Trump Is Right to Seek Control of the National Guard in Illinois

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 10 days ago

   The unrest outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview, Illinois, has become a microcosm of America’s struggle to balance protest rights with public order. Daytime demonstrations there have been largely peaceful, but local officials and police confirm that tensions regularly escalate after dark. Arrests, defiance of curfews, and clashes with law enforcement have raised legitimate concerns about safety.
   
   President Trump’s decision to seek authority to deploy the National Guard is not a rash move, it’s a constitutional one. When local governments fail to maintain order or protect federal property, the president has both the right and the responsibility to act.
   
   Reports from FOX 32 Chicago and CBS News Chicago show that police have detained protesters who refused to disperse and that officials have repeatedly warned about nighttime disorder. Broadview’s mayor, Katrina Thompson, even restricted protest zones after “past demonstrations turned raucous.” These are not exaggerations; they are acknowledgments from those directly responsible for keeping the peace. Yet despite these challenges, state leaders have rejected offers of federal help.
   
   The critics’ argument — that Trump’s action represents an overreach,  rings hollow. American presidents from Eisenhower to George H. W. Bush have called on the National Guard when states could not maintain control. The principle is simple: federal law and federal property require federal protection. Trump’s move is not an attempt to silence dissent but an effort to ensure that peaceful protest doesn’t descend into lawlessness.
   
   The Legal and Political Landscape
   
   The legal case before the Supreme Court, Trump v. Illinois, centers on whether the president may federalize state guard units to defend federal assets and enforce the law. The answer, based on both precedent and the Constitution, appears to be yes. The commander in chief has long been empowered to “call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union.” Historically, the Court has upheld wide presidential latitude in such matters,  particularly where federal interests are at stake.
   
   Politically, Trump’s instincts align with public sentiment. After years of seeing unrest play out in cities across the country, many Americans, regardless of party, want a return to order. They see a president willing to act, not posture, when local systems falter. If the Court affirms his authority, it would not be an expansion of power but a restoration of responsibility.
   
   This moment is a test not only for the Supreme Court but for the country’s understanding of leadership. Protecting constitutional rights requires maintaining peace on the streets where those rights are exercised. President Trump’s insistence on doing both is not heavy-handed; it’s necessary.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      wildernessposted 10 days agoin reply to this

      While Trump has lost the first skirmish in several of these small wars in various cities, is there a single one that he has not won on appeal (where it has been long enough to appeal)?  Once you get above the partisanship of local judges making law according to their own desires and beliefs, he seems to have won every battle.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

         Dan,  I’ve been following the court battles over Trump’s right to send National Guard troops into cities where ICE and federal agents are being attacked or obstructed, and from what I can tell, he’s doing quite well overall, especially once the cases get above the level of partisan local judges. Yes, he’s faced setbacks in places like Chicago and Los Angeles, where lower courts claimed the deployments violated the Posse Comitatus Act or that protests didn’t qualify as a “rebellion.” But those rulings haven’t stood unchallenged. In Oregon, for example, a federal appeals court recently sided with the administration and paused a lower court’s order blocking deployments, recognizing that the president likely does have lawful authority to federalize the Guard under certain conditions.
         
         Now the bigger picture is shifting toward the Supreme Court, which has taken up Trump v. Illinois, the case tied to Chicago. That’s where the real test lies. If the Court upholds his position, it could affirm the president’s constitutional power to act when local leaders fail to protect federal officers or enforce immigration laws. So, while the media likes to paint these as losses, once you look at the appellate outcomes and the direction the Supreme Court seems to be heading, it appears Trump has been winning the longer legal war, even if he’s lost a few early battles.
         
         Actually, facts show, and are often overlooked by the media, his administration has chalked up a strong string of victories on the Supreme Court’s emergency (“shadow docket”) applications. For example, one report says the Court has ruled in his favour in 21 of 25 such appeals since January 2025.  Politico

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

            Not sure why the right wingers  keep ignoring the actions of ice.... It's really almost as if they  doesn't give a shit as long as Mango Mussolini scores a "win"
            
            His actions have nothing to do with crime and are everything to do with pure hatred and retribution from a petty pathetic man

            replyreport
            1. 80

               wildernessposted 8 days agoin reply to this

               Of course it has nothing to do with crime; that illegal aliens reside daily in our country, violating the law every day in a myriad of ways, means there is no crime committed, right?
               
               It is great double-speak from the left that has only terminology, insinuation and lies to "support" their position.

               replyreport