Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
No, Trump Can't Deploy Troops to Wherever He Wants - Steve Vladeck @ NYT
NYT - Gift LinkPresident Trump’s escalating efforts to deploy armed troops onto the streets of several American cities run by Democratic officials are raising a question courts have been all but completely able to avoid since the Constitution was drafted: Can presidents unleash the armed forces on their own people based on facts that they contrive?
The text of the relevant statutes doesn’t answer that question. But our constitutional ideals, to say nothing of common sense, should — and the answer must be no.
Contrary to some Trump critics, the president’s actions in Washington and Los Angeles as well as the developing situations in Portland, Ore., and Chicago are not tantamount to imposing martial law. That’s only when the military supplants civilian government, not when it supplements it. Indeed, if there were consensus among officials and citizens that civilian authorities could not adequately enforce the laws, there would likewise be consensus that Congress has given the president the power to use federal troops — whether regular or federalized National Guard personnel.
The problem instead is that many Americans don’t believe the president’s claims. We look at pictures and videos out of Portland and we don’t see “war-ravaged” anything. We look at news reports out of Chicago and see the principal violence coming from federal officers — not being directed toward them. To put the matter directly, there’s a factual dispute about whether resorting to the military is justified. As Judge Karin Immergut (a Trump appointee) put it sharply in the Portland case, in which she ruled over the weekend that there was no legal basis for sending in troops, the president is acting in a manner that is “untethered to the facts.”
The text of the relevant statutes doesn’t answer that question. But our constitutional ideals, to say nothing of common sense, should — and the answer must be no.
Contrary to some Trump critics, the president’s actions in Washington and Los Angeles as well as the developing situations in Portland, Ore., and Chicago are not tantamount to imposing martial law. That’s only when the military supplants civilian government, not when it supplements it. Indeed, if there were consensus among officials and citizens that civilian authorities could not adequately enforce the laws, there would likewise be consensus that Congress has given the president the power to use federal troops — whether regular or federalized National Guard personnel.
The problem instead is that many Americans don’t believe the president’s claims. We look at pictures and videos out of Portland and we don’t see “war-ravaged” anything. We look at news reports out of Chicago and see the principal violence coming from federal officers — not being directed toward them. To put the matter directly, there’s a factual dispute about whether resorting to the military is justified. As Judge Karin Immergut (a Trump appointee) put it sharply in the Portland case, in which she ruled over the weekend that there was no legal basis for sending in troops, the president is acting in a manner that is “untethered to the facts.”
The federal government does and should have the authority to deploy troops into our cities—even without local consent—*when the circumstances actually warrant it.*
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2025-10-07T11:16:46.160Z
In @nytopinion.nytimes.com, me on why the real issue in Portland, Chicago, and elsewhere is the missing / contrived factual predicate: