Washington, D.C. is occupied territory.
At least, that’s the scene Trump is staging, with soldiers at Union Station and armored vehicles cruising the streets on so-called “presence patrols.” Last night, the president gave a “campaign-style speech” to National Guard troops and promised they’re going to “stay here for a while.”
There are a couple of tactics at play here.
On one hand, this is a direct abuse of power — deploying lethal force to back up the president’s mass deportation agenda and to suppress dissent. On the other, it’s an attempt to intimidate, project strength, and create an aura of invincibility. Regardless of the White House’s intentions, though, this is a remarkably dangerous situation, not least for the institution of the military.1
It’s also not likely to stop with Washington, just like it didn’t stop with Los Angeles. If the president gets his way, this political intimidation tactic — deploying troops to states and cities on impulse — will continue to expand until it becomes a regular exercise of power. Every time the president wants to put pressure on a state or local critics or try to discourage protestors from challenging his agenda, he can deploy soldiers and Humvees in a show of force.
Case in point: The Washington Post reports that the Pentagon is considering establishing a “‘Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force’ composed of hundreds of National Guard troops tasked with rapidly deploying into American cities facing protests.”
What makes this particularly insidious is that troops are being effectively put in place to carry out the president’s whims, whatever those may be, at whatever time of his choosing.2 As The Atlantic’s David Graham writes, “the country could end up with the U.S. military occupying its major cities before most Americans realize what’s happening.”
That said, there’s still a way to stop this. Let me explain.
To expand his militarized intimidation tactic, Trump needs cooperation (or acquiescence) from states and cities
The path to militarizing law enforcement in New York or Seattle is more complicated than it is in Washington, D.C. The president has unique authority over the capital that he lacks elsewhere. Beau Tremitiere and Emily Rodriguez wrote last week:
Unlike all other state and territorial Guards, the D.C. National Guard is never under state control — it reports at all times to the president. The administration maintains that this unique status effectively exempts the D.C. National Guard from the Posse Comitatus Act. This view has never been tested in court, nor has Congress validated it. In effect, the administration is leveraging a historical relic and a legal fiction to bypass the very constitutional protections meant to prevent this kind of military interference in civilian affairs.
To keep expanding the threat of occupation to more states and cities, he needs control over state Guards and the legal cover to deploy them. Yes, some governors might jump at this. This week, the Republican governors of Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Ohio, West Virginia, and South Carolina all pledged to send troops to Washington.
But local leaders — both from states where Trump is seeking Guard troops and places he may look to send them — can and should resist. If they do, further attempted occupations are likely to fizzle. That’s what happened earlier this summer in Los Angeles, as Trump federalized the California National Guard against the vigorous opposition of Gov. Gavin Newsom. After extensive litigation and public protest, nearly all National Guard soldiers are demobilizing.
For a great template for how to push back, pay attention to what Boston Mayor Michelle Wu is doing right now. Her letter to Pam Bondi responding to threats to prosecute local leaders if the City of Boston does not actively participate in mass deportations is worth reading in full:
The Founding Fathers included these protections as a direct result of the attempted coercion of Boston by an unaccountable and distant monarch, and this city's refusal to bow down to tyranny. Two hundred and fifty years later, these hard-won freedoms are the legal backbone of our system of government. And these freedoms have nurtured the vibrant and diverse cities across every region of this country, which have fueled commerce and innovation to the benefit of all Americans.
Another good example: Read this letter from Gov. Bob Ferguson of Washington, also to Bondi.
Or take two Republican governors, Vermont’s Phil Scott and Utah’s Spencer Cox, who have both declined requests from the administration to send troops.
Bottom line: Want to help prevent an occupation of your city? Focus your energy on local leaders, especially your mayor and governor.
Five ways you can help stop a nationwide occupation
One: Start with a list of what the National Guard does in your community. Across the country, the Guard serves critical public safety missions, from disaster response to cybersecurity. But the details vary from state to state. Where I live, for example, the California Guard plays a critical role in fighting wildfires. In the southeast, they’re essential for hurricane preparedness. The Texas National Guard rescued over 500 people from the devastating floods in July.
The National Guard cannot serve any of these critical roles if they are diverted to whichever city the president seeks to intimidate next.
Two: Use that list to write or call your governor. Ask them to “protect disaster readiness by refusing to divert troops for a political agenda.” If you live in a state where the governor has sent National Guard forces to Washington, D.C., ask them why they’re putting each of those critical missions at risk for a fake emergency hundreds of miles away. (The Free DC Project has templates if you want one.) If your governor hasn’t done so, ask them to put out a statement publicly committing to protect their state’s National Guard from the White House’s political agenda. Do this regardless of your governor’s current stance — they’re the commander in chief of your state’s Guard and should stand up for it.
(If you are a veteran, you can lend your voice here.)
Three: Call or write your mayor and city council members. Ask them to put out a statement condemning the deployment of troops to Washington, D.C. and pledging to resist similar deployments in your community. Encourage them to resist cooperation with the Trump administration’s attempted military intervention through every lever they control — legal, administrative, and political. Send them Mayor Wu’s letter and encourage them to take similar stands. (Again, do this regardless of your local leaders’ current views on all this.)
Four: Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Explain the role the National Guard plays in your community and ask your local elected officials not to jeopardize that mission in service of a fake emergency. (Here are some tips for how to write a letter — and if you do get it placed, let us know in the comment section of this post!) If you can’t get it in the paper, post it on your social media and tag your state and local leaders’ accounts.
Five: Join or organize a protest in front of your city hall, your state capitol, or your governor’s office. In these small settings, even a small number of citizens speaking out can have a disproportionate impact. Show that protecting the National Guard from politicization — and by extension, protecting the critical missions they serve — matters to you and your community. Chances are, that might be enough to keep the Guard home and protect your city from occupation by the White House.
Then, once you’ve done all that, share this list with your networks. Encourage them to do the same (and to subscribe). Here’s a toolkit to make it easy:
And if they need more convincing, send them this clip from Amanda:
Supreme Court issues partial stay in NIH research grants case
Yesterday, SCOTUS stepped in on our case challenging politically-driven attacks on NIH grants funding research on disfavored topics and communities.
The legal team issued the following statement:
We are very disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling that our challenge to the sweeping termination of hundreds of critical biomedical research grants likely belongs in the Court of Federal Claims. This decision is a significant setback for public health. We are assessing our options but will work diligently to ensure that these unlawfully terminated grants continue to be restored.
However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court declined to stay the District Court’s conclusion that the NIH’s directives were unreasonable and unlawful. This means that NIH cannot terminate any research studies based on these unlawful directives.
Read more: The faces of the NIH cuts.
What else we’re tracking:
Early this morning, the FBI raided the home of Trump critic John Bolton. We’re still assessing, but this has all the hallmarks of a “five-alarm fire” for weaponized law enforcement — from the many concerning statements by FBI leadership making the political interference clear to the media “exclusive” given to a Trump-friendly newspaper.
The Washington Post reports on an ICE plan to double immigrant detention space. (This is what Ansley Skipper predicted would happen.)
The FBI Agents Association warned Congress that recent purges at the agency “purposely violated” the due process rights of agents.
Meanwhile, the agency plans to lower recruiting standards, suggesting the FBI may, in the words of a former agent, “do the bidding of the administration, no matter what it is.”
“I’ve seen what happens when a country messes with data. America, beware.” Read this by Andreas Georgiou, the former president of the Greek national statistical office who was criminally prosecuted for accurately reporting unflattering economic statistics.
This week, the president began to reveal his plan to subvert the midterm elections. Bob Bauer explains the crux: “He is preparing a partisan loyalty test for election officials around the country.”
According to a new U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy, the agency will use “social media vetting” to search “for any ‘anti-American activity’” when considering immigration applications.
See you next week.
For more on why, I recommend this by David French: Trump’s Domestic Deployments Are Dangerous. For the Military. In short: Politicized domestic deployments are terrible for cohesion and morale, push service members far beyond their training, and badly distracts from critical national security roles and missions.
Yes, it really is his whim. As this New York Times feature today makes clear, Trump has shown a willingness to use “emergencies” to justify… well, almost anything.
We need some governor or mayor who controls a state or local police force to say: this is illegal and illegitimate, I do not recognize it as law enforcement, and I can and will direct the police under my command to arrest anyone found on our streets participating in this illegal fake law enforcement operation.
Thank you for this good post.
This stuff continues to be beyond appalling.