Trump Presidency Round 2

[ColoradoIrish]

It's not federalizing or militarizing the local police. It's just supplementing the manpower to reduce crime. If they nab someone, they turn them over to the local authorities. Until now, they haven't even been carrying weapons. As of today, some will, but not all will be carrying weapons and those that do will carry sidearms or rifles.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/ap-trump-expands-cities-targeted-for-possible-military-deployment-to-baltimore-in-a-spat-with-governor/

If that's not the definition of federalizing or militarizing the local police I'm not sure what is.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

It's not federalizing or militarizing the local police. It's just supplementing the manpower to reduce crime. If they nab someone, they turn them over to the local authorities. Until now, they haven't even been carrying weapons. As of today, some will, but not all will be carrying weapons and those that do will carry sidearms or rifles.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/ap-trump-expands-cities-targeted-for-possible-military-deployment-to-baltimore-in-a-spat-with-governor/

You're beyond fucking stupid.

 

[Bishop2b5]

If that's not the definition of federalizing or militarizing the local police I'm not sure what is.

What? Federalizing an agency or police force or anything else means taking them over and placing them under Federal control. Militarizing a police force would mean supplying them with military equipment and them adopting military structure and methods. Neither of those things have happened. The Feds haven't done anything to the DC Police except send them some additional bodies to help reduce crime.

 

[Bishop2b5]

You're beyond fucking stupid.

This is just absolutely brilliant! The deft use of logic and facts spins an airtight rebuttal that even Ben Shapiro couldn't effectively respond to. Just a gutting reply that seals the victory. It has everything: wit, rational thought, logic, force, deep analysis, and a brilliance and show of intelligence that Issac Newton would be envious of. I mean it. This is probably the most brilliant, savage, effective rebuttal in the history of the Internet. I know the year's not over yet, but let's be honest here. THIS is your IE post of the year!

 

[ColoradoIrish]

What? Federalizing an agency or police force or anything else means taking them over and placing them under Federal control. Militarizing a police force would mean supplying them with military equipment and them adopting military structure and methods. Neither of those things have happened. The Feds haven't done anything to the DC Police except send them some additional bodies to help reduce crime.

Military equipment | Police Funding Database | LDF | TMI

Learn more about how excess military goods are transferred to police, sheriffs and other local law enforcement agencies as federal grants-in-aid.

policefundingdatabase.org

 

[Bishop2b5]

Military equipment | Police Funding Database | LDF | TMI

Learn more about how excess military goods are transferred to police, sheriffs and other local law enforcement agencies as federal grants-in-aid.

policefundingdatabase.org

And no mention of DC's PD. Trump sending in the NG to help out is anything but Federalizing the DCPD or militarizing it. DC just had its first murder free week in ages and violent crime is down. Be happy. That's a win for everyone.

 

[NDVirginia19]

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Wasn’t this settled by the Supreme Court in the late 80’s?

 

[NDVirginia19]

Wasn’t this settled by the Supreme Court in the late 80’s?

Yep, can't imagine anybody actually gets charged with this but disappointing nonetheless. I'm pretty sure arson charges would work and would cover the burning of anything without license in a public place

 

[NDVirginia19]

This is pretty much just going to serve as bait to get a bunch of liberals on camera burning American flags in protest

 

[NDVirginia19]

 

[ColoradoIrish]

This is pretty much just going to serve as bait to get a bunch of liberals on camera burning American flags in protest

IMO
The whole implementation of any the policies comes across as a giant game of chicken and trying to force the liberals do some crazy shit. Sign an EO it doesn't carry any legal standing but will inevitably be tried in the courts and watch people get pissed off/protest and do some stupid shit to make the left look crazy. And it's working

 

[NDVirginia19]

IMO
The whole implementation of any the policies comes across as a giant game of chicken and trying to force the liberals do some crazy shit. Sign an EO it doesn't carry any legal standing but will inevitably be tried in the courts and watch people get pissed off/protest and do some stupid to make the left look crazy. And it's working

Exactly. Frustrating use of executive power for trivial bullshit like this, but alas it's where we are. For the record still in favor of like 65% of what the admin is doing, but the other 35% is frustrating.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

And no mention of DC's PD. Trump sending in the NG to help out is anything but Federalizing the DCPD or militarizing it. DC just had its first murder free week in ages and violent crime is down. Be happy. That's a win for everyone.

You're inability to do any additional research is absolutely mind boggling. I thought doctors had to be critical thinkers. I gave a link to an article about a program that been militarizing federal, state, and local police for over 30 years. Do you really believe the federal government would be able to militarize any PD quickly? We all agree the government normally operates slowly. It's been the long game when it came to militarize state and local pd.

DC is a special instance and why it's being used as trial grounds with all of this. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and everything must be registered with the MPD. Do you want to live somewhere with:

1. Universal background checks
2. Can only carry with a CCL
3. Purchasing limits for both ammunition and guns
4. Strong military presence

I'm a firm believer in it's not willing to sacrifice some freedoms for safety because historically the government can't be trusted, and it's a slippery slope with the freedoms we end up losing. It's been my stance on everything.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

Exactly. Frustrating use of executive power for trivial bullshit like this, but alas it's where we are. For the record still in favor of like 65% of what the admin is doing, but the other 35% is frustrating.

I've stated before I'm a fan of a decent amount of policies on paper, but not with how they are being implemented and I feel there's some blatant consolidation of power into the executive branch and some policy stuff that I feel is government overreach that directly effects my life. For those reasons I've been vehemently against this administration

 

[Bishop2b5]

You're inability to do any additional research is absolutely mind boggling. I thought doctors had to be critical thinkers. I gave a link to an article about a program that been militarizing federal, state, and local police for over 30 years. Do you really believe the federal government would be able to militarize any PD quickly? We all agree the government normally operates slowly. It's been the long game when it came to militarize state and local pd.

DC is a special instance and why it's being used as trial grounds with all of this. DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and everything must be registered with the MPD. Do you want to live somewhere with:

1. Universal background checks
2. Can only carry with a CCL
3. Purchasing limits for both ammunition and guns
4. Strong military presence

I'm a firm believer in it's not willing to sacrifice some freedoms for safety because historically the government can't be trusted, and it's a slippery slope with the freedoms we end up losing. It's been my stance on everything.

Give me a break. You said of the NG going in to help the local DCPD "If that's not the definition of federalizing or militarizing the local police I'm not sure what is." Well, it's not. It's not close. You posted a generic article about the military donating excess equipment to PDs around the county, which they've been doing for ages. It had nothing specifically to do with the DCPD at all. Now you're stretching and claiming it's all an attempt to slowly militarize them. Seriously, take off the tinfoil hat, deal with facts not wild supposition, and dial back the hyperbole. The NG got sent in to support and assist the local PD. That's all. It's not martial law and federalizing the PD or any of the rest of that nonsense. Dial back the hyperbole and hand wringing over everything Trump does. Enjoy the fact that this has reduced violent crime in DC in only a week or so. Enjoy the win, not the conspiracy silliness.

 

[GATTACA!]

IMO
The whole implementation of any the policies comes across as a giant game of chicken and trying to force the liberals do some crazy shit. Sign an EO it doesn't carry any legal standing but will inevitably be tried in the courts and watch people get pissed off/protest and do some stupid shit to make the left look crazy. And it's working

This is exactly what's happening with them sending federal troops all over the place. They're praying that something turns violent. Gives them a justification to abuse their powers even further.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

Give me a break. You said of the NG going in to help the local DCPD "If that's not the definition of federalizing or militarizing the local police I'm not sure what is." Well, it's not. It's not close. You posted a generic article about the military donating excess equipment to PDs around the county, which they've been doing for ages. It had nothing specifically to do with the DCPD at all. Now you're stretching and claiming it's all an attempt to slowly militarize them. Seriously, take off the tinfoil hat, deal with facts not wild supposition, and dial back the hyperbole. The NG got sent in to support and assist the local PD. That's all. It's not martial law and federalizing the PD or any of the rest of that nonsense. Dial back the hyperbole and hand wringing over everything Trump does. Enjoy the fact that this has reduced violent crime in DC in only a week or so. Enjoy the win, not the conspiracy silliness.

The reduced crime is great. I'll still be critical of the means it took accomplish it.

 

[Bishop2b5]

The reduced crime is great. I'll still be critical of the means it took accomplish it.

And that's fine. My point is don't exaggerate and overstate the means.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

And that's fine. My point is don't exaggerate and overstate the means.

I didn't

 

[NDWarrior]

What? Federalizing an agency or police force or anything else means taking them over and placing them under Federal control. Militarizing a police force would mean supplying them with military equipment and them adopting military structure and methods. Neither of those things have happened. The Feds haven't done anything to the DC Police except send them some additional bodies to help reduce crime.

Bull, I call bunk...

Bottom line: The federal takeover produced a modest drop in local crime but a dramatic spike in immigration arrests, intensifying political, legal, and public backlash in DC. (See: https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/23/politics/dc-crime-immigration-arrests-trump)

• Crime trends: In the first week of federal control (beginning Aug. 12), property crime dropped 19% and violent crime fell 17%. Robberies and car break-ins fell sharply, but burglaries rose 6% and assaults with dangerous weapons rose 14%. Two homicides occurred, consistent with recent weeks, though none since Aug. 13.
• Immigration enforcement: ICE arrests surged, with about 300 undocumented immigrants detained since Aug. 7 — more than 10 times the usual weekly rate. Agents often shadow MPD officers and conduct vehicle checkpoints, fueling concerns that immigration, not crime, is the real focus.
• Political reaction: The White House hailed the decline as a “life-changing” success, while critics, including Mayor Muriel Bowser, argued the crackdown mainly targets immigrants and homeless people. A lawsuit challenges the administration’s override of DC’s sanctuary policies.
• Public sentiment: Roughly 80% of DC residents oppose the takeover, according to a poll, though Trump and his allies dismiss those findings. Protests have broken out in some neighborhoods against ICE raids and federal presence.
• Controversy over data: Trump called the week a public safety “miracle,” citing no murders, though past weeks in 2025 also had zero homicides. Meanwhile, DOJ is investigating possible MPD data manipulation.

 

[NDWarrior]

And a little dose of reality re: what could happen (and you know damn well that Trump, Stephen Miller, and their Originalist cronies are well aware of the following facts):

- The Trump administration reportedly plans to mobilize up to 1,700 National Guard troops across 19 republican-controlled states under Title 32 Section 502F authority, in which they technically remain under state command and control, but can assist with federal missions and are paid with federal funds. The status allows them to avoid running afoul of a federal law limiting military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

- The troops will be a “force multiplier” for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and help with duties that include transportation and intelligence, but not arrests, Tom Homan tells NewsNation, although a Defense Department statement said the troops could be involved in “direct interaction with individuals in ICE custody.” All of this under Title 32.

- 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. These are obviously Red States that will work with Trump and the Fed govt as a state has right to say no to Fed under Title 32.

- Notice these states span a wide footprint from East to West in the country, and are within striking distances of Blue States and major Blue cities Trump wants to now go after for law and order and immigration crackdown reasons.

- The outline of Title 32 and its restrictions above here notwithstanding, note that A U.S. president can "federalize" (take over) State National Guard troops under the Insurrection Act of 1807 or Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code. This authority is generally limited to situations involving insurrection, rebellion against federal authority, foreign invasion, or when a state is unable or unwilling to enforce federal laws or protect the civil rights of its citizens.

How a President Can Take Over State National Guard Troops - The two primary ways a president can take over State National Guard troops are:

1. The Insurrection Act of 1807

• This law grants the president the power to deploy the military to suppress domestic violence, insurrection, or armed rebellion against the federal government.
  
  
• It also allows the president to use troops to enforce federal law when a state is unable or unwilling to do so or to protect civil rights.
  
  
• Before invoking the Act, the president must issue a proclamation ordering the people committing the unrest to disperse.

2. Title 10, U.S. Code § 12406

• This statute allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard when:
  • The United States is invaded or faces the threat of invasion.
    
    
  • There is a rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government or a danger of rebellion.
    
    
  • The president is unable to enforce U.S. laws using regular armed forces.
• When National Guard troops are federalized under Title 10, they are considered active-duty military and are no longer under the governor's control.

3. Movement Across State Lines

• Under Title 32, State National Guardsmen remain under their own governor’s control, so they generally cannot be deployed across state lines by the President
• Under Title 10 federalization, the President can move Guard units anywhere in the U.S., treating them as federal troops; however, under Title 10, they are subject to Posse Comitatus unless operating under an exception (like the Insurrection Act).
• So once troops are federalized, say under the Insurrection Act, then yes, the President can assume command of these troops and move them across state lines for domestic law enforcement, immigration enforcement, or other missions.

So, it's not hard to see how, once Trump and his "State Militia" are in place and executing regular crackdowns, they can, under a false flag event / false pretext (like midterm elections are not valid and therefore not in effect), sic these soldiers on American citizens who oppose the admin or for intimidation reasons (suppress the vote, prompt immigrants to self deport, etc.), or to crackdown on massive protests in Blue States/Cities of elections are called not valid… Can you say Fascist State?

 

[Fbolt]

Per the article stated above (first post) this is based on preliminary data. It also calls into play the lack of actual data per MPD's false information on crime stats. The 2nd article linked is an Epstein article and not related however, you note this is what may happen. In short, it's speculative.

Seems too early to tell.

Tried to look at the poll to see if there is bias. It's a Post poll that requires a sub.

 

[GATTACA!]

And a little dose of reality re: what could happen (and you know damn well that Trump, Stephen Miller, and their Originalist cronies are well aware of the following facts):

- The Trump administration reportedly plans to mobilize up to 1,700 National Guard troops across 19 republican-controlled states under Title 32 Section 502F authority, in which they technically remain under state command and control, but can assist with federal missions and are paid with federal funds. The status allows them to avoid running afoul of a federal law limiting military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

- The troops will be a “force multiplier” for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and help with duties that include transportation and intelligence, but not arrests, Tom Homan tells NewsNation, although a Defense Department statement said the troops could be involved in “direct interaction with individuals in ICE custody.” All of this under Title 32.

- 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. These are obviously Red States that will work with Trump and the Fed govt as a state has right to say no to Fed under Title 32.

- Notice these states span a wide footprint from East to West in the country, and are within striking distances of Blue States and major Blue cities Trump wants to now go after for law and order and immigration crackdown reasons.

- The outline of Title 32 and its restrictions above here notwithstanding, note that A U.S. president can "federalize" (take over) State National Guard troops under the Insurrection Act of 1807 or Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code. This authority is generally limited to situations involving insurrection, rebellion against federal authority, foreign invasion, or when a state is unable or unwilling to enforce federal laws or protect the civil rights of its citizens.

How a President Can Take Over State National Guard Troops - The two primary ways a president can take over State National Guard troops are:

1. The Insurrection Act of 1807

• This law grants the president the power to deploy the military to suppress domestic violence, insurrection, or armed rebellion against the federal government.
  
  
• It also allows the president to use troops to enforce federal law when a state is unable or unwilling to do so or to protect civil rights.
  
  
• Before invoking the Act, the president must issue a proclamation ordering the people committing the unrest to disperse.

2. Title 10, U.S. Code § 12406

• This statute allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard when:
  • The United States is invaded or faces the threat of invasion.
    
    
  • There is a rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government or a danger of rebellion.
    
    
  • The president is unable to enforce U.S. laws using regular armed forces.
• When National Guard troops are federalized under Title 10, they are considered active-duty military and are no longer under the governor's control.

3. Movement Across State Lines

• Under Title 32, State National Guardsmen remain under their own governor’s control, so they generally cannot be deployed across state lines by the President
• Under Title 10 federalization, the President can move Guard units anywhere in the U.S., treating them as federal troops; however, under Title 10, they are subject to Posse Comitatus unless operating under an exception (like the Insurrection Act).
• So once troops are federalized, say under the Insurrection Act, then yes, the President can assume command of these troops and move them across state lines for domestic law enforcement, immigration enforcement, or other missions.

So, it's not hard to see how, once Trump and his "State Militia" are in place and executing regular crackdowns, they can, under a false flag event / false pretext (like midterm elections are not valid and therefore not in effect), sic these soldiers on American citizens who oppose the admin or for intimidation reasons (suppress the vote, prompt immigrants to self deport, etc.), or to crackdown on massive protests in Blue States/Cities of elections are called not valid… Can you say Fascist State?

I can’t wait to hear Bishop’s well reasoned response to this.

 

[NDWarrior]

Per the article stated above (first post) this is based on preliminary data. It also calls into play the lack of actual data per MPD's false information on crime stats. The 2nd article linked is an Epstein article and not related however, you note this is what may happen. In short, it's speculative.

Seems too early to tell.

Tried to look at the poll to see if there is bias. It's a Post poll that requires a sub.

This is the 2nd Independent article: Trump mobilizing up to 1,700 Nationalv Guard troops in 19 states in crime crackdown

 

[NDWarrior]

Per the article stated above (first post) this is based on preliminary data. It also calls into play the lack of actual data per MPD's false information on crime stats. The 2nd article linked is an Epstein article and not related however, you note this is what may happen. In short, it's speculative.

Seems too early to tell.

Tried to look at the poll to see if there is bias. It's a Post poll that requires a sub.

You’re damn right it’s speculative BUT based 100% on what Trump and his admin’s behavior have been to date. And is also highly probable because Trump knows his chances of holding on to The House are slim to none so this is his strategy since he no way in hell can afford to lose even The House if he wants to keep his pursuit of a Fascist one-party government going. This is no time to be objective and rational because we all know Trump and this admin are 100% biased and playing dirty to destroy our democracy. Enough said.

 

[Fbolt]

I disagree but appreciate your optic however, it's skewed based on your dislike of the current admin. We shall see.

 

[NDWarrior]

I disagree but appreciate your optic however, it's skewed based on your dislike of the current admin. We shall see.

Sorry my friend, but HUGE correction to your statement... it's based on my dislike of his and the admin's ACTIONS to date and their intent, not because they're a particular party I detest.

 

[Bishop2b5]

And a little dose of reality re: what could happen (and you know damn well that Trump, Stephen Miller, and their Originalist cronies are well aware of the following facts):

- The Trump administration reportedly plans to mobilize up to 1,700 National Guard troops across 19 republican-controlled states under Title 32 Section 502F authority, in which they technically remain under state command and control, but can assist with federal missions and are paid with federal funds. The status allows them to avoid running afoul of a federal law limiting military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

- The troops will be a “force multiplier” for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and help with duties that include transportation and intelligence, but not arrests, Tom Homan tells NewsNation, although a Defense Department statement said the troops could be involved in “direct interaction with individuals in ICE custody.” All of this under Title 32.

- 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. These are obviously Red States that will work with Trump and the Fed govt as a state has right to say no to Fed under Title 32.

- Notice these states span a wide footprint from East to West in the country, and are within striking distances of Blue States and major Blue cities Trump wants to now go after for law and order and immigration crackdown reasons.

- The outline of Title 32 and its restrictions above here notwithstanding, note that A U.S. president can "federalize" (take over) State National Guard troops under the Insurrection Act of 1807 or Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code. This authority is generally limited to situations involving insurrection, rebellion against federal authority, foreign invasion, or when a state is unable or unwilling to enforce federal laws or protect the civil rights of its citizens.

How a President Can Take Over State National Guard Troops - The two primary ways a president can take over State National Guard troops are:

1. The Insurrection Act of 1807

• This law grants the president the power to deploy the military to suppress domestic violence, insurrection, or armed rebellion against the federal government.
  
  
• It also allows the president to use troops to enforce federal law when a state is unable or unwilling to do so or to protect civil rights.
  
  
• Before invoking the Act, the president must issue a proclamation ordering the people committing the unrest to disperse.

2. Title 10, U.S. Code § 12406

• This statute allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard when:
  • The United States is invaded or faces the threat of invasion.
    
    
  • There is a rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government or a danger of rebellion.
    
    
  • The president is unable to enforce U.S. laws using regular armed forces.
• When National Guard troops are federalized under Title 10, they are considered active-duty military and are no longer under the governor's control.

3. Movement Across State Lines

• Under Title 32, State National Guardsmen remain under their own governor’s control, so they generally cannot be deployed across state lines by the President
• Under Title 10 federalization, the President can move Guard units anywhere in the U.S., treating them as federal troops; however, under Title 10, they are subject to Posse Comitatus unless operating under an exception (like the Insurrection Act).
• So once troops are federalized, say under the Insurrection Act, then yes, the President can assume command of these troops and move them across state lines for domestic law enforcement, immigration enforcement, or other missions.

So, it's not hard to see how, once Trump and his "State Militia" are in place and executing regular crackdowns, they can, under a false flag event / false pretext (like midterm elections are not valid and therefore not in effect), sic these soldiers on American citizens who oppose the admin or for intimidation reasons (suppress the vote, prompt immigrants to self deport, etc.), or to crackdown on massive protests in Blue States/Cities of elections are called not valid… Can you say Fascist State?

What could happen could include anything. Your speculation is pointless. You're assuming a worst case scenario and predicting things that are nothing more than speculation. As for the rest, it looks like everything he's doing is in accordance with the law. When he starts doing any of the bad stuff you think he'll do, get back to us and we'll address that then.

 

[NDWarrior]

What could happen could include anything. Your speculation is pointless. You're assuming a worst case scenario and predicting things that are nothing more than speculation. As for the rest, it looks like everything he's doing is in accordance with the law. When he starts doing any of the bad stuff you think he'll do, get back to us and we'll address that then.

You know damn right I WILL