Will the Trump Administration Sending in the National Guard Start a War Against the Citizens of Chicago and Portland?

At the same time that President Donald Trump has bypassed Congress to legislate into existence a new law that puts protesters in jail for a year for burning the American flag, which violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections and manipulates “existing” laws to enforce something that those laws were not intended to cover, he is also federalizing the National Guard to act like his personal army, in conjunction with having Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) purchase a new tool from PenLink that will be able to collect and analyze hundreds of millions of cellphone locations (every American) without a warrant (a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment). During an address to 800 generals and admirals from around the world at Quantico, Virginia, Secretary of War (note that the change in name from the Department of Defense is telling of where we are headed) Pete Hegseth stated that the United States “should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military,” while the president emphasized that the military needs to target the “enemy within.”

It is astounding that just a mere few months ago, when President Joe Biden was in office (and before), conspiracy theorists and conservatives were fearful that the military would be deployed domestically to declare martial law, round up dissidents into concentration camps, and patrol the streets; and now, these same people cheer on the Trump administration doing the precursor to exactly that (normalizing troop deployments domestically is how it starts). It is like the powers that be found the key to persuade these people that we need the military in the streets to save us from our plight, and that key is the guise of fighting crime and rounding up illegal immigrants (trading liberty for a false sense of security). Of course, just wait until it transitions from illegal immigrants being sent to camps to anyone who criticizes the government, as the next president, or two or three, will use what President Trump put into place to build up to mass detention of the entire population (Republicans will not always be in power, and Democrats will certainly seek revenge while acting in the interests of the global elites).

The federal government is now in the process of sending the Illinois and Texas National Guards, against the will of Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, into Chicago to support the federal agents working throughout the city (supposedly to protect personnel and property while anti-ICE protests continue). Aside from this being a states’ rights issue (conservatives have flip flopped on this argument too, because Trump told them that this is necessary), federalizing a state’s National Guard for the purpose of acting like a domestic military force is threatening to the citizens (war against the people). Even if this is purely an act of protection, civilians will inevitably get caught up in the crossfire, and Border Patrol agents have already shot an armed woman as they were returning fire at someone else who tried to run them over. President Trump is turning American cities into a battleground, and before you cheer on this violence, remember that the war may eventually make it over to your neck of the woods (you may soon be dodging gunfire going to the grocery store in the suburbs when Trump’s National Guard units stop by to “protect” agents who are enforcing immigration laws there).

Even if you do not care about what happens in cities hundreds of miles away in states that you do not live in, are you really comfortable with armed agents invading people’s homes in search of illegal immigrants? Of course, the mainstream media is ignoring the raid at South Shore Drive in Chicago, but the Chicago Sun-Times has reported that agents from Border Patrol, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) bashed in the doors of an apartment building and dragged out residents, most of which were American citizens, and some being children (some of the people were naked). One resident even asked why he was being held since he was a citizen, and the response was that he had to be “looked up” and cleared before he could be let go (guilty until proven innocent mentality, and no search warrant was presented). This is completely unconstitutional, and this is just the beginning (and also not the first case of this type of raid).

If you find it acceptable that American citizens are detained by federal agents without a warrant or evidence that a building was housing members of Tren de Aragua (or any other gang or cartel), you are not the constitutionalist or anti-authoritarian that you think you are (the Fourth Amendment protects people from these types of searches and seizures). I am sure that you would not like to be woken up in the middle of the night to police breaking into your home and forcing you outside while they search through your items (especially for children, this is traumatizing), so why would you cheer on what the Trump administration is doing? If you think that this cannot happen to you, just keep sitting by silently and letting this domestic war spread and see if that is true. Even if “Operation Midway Blitz” does not convince you that the current administration is launching a war against the American people, perhaps the deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon will.

United States District Judge Karin Immergut put a temporary hold on the ability of President Trump to federalize the California and Oregon National Guards (two separate rulings) for the purposes of marching into Portland, and yet, the president is in the process of defying those rulings and sending the California National Guard (200 members) to Oregon (under the argument that National Guardsmen serving in Los Angeles can be redirected to Portland since they are already activated, and you can read about the Los Angeles deployment here). Of course, the president believes that he is above the law and that checks and balances do not apply to him, but regardless, even if we assume that crime has gotten out of hand (like with Washington, District of Columbia, crime has actually decreased nationally) and that anti-ICE protesters are assaulting federal agents (which there are cases of, and these are being parroted by conservative commentators), you really have two choices: send troops to the cities to engage in war with citizens who are resisting, or withdraw from the cities and let the states determine their own policies. Unfortunately, the middle ground of the National Guard going into cities to protect federal agents and property without it leading to further escalation is simply not a realistic option.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has objected to the use of his National Guard being sent into another state to fight Oregon citizens, and as mentioned previously, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker does not want the federal government meddling in the affairs of his state. California, Illinois, and Oregon have all sued the federal government to prevent the troop deployments, and again, this comes down to being a states’ rights issue.

So, what does the Constitution say about this? Of course, White House spokesperson Stephen Miller claims that the president has the constitutional and legal duty to protect federal assets as commander-in-chief of the armed forces (argued based on Article II) and that “Today’s judicial ruling [regarding the National Guard in Portland] is one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order we have ever seen—and is yet the latest example of unceasing efforts to nullify the 2024 election by fiat.” Yet, those arguing that Article II of the Constitution gives the president authority to deploy troops anywhere and for any reason are the same people that bring about endless wars overseas without any regard for what Article I says about Congress having the sole authority to declare war. It is no different when applying this concept to immigration or protecting federal assets. In fact, Article I specifically states that only Congress can call “forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” and “exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” The drafters of the Constitution specifically kept the president from having the authority to do any of these things without congressional approval, and yet, people believe that Article II takes precedence over Article I and that the president has dictatorial powers to deploy the military (or militias) to any city or state (or country) that he wants (unlimited power). The federal courts have attempted to restrict this power (through checks and balances), but the president is not playing ball.

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment gives the states autonomy over all issues not governed under the Constitution, and if the president does not have unlimited power to act against Congress and the courts in deploying National Guard units to states that do not wish to have a military presence (which he theoretically does not), we have a constitutional crisis here (the example that some will use is the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania where George Washington rode in with militiamen from four states to quell the violence, but in that case, Pennsylvania wanted assistance and participated in the suppression, and it was a swift response without confrontation or occupation because the rebels fled before the troops even arrived). President Trump may have the physical ability to command the military in defiance of the states and the Constitution, but he does so at his own peril. Increased clashes may just spark a civil war, and hopefully those who are cheering on the president’s decision to deploy troops will be satisfied if the country breaks apart and Americans are killing Americans in a war that could have been prevented.

The people in Illinois, Oregon, and California are protesting the federal crackdown on illegal immigration, and the state governments are choosing not to respond in many cases. This is similar to the concept of nullification, where states choose not to enforce federal laws. The federal government clashing with state resistance was one of the causes of the American Civil War, and also remember, if you can create a “sanctuary city” for immigration by having the state and local police forces not participate with federal agents, the same can be done for gun laws in conservative states (sanctuary cities for guns).

Conservatives used to argue in favor of states’ rights, and if the Joe Biden administration had deployed the National Guard to enforce the executive order that required businesses to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine, you can bet that there would be protest and outrage coming from the other side (and rightfully so). Yet, these same conservatives have no regard for states who do not want federal troops entering their territory for immigration enforcement purposes. They will argue in favor of suppressing states’ rights while they have the power, but when the Democrats regain power down the road (if we make it that long), they will go back to arguing for states’ rights again when the new president follows in President Trump’s footsteps and sends the National Guard into Texas, Tennessee, and South Carolina to enforce some law that conservatives do not like (perhaps regarding guns).

Federalizing the National Guard to patrol the streets of “enemy” cities is a bad precedent to set, and while you are cheering on the cleaning up of the streets and the suppression of anti-ICE protests, remember that this will only cause increased violence and bloodshed, and to what end? Is the pride of getting back at liberal states worth the consequences of what may occur? Never forget that the founding fathers were opposed to King George III sending British soldiers to enforce national laws on the colonies, and yet, we find ourselves in a similar predicament. I find it hard to believe that the National Guardsmen will just sit in these cities and not act in some law enforcement capacity, and if the troops simply protect assets and everything ends up remaining peaceful, great, but we still have the problem of this causing the precedent for future presidents to use militarized units to enforce laws.

The federal government is usurping power and going above what the law says to enforce immigration policies (President Trump has attempted to revive the 1798 Alien Enemy Act, and he has thrown around the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act to bring active-duty military to the streets), and as a result, it is needing to back up those federal law enforcement officers with a militarized force to engage in armed conflict with people protesting. Fighting crime, enforcing immigration laws, and supporting federal agents against violence are the keys that the powers that be need to condition the populace into accepting future domestic military deployments and martial law, and either President Trump is naïve to this, or he is a part of it. This is not what the people voted for, and when the president acts outside of the authority granted, you have tyranny.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.