Palestinian people.

Trump’s proposal to displace Gazans comes amidst ongoing humanitarian crises and reflects a troubling mindset that prioritizes U.S. ownership over the dignity and rights of vulnerable populations. By asserting that it is better for Palestinians to leave “a big pile of rubble,” Trump perpetuates narratives that echo ethnic cleansing, disregarding the historical and emotional ties of Palestinians to the land.

He suggested that Palestinians could be resettled in neighboring countries, yet both Jordan and Egypt have publicly rejected the idea of accepting new refugees, highlighting the impracticality and insensitivity of his comments. Trump’s characterization of Gaza as “not a place for people to be living” not only dismisses the lived realities of Palestinians, but also blatantly ignores their claims to their homeland.

The implications of Trump’s rhetoric are far-reaching and potentially dangerous, resonating with far-right Israeli factions while also endangering U.S. diplomatic relations in the Middle East. His casual mention of U.S. troops potentially being deployed to fill perceived security gaps adds an alarming militaristic dimension to his plans, raising questions about intervening in regional conflicts that have historically involved complex nuances.

By promoting ideas that suggest a unilateral U.S. takeover of Gaza, Trump’s comments reinforce a pattern of authoritarianism and imperialistic ambition that undercuts the foundational principles of human rights and self-determination. As he continues to advocate for extreme measures concerning foreign policy, it becomes evident that Trump’s vision for the Middle East is not one of peace or diplomacy, but rather one of domination and neglect for the rights of the Palestinian people.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/politics/netanyahu-trump-white-house-meeting/index.html)

Trump’s Military Deportation Plan Faces Legal and Military Backlash

Donald Trump’s recent declaration to deploy U.S. troops for mass deportations of undocumented migrants is not only reckless but also faces significant legal and practical challenges. The use of military personnel in domestic law enforcement is heavily restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the role of federal troops in enforcing laws, creating a potential clash between Trump’s agenda and established legal frameworks. Despite these constraints, Trump’s administration appears determined to push forward with their controversial plans, presenting a troubling prospect for civil rights and military integrity.

Trump’s transition team spokesperson emphasized their commitment to executing the largest deportation operation in American history, claiming that his re-election provides a mandate for such extreme measures. However, the military’s involvement in immigration enforcement raises serious ethical concerns, as many service members join with the intention of defending national security rather than acting as police officers. This cultural clash could lead to resistance from within the armed forces, undermining the effectiveness of Trump’s proposed actions.

The plan to use military resources for non-enforcement roles, such as building infrastructure or gathering intelligence, may still face pushback from military leaders who view such missions as outside the traditional scope of military operations. Experts note that the military has historically been reluctant to engage in domestic law enforcement, fearing it may compromise public trust in their primary mission. As a result, attempting to involve the military in such a politically charged task could create a rift between the administration and military personnel.

Additionally, Trump’s reliance on state-led National Guard troops to circumvent federal restrictions could lead to significant legal disputes, particularly if deployed in states that oppose his policies. Such actions could be interpreted as violations of state sovereignty, prompting lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of his approach. This scenario paints a picture of a chaotic and divisive implementation of immigration policy, one that could further polarize an already fractured political landscape.

In conclusion, Trump’s ambition to militarize immigration enforcement is fraught with legal challenges and internal resistance, highlighting a dangerous trend towards authoritarianism in American governance. The potential backlash from military leaders and state governors underscores the fragility of Trump’s plans, revealing deep-seated tensions between his administration’s goals and the principles of democratic governance. As this situation unfolds, it remains crucial for lawmakers and citizens alike to uphold the values of justice and human rights against the tide of divisive policies.

(h/t: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-military-mass-deportation-plan-legal-limits-experts-2024-11)

Trump’s Call for Military Action Against Political Opponents Sparks Outrage

Donald Trump has ignited significant backlash from Democrats following his recent comments suggesting that the U.S. military should be deployed against political adversaries during the upcoming presidential election. In a Fox News interview, Trump referred to his opponents as ‘the enemy within,’ indicating that this group poses a greater threat to democracy than foreign entities or illegal immigrants.

During the interview, Trump singled out Congressmember Adam Schiff, asserting that he represents a danger to fair elections. Trump’s rhetoric has raised alarms among political analysts and historians, who draw parallels between his proposed actions and authoritarian regimes led by figures like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.

Kamala Harris’s campaign responded sharply, comparing Trump’s remarks to his previous threats to act as a dictator should he regain the presidency. Harris’s campaign pointed out that these statements reflect a serious threat to democratic norms, calling for vigilance among Americans who value their freedoms.

In addition to targeting Schiff, Trump has reiterated claims of widespread voter fraud without evidence, furthering fears that he may incite violence or unrest if he perceives electoral outcomes as unfavorable. Schiff himself has condemned Trump’s comments, likening them to the incitement of the January 6 Capitol attack and warning of the potential for political violence.

(h/t: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/14/trump-military-enemy-within-armed-forces-election-day)

Trump says he will deploy military if state officials can’t contain protest violence

As the sound of sirens wailed and flash bangs popped across the street, President Donald Trump announced from the Rose Garden that he would use the U.S. military to stop the riots across the county that have been sparked by the death of George Floyd.

“I am mobilizing all federal and local resources, civilian and military, to protect the rights of law abiding Americans,” Trump said in the extraordinary address, which was delivered as police fired tear gas outside to push protesters back from the White House.

“If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” Trump said, referring to himself as “your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters.”

To activate the military to operate in the U.S., Trump would have to invoke the 213-year-old Insurrection Act, which four people familiar with the decision had told NBC News he planned to do.

The military police forces would come from Fort Bragg in North Carolina and possibly Fort Belvoir in Virginia and could arrive in Washington within hours, these people said.

Trump’s decision to invoke the act, adopted in 1807, to deploy troops comes as his frustrations mount over the protests that have followed the death of Floyd, a black man who was killed in police custody last week in Minneapolis. The people familiar with his decision said Trump was angry Sunday night at the destruction protestors caused in Washington, particularly the vandalization of national monuments.

Some of the president’s aides have been encouraging him for days to invoke the act, as he weighs options for exercising executive powers to address the crisis. The act was last invoked during the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.

Trump’s remarks came hours after he urged the nation’s governors to get “tough” with unruly demonstrators. “Most of you are weak,” he told them, according to audio of the call obtained by NBC News. “You have to dominate. If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time, they’re gonna run over you, you’re gonna look like a bunch of jerks,” the president said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the president’s plans but at a briefing with reporters Monday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany left open the possibility that the president could invoke the act.

“The Insurrection Act, it’s one of the tools available, whether the president decides to pursue that, that’s his prerogative,“ McEnany said.

Governors can ask that the federal government send active duty troops to help in cases of civil unrest like the widespread protests plaguing U.S. cities over the last several days. But, so far, no governor has requested active duty troops to assist and instead they have relied on local law enforcement and National Guard soldiers and airmen on state active duty.

Governors often prefer the National Guard forces in these cases because they can legally perform law enforcement duties in the U.S., whereas troops on active duty cannot without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, a 1878 law that prohibits the government from using military forces to act as a police force within U.S. borders.

But the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty troops without a request from a governor. Those troops would be allowed to conduct law enforcement missions. To invoke the act, Trump would first have to issue a proclamation to “immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time,” according to the law.

In the past the Justice Department has drafted such proclamations. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the act has been invoked many times throughout U.S. history, although rarely since the 1960s civil rights era. When it was invoked in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, the move was requested by then-California Gov. Pete Wilson, not invoked solely by President George H.W. Bush.

The Defense Department declined to comment on the possibility that the president could invoke the act.

One of Trump’s allies outside the White House, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., urged Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act “if necessary” so U.S. troops can “support our local law enforcement and ensure that this violence ends tonight.”

[NBC News]

Trump Blames Obama for Iran Attack Then Takes Credit for Obama’s Accomplishments in Off-the-Rails Address to the Nation

After three years there were likely few Americans hoping for some form of comfort from President Donald Trump’s address to the nation Wednesday in the wake of Tuesday night’s attack by Iran on air bases in Iraq that host thousands of U.S. Military troops. And President Trump, true to form, did not offer any.

The President descended as if from heaven (photo above) onto a stage filled with his military generals and advisors,

Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. A clear attempt to show strength which the administration apparently felt the Commander-in-Chief could not summon if he appeared on camera alone. A sad statement.

“As long as I’m president of the United States Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump, out of breath, declared as he walked up to the podium, flanked by his men in uniform. He then said: “Good morning.”

President Trump was expected to give Americans hope and comfort, and a clear indication that they are safe from attack.

Instead, he tried to show strength through military might – with no suggestion diplomacy might be a better route.

And he lied.

A lot.

“The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration,” Trump claimed, blaming President Barack Obama in a speech watched around the world.

“Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013,” Trump claimed. (It was actually 2015.)

He added, “they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.  Instead of saying ‘thank you’ to the United States, they chanted ‘death to America.’  In fact, they chanted ‘death to America’ the day the agreement was signed.”

Those billions belonged to Iran, and reportedly were less than the numbers Trump quoted. They were Iranian funds frozen which had been paid to the U.S. for arms never delivered. It is a frequent trump lie he tells at rallies over and over.

“Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal, and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq,” Trump claimed  in his address to the nation – and to the world. “The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.  The regime also greatly tightened the reins on their own country, even recently killing 1,500 people at the many protests that are taking place all throughout Iran.”

“The very defective JCPOA [the “Iran deal”] expires shortly anyway,” Trump said. That’s just false – another lie Trump often tells. Various parts expire between 2025 and 2030.

He claimed the JCPOA “gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout,” which again is false.

After falsely blaming Obama for Iran’s attack he went on to take credit for Obama paving to road to energy independence.

“Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before and America has achieved energy independence.  These historic accomplishments changed our strategic priorities.  These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible.”

Again, false.

Here’s CNN’s Keith Boykin with graphs showing just how false Trump’s energy independence remarks were:

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1214950568013242370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[The New Civil Rights Movement]

Trump’s evidence that Suleimani posed an imminent threat was ‘razor thin’: US officials

On Saturday, New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi laid out on Twitter the basic points of evidence cited by the Trump administration that Iranian military leader Qassim Suleimani posed an imminent threat to Americans in the region — and how they do not really hold water:

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213421769777909761


https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213423621349224448

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213424489679196161

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213427304413777923

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213430242079125505

[Raw Story]


1 2 3 4