October 29, 2025
Brad Reed
As reported by The New York Times, Trump told a group of American troops stationed in Japan on Tuesday that he could send the military into US cities under the pretense of fighting crime.
“We have cities that are troubled, we can’t have cities that are troubled,” Trump said. “And we’re sending in our National Guard, and if we need more than the National Guard, we’ll send more than the National Guard, because we’re going to have safe cities.”
Trump has deployed the National Guard to cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis, and Portland in recent months, but local and state officials have opposed the deployment in most cases and have filed legal challenges. Most recently, a federal appeals court voted on Tuesday to rehear the administration’s case pushing to send the National Guard to Portland—vacating an earlier decision that allowed Trump to federalize Oregon’s troops.
On Wednesday, Trump was asked by a New York Times reporter to specify what he meant when he said he could send “more than the National Guard” into American cities, and he replied that he could send any branch of the military he wanted without any oversight from courts or from Congress.
“If I want to enact a certain act, I’m allowed to do it,” Trump said. “I’d be allowed to do whatever I want. The courts wouldn’t get involved. Nobody would get involved. And I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines—I could send anybody I wanted.”
The president threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act earlier this month, falsely claiming the law gives him “unquestioned power.” The Insurrection Act allows presidents to deploy federal troops to enforce US laws in cases of extreme emergency, such as violent rebellions—but local officials in the cities Trump has targeted so far have categorically denied that anti-Trump protests there meet the high threshold for invoking the law.
The co-chairs of the Not Above the Law Coalition—Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen; Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Kelsey Herbert, campaign director at MoveOn; and Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at Stand Up America—condemned Trump’s threats on Tuesday as “unlawful and un-American.”
“Our military exists to defend the nation and protect our freedoms, not to be weaponized against American cities,” they said. “In his remarks today, Trump claimed that he and his administration cronies ‘can do as we want to do.’ That is as dangerous as it is unlawful and un-American.”
Trump’s use of the American military for domestic law enforcement purposes was also condemned by Ret. Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, a former top official at the National Guard.
Writing in the Home of the Brave newsletter, Manner condemned Trump’s National Guard deployments to US cities as “un-American and wrong.”
Manner noted that the National Guard has traditionally existed to augment US forces overseas during times of war, and also to serve at the request of state governors during times of emergencies. Using the National Guard to do standard police work, Manner added, is simply unprecedented.
“Our military is not trained in law enforcement,” he argued. “There are absolutely zero situations where our National Guard should be on the streets of America as a status quo measure, absent some acute short-term crisis. We would never send our sheriff’s deputies to Afghanistan for a special operation; it’s just as illogical to send highly trained combat soldiers and put them into civilian law enforcement roles.”
Trump first began musing about deploying the US military on American soil during the 2024 election campaign, when he said he could use it to take down a group of US citizens whom he described as “the enemy from within.” Trump ratcheted up his threats last month when he told a group of assembled US generals that “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”
Jake Johnson
The Oxfam International report, titled Climate Plunder: How a Powerful Few Are Locking the World Into Disaster, features updated figures showing that the consumption-based carbon emissions of the richest 0.1% of the global population grew by 92 tonnes between 1990 and 2023, while the emissions of the poorest half of humanity grew by just 0.1 tonnes.
“A person from the world’s richest 0.1% emits over 800kg of CO2 every day. Even the strongest person on earth could not lift this much,” the report notes. “In contrast, someone from the poorest 50% of the world emits an average of just 2kg of CO2 per day, which even a small child could lift.”
“A person in the top 0.1% emits more in a day than a person in the poorest 50% emits all year,” the report adds.
The destruction caused by Hurricane Melissa—the most powerful storm on Earth this year and the strongest to ever hit Jamaica—underscored the extent to which vulnerable nations are bearing the brunt of a crisis they did little to cause as wealthy countries and individuals continue to spew planet-warming emissions with abandon.
Jamaica, where the true extent of the damage from Melissa is only just beginning to emerge, is responsible for an estimated 0.02% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the latest available data.
“The climate crisis is an inequality crisis,” said Oxfam executive director Amitabh Behar. “The very richest individuals in the world are funding and profiting from climate destruction, leaving the global majority to bear the fatal consequences of their unchecked power.”
Oxfam’s report was published less than two weeks before the start of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where world leaders will gather once again to weigh climate solutions after years of failing to reach an agreement to curb fossil fuel production and use.
In its new report, Oxfam implores governments to target the emissions of the ultra-wealthy, including through “climate-specific taxes” such as “frequent flyer levies and taxes on luxury travel.”
“It is a travesty that power and wealth have been allowed to accumulate in the hands of a few, who are only using it to further entrench their influence and lock us all into a path to planetary destruction,” said Behar. “We must break the chokehold of the super-rich over climate policy by taxing their extreme wealth, banning their lobbying, and instead put those most affected by the climate crisis in the front seat of climate decision-making.”
Brad Reed
“Our military exists to defend
the nation and protect our freedoms, not to be weaponized against American
cities,” said critics.
President Donald Trump alarmed
many critics this week when he once again mused about deploying the military on
the streets of US cities.
As reported by The New York Times, Trump told a group of American troops stationed in Japan on Tuesday that he could send the military into US cities under the pretense of fighting crime.
“We have cities that are troubled, we can’t have cities that are troubled,” Trump said. “And we’re sending in our National Guard, and if we need more than the National Guard, we’ll send more than the National Guard, because we’re going to have safe cities.”
Trump has deployed the National Guard to cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis, and Portland in recent months, but local and state officials have opposed the deployment in most cases and have filed legal challenges. Most recently, a federal appeals court voted on Tuesday to rehear the administration’s case pushing to send the National Guard to Portland—vacating an earlier decision that allowed Trump to federalize Oregon’s troops.
On Wednesday, Trump was asked by a New York Times reporter to specify what he meant when he said he could send “more than the National Guard” into American cities, and he replied that he could send any branch of the military he wanted without any oversight from courts or from Congress.
“If I want to enact a certain act, I’m allowed to do it,” Trump said. “I’d be allowed to do whatever I want. The courts wouldn’t get involved. Nobody would get involved. And I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines—I could send anybody I wanted.”
The president threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act earlier this month, falsely claiming the law gives him “unquestioned power.” The Insurrection Act allows presidents to deploy federal troops to enforce US laws in cases of extreme emergency, such as violent rebellions—but local officials in the cities Trump has targeted so far have categorically denied that anti-Trump protests there meet the high threshold for invoking the law.
The co-chairs of the Not Above the Law Coalition—Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen; Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Kelsey Herbert, campaign director at MoveOn; and Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at Stand Up America—condemned Trump’s threats on Tuesday as “unlawful and un-American.”
“Our military exists to defend the nation and protect our freedoms, not to be weaponized against American cities,” they said. “In his remarks today, Trump claimed that he and his administration cronies ‘can do as we want to do.’ That is as dangerous as it is unlawful and un-American.”
Trump’s use of the American military for domestic law enforcement purposes was also condemned by Ret. Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, a former top official at the National Guard.
Writing in the Home of the Brave newsletter, Manner condemned Trump’s National Guard deployments to US cities as “un-American and wrong.”
Manner noted that the National Guard has traditionally existed to augment US forces overseas during times of war, and also to serve at the request of state governors during times of emergencies. Using the National Guard to do standard police work, Manner added, is simply unprecedented.
“Our military is not trained in law enforcement,” he argued. “There are absolutely zero situations where our National Guard should be on the streets of America as a status quo measure, absent some acute short-term crisis. We would never send our sheriff’s deputies to Afghanistan for a special operation; it’s just as illogical to send highly trained combat soldiers and put them into civilian law enforcement roles.”
Trump first began musing about deploying the US military on American soil during the 2024 election campaign, when he said he could use it to take down a group of US citizens whom he described as “the enemy from within.” Trump ratcheted up his threats last month when he told a group of assembled US generals that “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”
“The very richest individuals in the world are funding and
profiting from climate destruction, leaving the global majority to bear the
fatal consequences of their unchecked power.”
A report released Tuesday showed that the wealthiest people on the
planet are disproportionately fueling the climate emergency that is
intensifying weather catastrophes like Hurricane Melissa, which slammed Cuba on
Wednesday after leaving a trail of devastation in Jamaica.The Oxfam International report, titled Climate Plunder: How a Powerful Few Are Locking the World Into Disaster, features updated figures showing that the consumption-based carbon emissions of the richest 0.1% of the global population grew by 92 tonnes between 1990 and 2023, while the emissions of the poorest half of humanity grew by just 0.1 tonnes.
“A person from the world’s richest 0.1% emits over 800kg of CO2 every day. Even the strongest person on earth could not lift this much,” the report notes. “In contrast, someone from the poorest 50% of the world emits an average of just 2kg of CO2 per day, which even a small child could lift.”
“A person in the top 0.1% emits more in a day than a person in the poorest 50% emits all year,” the report adds.
The destruction caused by Hurricane Melissa—the most powerful storm on Earth this year and the strongest to ever hit Jamaica—underscored the extent to which vulnerable nations are bearing the brunt of a crisis they did little to cause as wealthy countries and individuals continue to spew planet-warming emissions with abandon.
Jamaica, where the true extent of the damage from Melissa is only just beginning to emerge, is responsible for an estimated 0.02% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the latest available data.
“The climate crisis is an inequality crisis,” said Oxfam executive director Amitabh Behar. “The very richest individuals in the world are funding and profiting from climate destruction, leaving the global majority to bear the fatal consequences of their unchecked power.”
Oxfam’s report was published less than two weeks before the start of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where world leaders will gather once again to weigh climate solutions after years of failing to reach an agreement to curb fossil fuel production and use.
In its new report, Oxfam implores governments to target the emissions of the ultra-wealthy, including through “climate-specific taxes” such as “frequent flyer levies and taxes on luxury travel.”
“It is a travesty that power and wealth have been allowed to accumulate in the hands of a few, who are only using it to further entrench their influence and lock us all into a path to planetary destruction,” said Behar. “We must break the chokehold of the super-rich over climate policy by taxing their extreme wealth, banning their lobbying, and instead put those most affected by the climate crisis in the front seat of climate decision-making.”
No comments:
Post a Comment