The public overwhelmingly expresses anger and skepticism towards the National Guard's deployment, viewing it as federal overreach and a threat to democracy and civil rights. Many are particularly concerned about the possible normalization of military presence in civilian settings, viewing it as a precursor to authoritarianism. Political figures like Trump and Miller are frequently denounced for their role in these actions, with widespread calls for accountability and a defense of state sovereignty.

Donald Trump

National Guard

Federal Government

Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

It's a very expensive publicity stunt. The National Guard are not trained to arrest or make criminal cases even if they do witness crime. Any arrests would actually let criminals OUT of jail. 

No one really feels safer. It's kind of embarrassing. I wish this kind of crap would stop.

There's a reason the US military doesn't patrol your local downtown. It's unconstitutional and illegal per  The Posse Comitatus Act and 200+ years of US tradition.

bluerog

I had them in my city (DC) for a month. I honestly don’t see much of the point, but just subjectively you do feel safer. Like you’re not worried about a homeless person or a drug addict if you’re walking through the park if there’s a couple of soldiers there. It’s generally a lot more comfortable when you have all this security, and most NG are just pretty chill people. 

It is probably mostly security theater though, like I don’t know how much of an actual difference it makes. They also have jobs they’re being distracted from, it’s not an efficient use of government but I have no other issue with it.

OkKindheartedness769

[deleted]

I live near DC and people are surprisingly happy/content with it by and large. One story that I like passing around is from a woman who found it faster to walk down to the police station to be rejected for help than to reach 911 after waking up to a homeless man jerking off outside her window.

Most of the people who aren't happy would be pro- cancer if Trump cured cancer. One example of this is someone was complaining because a soldiered waved at them and said good morning. That was making them feel oppressed.

urquhartloch

It's 100% a flex and a slam dunk on liberals i wont deny that.


But id also be leary of those expense reports also.

Like we got to pay the gaurdsmen and the depreciation of the equipment and the insurance, etc whether they are deployed or not.

Alot of those figures dont really take that into account they just base it off the cost to operate the gaurd for that period of time.

On another note Im also a little cagey about the precedent it sets and

IllustratorThin4799

This cost is negligable compared to the cost of all industry fleeing your city because of crime. Oakland is a prime example of this. Crime is so bad in Oakland when family owned and cooperate owned businesses cant operate anymore. 

Here's a recent closing of Vietnamese owned restaurant.

&gt;  Nguyen says, was a growing sense that the stretch of International Boulevard where the restaurant sits might no longer be the best fit: The canopies on their outdoor patio keep getting stolen. The sex work trade on International Boulevard has crept closer to the outside of the restaurant, making some of the young families who dine there uncomfortable. And customers are always telling Nguyen they’re in a rush because they’re worried about car break-ins.

This type of anarchy will create mass unemployment, which will increase more crime.

randomrandom1922

Federal officers work out of federal buildings in states. 

If antifa or some other flavor of leftist arsonists start fire bombing the building, you'd expect state/county/city police to go arrest the arsonist. 

I'm some states, the local government not only doesn't care, but encourages violence against federal workers and buildings. So the local police are useless. 

So we send in the national guard to guard federal agents and buildings. 

We wouldn't have to pay for federal resources to protect federal assets if local government would enforce laws, or if leftists would stop trying to set federal assets on fire.

Gregorofthehillpeopl

So we have to remember that the National Guard isnt being deployed to patrol streets. They are being deployed to protect federal buildings and federal officers conducting lawful activities. Given the myriad protests that we have seen over the past couple of weeks where protesters will try and disrupt operations, block entrances to facilities, prevent vehicles from entering and leaving the facility, etc, I think it makes sense to do it.

whoami9427

Here's an idea...maybe people in blue cities should start demanding better law enforcement from their political leaders.

worldisbraindead

People want to feel safe in their community. If local politicians and LEO can't or won't keep them safe then Nation Guard deployments are indicated. If the local politicians don't want Federal LE they should clean up their cities. People now feel safe again in Washington DC. The people in Portland want to feel safe. If I lived in Portland I would welcome NG Troops. That is why we have them.

StedeBonnet1

I’m fine with it, if it is expensive I’d be fine with us cutting other things with the budget to pay for it. Though I’m not sure what that actually means. Is it new cost or existing cost.

Portland totally makes sense, all those nut job black bloc types.

Also I’ve noticed a trend, trump threatens guard, democrats in the area beef up policing, works for me.

BAUWS45

Odds are 70/30 that SCOTUS allows Trump to go ahead when they take the case.

Authorized under 10 USC 12406, the POTUS can order troops even against the objections of the Governor of the state. But there are conditions. The government is citing the 2nd and 3rd clauses: "threat of rebellion" and  inability "to execute the laws of the US" with "regular forces." Judge Immergut granted the temporary restraining order because there were absolutely no merits for the claim. 

SCOTUS has a tendency to just  deferring to the judgment of the  executive. And most conservative judges believe in unitary executive theory.  It's the job of US Congress to second guess the executive.  Courts second guessing the executive and assessing the situation on ground would become problematic very fast because they would take de facto executive power. 
 
TL;DR Courts don't rescue the US from Trump; It's the job of Congress.

LtCmdrData

No, the point of having a National Guard is to protect the nation domestically (for the most part). If the President of the United States calls up the National Guard, then the troops are then under federal control and there is nothing a State Governor can do to stop it.

techtony_50

Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to integrate the university of Alabama, I believe.  George Wallace stood to the door and the general in charge of the Alabama National Guard ordered him to stand aside.  In a state role that general worked for Wallace.  But in his federal capacity as a federalized national guard, major general, he followed orders for the president of the United States

IllustriousHair1927

Absolutely not. Even if the governor doesn’t sign off on it, the president can federalize the national guard

Quirky_Ad1604

How does it work?

It's sonple, title 10 gives the commander in chief the power to assume control of the guard. once federalized, the governors' control is suspended because they are no longer a state force but an active component of the federal military, and therefore, the governor is not in any link of their chain of command.

Further, all national guardsmen who are activated under title 10 are subject to the exact same laws, rules, and regulations as regular active duty military components and are expected to act  accordingly.

And given the constitutional supremacy clause stemming from article IV says federal law is superior to state law, there is no state remedy to the presidents title X authority to federalize the state guard.

passionatebreeder

Nope, to the best of my knowledge, once they are federalized they are under the command of POTUS.

BrianRFSU

The National Guard was how informal militias were legalized and restructured in the early 20th century. The idea was that militias would no longer be vigilantes or private armies for a politician, but well-regulated. Vestiges of that can be seen in since-superseded legal definitions, which clearly identified the National Guard as the “well regulated militia” famous in the 2nd Amendment (but things have changed in the intervening century).

There were a *lot* of full scale battles and even small scale wars fought between militias all over the United States. It was a serious problem. After nationalization, they were mostly just used to break up striking workers — often as violently as possible, and also sometimes culminating in battles (which were usually just massacres).

In localized emergencies they can be activated by a state’s governor to mainstream the peace or help with disaster relief. Things like disaster relief, emergency food distribution, and fighting wildfires are handled by the military in much of the world. 

In national emergencies, the President can activate and “nationalize” them (the word national is right in the name, after all). In practice, that almost always means there’s not enough regular or reserve troops to fight in overseas wars. The slogan for the Guard in the late 1990s might as well have been “I have to go back to dig up land mines in Serbia AGAIN? I just joined up for the college money.” And the War on Terror led to a lot of used car salesmen unexpectedly learning Arabic and/or Pashto and mumbling “I didn’t sign up for this. They said one weekend a month!”

After full scale war, they’re frequently deployed as riot police. No one’s really quite sure what they’re doing in LA right now since there aren’t any riots — just a few dozen protestors blocking secret police rounding up whole neighborhoods — but we’ve all at least seen the footage of Guardsmen lining up to protect Beverly Hills in 92, or shooting some unarmed hippy kids in 72.

Really they seem to get called out, either by a governor or a president, whenever lots of Americans get angry at the same time. Unless the Americans in question want to storm the Capitol building and lynch our elected leaders. For some reason that gets a pass, but an unarmed, nonviolent labor leader stands in front of an unmarked car that’s filled with armed dudes in street clothes, seemingly kidnapping people off the street? He gets beaten by six people in riot gear (after he’s already on the ground) and gets to spend a couple of days in the hospital before being transferred to a privately owned prison acting as a subcontractor to the US government.

And occasionally a President with *courage* nationalized them to enforce desegregation. Kennedy and Eisenhower had to send in the National Guard and even the regular Army to protect Black children who wanted to go to school. So it’s not always bad.

It’s legal and it’s how things work. That doesn’t mean it *should* be legal or that’s how things *should* work, but we — as a nation and as a people — seem to be happy settling for things the way they are instead of agitating to make things the way they *should* be.

Wide__Stance

People forget their High School History lessons about the Little Rock 9. The Arkansas National Guard was federalized by Ike against the will of their governor to enforce desegegation. 

Some states do have their own state defense forces that can not be nationalized by the president. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

WishieWashie12



Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. 12406 as part of this deployment/takeover/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. That law has been in place for quite a while (*1990s, with an update in the 2000's*).

The amendment of that part of USC was opposed by governors at the time: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/08/06/governors-wary-of-change-on-troops-span-classbankheadhouse-bill-would-increase-presidents-authority-over-national-guard-unitsspan/1b432f2c-35fe-4299-a8f0-8a10fddb862e/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/08/06/governors-wary-of-change-on-troops-span-classbankheadhouse-bill-would-increase-presidents-authority-over-national-guard-unitsspan/1b432f2c-35fe-4299-a8f0-8a10fddb862e/)

However, it happened nevertheless. A few states have State Defense Forces, which are more-firmly under the Governor's control - but these militia can't really coordinate with or be funded by DOD in the same way that the NG can, so states were incentivized to fund the NG instead of separate SDFs. I ponder whether we'll see a reversal of that practice.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State\_defense\_force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force)

Hopeful_Ad_7719

Maybe if ICE didn't wear face masks and dress like airborne commandos, they'd get along better. Whoever trains them needs to be fired.

The big issue will be when the local jails refuse to house anyone arrested.

N-Y-R-D

First get elected, declare an emergency enact the enabling act. Oops that was 1933

Desperate_Donut3981

The “National” in National Guard should answer your question. Just because they’re in California doesn’t change that they still serve the Federal Gov’t.

rcbz1994

What trump is doing now is only legal under the insurrection act. Although they do have a loophole of putting guard units on federally funder title 32(state) orders, those a governor can refuse. Right now he is just straight federalizing them(title 10 orders).

wesre3_

Go ahead and look at what happened during the Civil War the last time a state told the federal government they did not have to listen to them.

SomeWeedSmoker

NG don't forget your UCMJs which 

Military personnel are required to obey **lawful orders** from the President, but **they may have a duty to disobey if the order is illegal or unconstitutional.** Disobeying a **lawful order** can lead to serious consequences under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The National Guard is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) only when it is activated in a **federal** capacity or during specific training periods. Otherwise, members typically follow their respective state codes of military justice.

Activating the Insurrection Act is a **federal** act that allows the President of the United States to deploy military forces domestically under specific circumstances, such as insurrections or civil disorder. This law provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement.

People have the right to protest in the United States, protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of assembly and speech.

The use of force must comply with the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable seizures.

amiibohunter2015

That's a dumb move on Trump's part, but par for the course.  Once National Guard troops are federalized (i.e., called up by the federal government rather than the state) they lose their police powers since it is unconstitutional for federal troops to be used to arrest or detain US citizens, unless they are on a military base. If they are, they are in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act unless Trump attempts to use the Insurrection Act. 

The governor will lose control of those troops for the duration of their call up.

That is why there were two commanding generals in charge of Hurricane Katrina relief.  Bush *knew* that if he federalized the National Guard, they couldn't help the NOLA police department with law enforcement.  That's why there were two different generals in charge of relief operations at the same time in New Orleans.  One was for the federal troops; the other was for the National Guard.

If anyone is detained by these federalized National Guardsmen they can just walk away, the guardsmen can't legally do anything to stop them. Most NG know that they lose their police powers when that happens, they just hope the average civilian doesn't. They can only hope that you'll willingly stay where they put you and wait for the police to show up to arrest you.

Come to think of it, the way that Trump probably wants them to be used is actually unconstitutional and illegal so they may not be able to do what he wants them to which is assist ICE with arrests and assist police with riot control.  They can't if they're federalized it would be the equivalent of sending the US Army after US citizens on US soil.

The only federal military force excluded from the Posse Comitatus Act is the US Coast Guard because their main mandate is law enforcement.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse\_Comitatus\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)

naranghim

if the nat guard is ordered to fire on civillians i wonder if they will actually do it.  I can also forsee a lot of them saying fuck it and joining the protestors.

rdking647

Can national guard troops refuse an order? Can their superiors say we aren't doing that?

Riot control and riot operations have been part of many NG units' training. Do not conflate riot control with LE activities. You can form lines, control riot movement, etc without arresting anyone, using other than lethal munitions, gas, or other activities used solely by law enforcement.

The_Rage_of_Nerds

The Armed Forces of the United States swears allegiance to the Constitution, not some capricious politician. They have no obligation to be loyal to a political party.

Whatever powers you allow the government to apply to others, it will one day apply  to you. So don't grant them freely, or under the facade of " national emergency".

I mean from that article its pretty clear Newsom is only speaking out, not trying to physically stop it. If he tried to subvert it, or succeeded in having the national guard defy presidential orders, like it or not I'm pretty sure that could be considered treason. Pretty sure the first season of Designated Survivor had a situation like this end up like that, though I'm not sure how accurate that is

MobsterDragon275

Yes and no. Technically yes, but the whole point of a federal national guard is give the president powers to intervene in the states when necessary. The president can force the matter in an emergency and I can't imagine a situation where the president would order federal troops into a state against the wishes of the governor and would just stop when he says no

Potential-Ganache819

You guys need to look up executive order 10730 and you will have your answer.

RealBlueShirt123

There is a lot of information going on here... and some of it is.. wrong. Many of these answers are politically motivated, and not really unbiased. Here is the absolute fact. 

Trump federalizing the national guard means the governor can do nothing about it. However; they can only act in a support role, under title 10 they can protect Federal employees, property, etc. They are federally called, so they can not, at all, have any normal police powers. 

A lot of the people here are saying trump is doing it and doesn't care, as if he's going to LA and demanding non police arrest people, he's not. No one will be arrested by the NG, and the gaslighting will likely stop once it's made clear that's not happening. 

  
To the core of your questions, this is beneficial for a few reasons. The national guard can, and will deter the ongoing threats of violence. They can also help local law enforcement ( LAPD ), which is what they role will be used for. LAPD Will be happy they are there, regardless who's control they are under, and this will all blow over.

yillbow

The only way would be if the state left the nation. So no not really

Moist-Carpet888

Can you imagine being in the National Guard and having THAT as a commander in chief?  Kent State, here we come. You watch.

lol fighting the federal government never ends well

Acceptable_Table760

It's called a National Guard, for a reason. It's not a State-if-you-let us Guard.

jesonnier1

But, unless the federal government actually pulls the “Insurrection Act” card, wouldn’t this be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

angelino1895

Nope. Liberal governors and mayors won't stop violence and destruction so it falls on the federal government. Enjoying the shitshow.

Slapdaddy

WTF_USA_47

&gt; The deployments will take place across the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, per Fox.

Fit_Trifle2469

Because you begin with the areas that are least likely to resist and build momentum.

eddnedd

The states cover a lot of the access points to the east/west interstates

modernsparkle

No one is safe in a police state. Why don't people understand this? Blue, Red, it doesn't matter. The Guard has become his pawns.

The breaking point is coming.

Nervous-Coffee-1117

Pretty sure the founding fathers wrote down an amendment that was about how to keep our freedoms in situations like this.

Miss-Information_

He's going to take over the states that are easy first, then he'll move on to the tougher states where more force is necessary... expect things to get incredibly violent once the takeover reaches more blue states and resistance grows.

Annihilator4413

I bet people are going to “whew at least it’s not my state and city” and they will ignore everything until it’s their city. This is civil war man 

AppalachanKommie

Dictatorships *always* turn the military *inwards* towards the people.

How to tell if you are living in a democracy:  The military surrounds the country with it's back to the people, protecting them from foreign threats.

How to tell if you are in a dictatorship:  The military faces the people, threatening them directly.

MelaKnight_Man

You can deploy the babysitters to 19 states but doesn't change that **Trump fucked children**. 


I feel bad for our military members, have to bend the knee for a literal pedophile. Junkies in prison wouldn't be caught dead in that position.

Lost_Installation

If you haven’t already done so, Monday is a great time to:

Register to vote, get your Real ID and/or apply for passport, get your birth certificate, make sure your tags and car insurance are up to date.

fruderduck

New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho box in California, OR and WA

TheGOODSh-tCo

Giving up all our rights to own the libs 🤡

NewFraige

Here is my guess: these are the states that were ok with him doing this, and he is doing it to set a precedent for when he goes into blue states, kind of a "look, we aren't targeting blue states we started in red states first and they were happy to have us" type of deal.

obsequious_fink

I bet the "DoN't TrEaD oN mE" flag-waving folks will be counter-protesters somewhere soon..

Ekskwizit

&gt;Why is he deploying the guard to red states?

Because, interestingly enough, some of the cities with the highest/worst crime are in red states. It'll be interesting to see if people in those states have the same enthusiasm, for masked soldiers and tanks being deployed on their streets, as they did when it was happening in Los Angles and Washington D.C.

Edit: spelling.

coldadaptation

Why? Because they’ll face the least resistance there and it’ll be easier to normalize this shit. People will get used to seeing it, and there won’t be much drama surrounding in red states. Then, when it’s time to send them into his real target areas people will think “I don’t need to do anything about this because they didn’t even do anything in the states they’ve already been in”. It’s a tactic to create less resistance.

SoooStoooopid

He wants us to get used to the military on the street so they can go after us if we dare protest against dear leader.

Chumptopia

Deploying _from_ these Republican controlled states.  Not necessarily to them.  They have Republican governors that will likely agree to give the President control of their National Guardsmen.  Because Republican governors are fine attacking blue states, I guess.

The “Balkanization” of the United States.

powersurge

I created this revolution warning-sign model a couple of weeks ago.

If the United States is now entering Stage 6 in our revolution warning-sign model, then historically the “Trigger Event” (Stage 7) that follows is usually:

•	A highly symbolic, emotionally charged incident that crystallizes public anger

•	Broadcast instantly across media, eroding fear of the state

•	Uniting multiple factions that normally distrust each other against a perceived common threat

Here are the types of trigger events history suggests could occur next:

⸻

1.	⁠State Violence Against Civilians:


.
Pattern: A single, shocking act of force—especially if caught on video—against unarmed citizens during protests or daily life.

Why It Matters: It destroys the illusion of restraint and convinces moderates the state is illegitimate.

Examples:

•	Boston Massacre (1770) 

•	Bloody Sunday in Russia (1905) 

•	Tunisian police assault on Mohamed Bouazizi before Arab Spring

⸻

2. Elite-Level Arrest or Assassination


Pattern: Jailing or killing of a popular political or cultural figure in a way seen as politically motivated.

Why It Matters: It signals the regime will not tolerate dissent even from insiders, making fence-sitters choose sides.

Examples:

•	Arrest of Solidarity leaders in Poland (1981) 

•	Assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan (2007)

⸻

3. Defection of a Major Security Force

Pattern: A police or military unit refuses orders or sides with demonstrators in real time.

Why It Matters: It breaks the perception of state monopoly on force.

Examples:

•	Petrograd garrison joining Russian strikers (1917) 

•	East German border guards allowing people to cross before the Berlin Wall fell (1989)

⸻

4. Mass Infrastructure Collapse

Pattern: A large-scale blackout, banking freeze, food distribution failure, or cyberattack that exposes state incapacity.

Why It Matters: It transforms frustration into survival panic and accelerates mobilization.

Examples:

•	Grain shortages before French Revolution 

•	Fuel crisis in Romania before 1989 uprising

⸻

5. Judicial or Legislative Coup

Pattern: A sudden legal or procedural maneuver that voids an election result, dissolves a legislature, or strips away major civil rights.

Why It Matters: Seen as ending any path for peaceful change, it forces dissenters into direct action.

Examples:

•	King Charles I dissolving Parliament (1642, English Civil War) 

•	Military junta annulling Algeria’s 1991 election

⸻

In the current U.S. climate

The most likely modern triggers would probably be:

.

1. Violent suppression of a large, peaceful protest in a politically symbolic city

2. An arrest of a prominent political figure in a way widely seen as illegitimate

3. Security force mutiny—for example, National Guard units refusing to enforce martial law

4. Sudden federal override of an election result or suspension of a constitutional process

￼​

JuicyNerdAlert

This is intended to overstress the NG and wreck morale, so that the apolitical professional soldiers will not re-enlist, leaving a force composed mostly of MAGA believers who will be happy to kill protesters.

Seattle_gldr_rdr

This is a step before civil war, getting us closer to the “trigger event.” The feds aren’t ready, which is why they haven’t added California or New York yet. This move is to gain more support, more troops, and more civilians who will blindly follow or be forced to follow. 

The precedent is set by ICE: if you do not comply, we will force you.

Conveniently, they are mostly important voting districts that could decide the midterms. Read into that as you will.

Puzzleheaded-Ad7606

You know why. It's the start of the military takeover; maybe the friendly states go easier so take them first to get the numbers and show power.  While targeting some blue cities to show he can and will prosecute his political enemies, but no sense fully battling two sides when you can get one to surrender and thank you for it

TheAlphaKiller17

 I’ve been saying over and over again stop saying “red states”. it does reflect the political majority in many places. Blue cities and metro areas exist in most if not ALL states “blue” or “red”. Blue is in fact the majority that they are making every move to suppress fully (see tx).

austin06

Yeah 4/19 are blue and purple states.  There are some really weird choices, like why Wyoming?  I lived there and yeah there are Mexicans but most of the state is white ranchers, oil workers, and miners who would die for Trump.

General_Nose_691

what a joke. what a waste of ALL OUR GODDAMN MONEY

mr_greedee

Suntree

It's not just a deployment of the national guard. WPO reports a Pentagon proposal would create a **“Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force”**—two units of about 300 National Guard soldiers each (totaling around 600)—stationed in Alabama and Arizona for rapid deployment nationwide, pending legal clearance.

Additionally, the existing deployment in DC will begin carrying guns. (The Guardian, AP News)

Vocal_Ham

The Guardsmen assisting ICE will be carrying out tasks that may include “personal data collection, fingerprinting, DNA swabbing and photographing"

emperor_dinglenads

Republicans would be losing their fucking minds if Obama or Biden did this to their cities. The hypocrisy is absolutely ridiculous 
.

rigatony96

In Tennessee and glad I can currently easily purchase guns. I think the tipping point will be when national guard either fire on civilians or start dragging people from their homes.

Until then, arm yourself and familiarize yourself with asymmetrical warfare. Learn how to operate in cells, learn opsec for all of your important communications. I genuinely hope it doesn’t come to something like this but it never hurts to be prepared. Right wing nuts like to brag about having the military on their side but every veteran I’ve met (and I come from a family of veterans that have been in every war since WW2) is completely against things like this. Anyone that’s actually seen battle is against it happening here in my personal experience

JayTheDirty

1700 soldiers split across 19 states. That's about 89 soldiers per state. That's literally a backyard barbecue's equivalent of soldiers being sent to these states.

They'll occupy a block, arrest a couple of "illegal looking" people, call it a day, and pull out... maybe.

Stay prepared.

Malcolm_Morin

sjb2971

Same reason he raided Bolton before he raids Clinton

Velo214

Every member of the NG guard who obeys this unconstitutional order is complicit. Every Trump supporter is the same as a brown shirt Nazi.. Every member of our govt who assists in his illegal use of power should be charged criminally.

and everyone who calls themselves a patriot and defends his actions you are a bootlicker and all those who don't say anything are enablers..

Hitler didn't rise to power on his own, he had enablers at every level of govt &amp; society. They were all just as guilty as Hitler was.

crockett05

They are preparing for 2026 elections. Choosing red states first to gain support for this authoritarian regime .

daschyforever

https://preview.redd.it/gu9lhanf1wkf1.jpeg?width=1170&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=2435d1a5f8a720b3e99338a01ff53273f35a84c1

leighla33

For when the riots start after he cancels mail in voting and elections altogether

ParaHeadFun_SF

It's a classic strategy to start where you'll face the least resistance to normalize the action. Once that's established, the escalation to more resistant areas seems like a logical next step to them, not a drastic leap. This isn't a red vs. blue issue; it's about testing the limits of power against everyone. The real danger is how easily we're being divided while the groundwork is being laid.

Upstairs_Two_180

Why are any of you surprised? You saw what he did and is doing to California. That made sense to you because so many people, including the President, hate California. But now we're all shocked he's doing it to red states? Why did you think it would end in California? He's deploying them in the places least likely to resist, and in California, because his base loves it when he attacks California. The dude's a fascist. I had hope that when he started pulling this shit in the red states they'd resist. But I fear they may just roll over for it. Guess we'll see.

VonBrewskie

“Why is he deploying the guard to red states?? I expected him to take the sanctuary cities in blue states first. Holy fuck.”

I’m not sure if anyone has actually answered your question, but the reason is because the governors of those states are willing to participate. Federalizing the national guard requires the consent of the governor which governors in blue states are not about to give.

nottheguy910

Red state or not, a lot of cities are quite left-leaning.

sravll

He's activating them in red states to send them to blue states.

StupendousMalice

Blue cities in red states will feel this first. Hard to resist when your neighbors support the regime &amp; your safety is compromised by speaking out. It’s hard to find enough allies when “the majority” of your state is in favor of the regime.

QuirkyBreath1755

Deploying in red states minimizes pushback from state government AND local populace. This is partially intended to normalize for wider distribution later.

MyGoldfishGotLoose

It says 1700

Across 19 states.

Meaning less than 100 per state.   

Won't they be spread pretty thin?

erbush1988

CBLA1785

1-5 months from Guard to AD? Good fucking luck. Hope you’ve got a rockstar chain and a real good justification.

Sgt_Loco

A federal judge has blocked the deployment of National Guard troops from Texas and California to Portland amid protests over immigration enforcement.

National Guard Deployments and State Sovereignty Issues

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want