It Turns Out, Americans Don't Want a Police State

Voters, Courts, and GOP Governors slam Trump’s militarization of cities

Donald Trump and his chief attack dog Stephen Miller have bitten off more than they can chew. Their invasion of American cities is based on obvious lies (e.g., “war ravaged Portland”), has antagonized voters, outraged judges, and triggered public opposition from two Republican governors—a rare act of defiance that may trigger more defections.

The public

A strong majority of Americans do not approve of deploying military troops at home. “Some 58% of Americans—including seven in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans—think the president should send armed troops only to face external threats,” according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Trump’s overall approval has dropped to 40%. Only 37% say the national guard should be deployed despite the governor’s objection.

Disapproval of his military deployment domestically has substantial increased from an NPR/Ipsos poll last month that found a significant plurality (47-37) opposed deploying guardsmen to cities, and a majority opposed deploying them to their own city (52-34).

Moreover, the deployments may be feeding the perception that Trump is abusing his power. The Pew Research Institute last week reported, “Overall, 49% of U.S. adults say Trump is trying to exercise more presidential power than previous presidents and that this is bad for the country.” Only 21% say he merely is exercising as much power as his predecessors.

Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash

The courts

While the public fumes, Trump’s losing streak in court continued last week in Chicago with a trifecta of humiliating losses.

First, a federal judge enjoined deployment of National Guard troops in a blistering opinion. U.S. District Court Judge April M. Perry wrote, “While the Court does not doubt that there have been acts of vandalism, civil disobedience, and even assaults on federal agents, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants’ declarations are reliable.” In other words, she thinks the government is lying.

Judge Perry extensively quoted Trump’s vindictive, hysterical rhetoric about crime, and then thoroughly rejected the notion that courts should defer to him:

Defendants are not entitled to “deference” on the issue of what constitutes a rebellion for the purposes of the Act, nor what it means to be “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.” Those are matters of statutory interpretation, a function committed to the courts. … Defendants must support their position by pointing the Court to some of the facts upon which it bases its conclusions and by offering explanations which paint a substantially reasonable picture justifying the Executive’s position.

She therefore concluded that “there has been no showing that the civil power has failed.” She continued: “The agitators who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested. The courts are open, and the marshals are ready to see that any sentences of imprisonment are carried out. Resort to the military to execute the laws is not called for.”

Instead, Perry found that Trump is making matters worse:

[T]he Court finds that deployment of National Guard members is likely to lead to civil unrest, requiring deployment of state and local resources to maintain order. There has been overwhelming evidence presented that the provocative nature of ICE’s enforcement activity has caused a significant increase in protest activity, requiring the Broadview Police, ISP, and other state and local law enforcement agencies to respond.

In a second case, U.S. District Court Judge Sara L. Ellis cracked down on the Trump’s regime’s First Amendment violations. Her TRO “blocks Trump administration authorities from requiring journalists to leave public spaces and using riot control weapons on the press, protesters or clergy ‘who are not posing an immediate threat to the safety of a law enforcement officer or others.’” In particular, federal forces must stop “[d]ispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a journalist,” absent probably cause a crime was committed. The order also prohibits use of a long list of riot control weapons “on members of the press, protesters, or religious practitioners” who pose no immediate threat.

And in a third loss for the authoritarian bullies, District Court Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings in Chicago held that a previous consent decree barring ICE use of warrantless (or blank warrants) remains in effect throughout Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky and Kansas. That should short-circuit ICE’s abusive practices in those states.

The New York Times explained that the decision “sharply limits ICE’S authority to make ‘collateral arrests’ of unknown individuals who officers encounter in the field, unless the agents have probable cause to believe those people are likely to escape before a warrant can be issued.” That should halt racial profiling of the kind the Supreme Court recently condoned in California.

In sum, three separate federal court judges intervened in Chicago to block unconstitutional, abusive, and violent practices Trump has used to intimidate Americans. Not one judge bought the government lawyers’ misrepresentations and specious arguments for Trump’s unlimited power.

The GOP governors

In addition to public opposition and courts’ stinging rebukes, Republican governors have begun to slam Trump publicly, a rare sign of dissention within the GOP. “Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, the chair of the National Governors Association, said Thursday that he opposes sending National Guard troops across state borders without the permission of the state receiving them,” the Associated Press reported. Stitt declared, “Oklahomans would lose their mind if Pritzker in Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration.” This follows threats from Pritzker and California Gov. Gavin Newsom to leave the NGA if it did not oppose Trump’s use of guardsmen to invade other states. Considering Trump won Oklahoma in 2024 with 66 percent of the vote, the White House (and other GOP governors) should worry about the extent to which he is fracturing the party.

Meanwhile, in a blue state, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott chimed in: “From what I’m seeing, I just think it’s unnecessary. It further divides and threatens people.” He added, “We need stability right now in this country — we don’t need more unrest.” Twisting the knife, he added: “I don’t think our guards should be used against our own people. I don’t think the military should be used against our own people. In fact, it’s unconstitutional… [u]nless, of course, there’s an insurrection, much like we saw Jan. 6 a few years ago.”

Bottom line

We should be encouraged that the public, courts, and even some Republican governors have begun to reject Trump’s authoritarian push to militarize our streets. (Interestingly, this may be part of lower court judges’ brewing revolt against “the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders” that have empowered Trump.)

MAGA cultist may buy the canard Trump is battling the “enemy from within,” but voters, courts, and governors are effectively confirming that Trump is the menace. Republicans would be smart to flee the losing side of an unsustainable position that has unified opposition to MAGA’s despotism.