U.S. President Donald Trump gestures while speaking during a news conference to discuss crime in Washington, D.C. on August 11, 2025. (Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
“The administration’s actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful,” declared Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday moved to deploy the National Guard on the streets of Washington, D.C., while also officially taking over the city’s police department.
What’s more, Trump suggested that this could be a model for other American cities.
As reported by NBC News, Trump said during his announcement on plans to deploy the National Guard in the nation’s capital that “other cities are hopefully watching this” and that he hoped it would make them “self-clean up, and maybe they’ll self-do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem.”
Trump then named Baltimore, Oakland, New York, and Chicago as potential future targets for National Guard deployments and other measures.
Shortly after Trump made his announcement, Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb indicated that he was not taking the president’s attempt to take over his city’s police force lying down.
“The administration’s actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful,” he declared in a post on X. “There is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia. Violent crime in D.C. reached historic 30-year lows last year, and is down another 26% so far this year. We are considering all of our options and will do what is necessary to protect the rights and safety of District residents.”
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) was also quick to condemn the president’s takeover of D.C. law enforcement as an unnecessary power grab.
“The president’s attempt to federalize the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and deploy the National Guard on the streets of our nation’s capital is an abuse of power,” she said. “It’s an egotistical, pathetic attempt to stoke fear and distract from his failures: America is less affordable, healthy, and safe under this administration.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who last year served as the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential nominee, chided critics who had accused him in the past of exaggerating the authoritarian threat of a second Trump term.
“The road to authoritarianism is littered with people telling you you’re overreacting,” he wrote on X.
The NAACP, meanwhile, compared Trump’s enthusiasm for deploying the National Guard in Washington, D.C. to purportedly battle crime with the lackadaisical attitude he took toward deploying the National Guard when his supporters violently stormed the United States Capitol building on January 6, 2021.
“As a reminder: The same president who proclaims he wants to take back our capital during a historic 30-year low crime rate also couldn’t find the National Guard on Jan. 6,” the organization wrote.
Public Citizen co-presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman issued a joint statement slamming Trump’s actions and outright labeling him a “despot.”
“As autocrats commonly do, Trump is seeking control over the national capital in order to intimidate and squelch dissent,” they said. “Like despots around the world and throughout history, Trump is also relying on the pretextual deployment of military force to intimidate and project power, to suppress protest and undercut democracy.”
As reported by Politico, Trump’s seizure of the D.C. police is on borrowed time from a legal perspective. While the Home Rule Act gives Trump the power to take control of the D.C. police force for emergencies, this power only lasts for 30 days, after which he must seek authorization from Congress to maintain control.
People participate in a rally against the Trump Administration’s federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Trump announced he is placing the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, and will deploy the National Guard to the District in order to assist in crime prevention in the nation’s capital. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“If people aren’t allowed to peacefully protest and the elections are being rigged through gerrymandering and voter suppression, how are Americans supposed to respond when they figure out their lives are being actively destroyed by a corrupt, fascist government?”
Internal documents obtained by The Washington Post and reported on Tuesday reveal a secret Pentagon plan by the Trump administration to create a standing force of military personnel that could be rapidly deployed to U.S. cities or communities to quell public protests or any situation President Donald Trump deems “domestic civil unrest.”
The proposal to create what it dubs a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force”—which evidence shows has been under serious consideration by the administration over recent months—would utilize existing statute, including invocation of Title 32, to authorize the deployment of specialized National Guard units anywhere in the country within hours, according to the documents.
The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour, the documents say. They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively.
“This isn’t normal!!!” declared one social media user, a U.S. Navy veteran, in response to the reporting.
The leaked documents detailing the plan, which the Post noted “represents another potential expansion of [Trump’s] willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil,” comes just a day after the president sparked serious concerns (and local protests) by deploying National Guard troops in the city of Washington, D.C. and announcing a federal takeover of the D.C. police force.
Trump is a wannabe dictator, and his takeover of DC shows us exactly what he wants to do to cities across this country.
We must continue to stand up to protect our cities and our people.
Civil liberties advocates and critics of Trump’s growing authoritarianism warn the president is raising “a trial balloon” to see just how much he can get away with when it comes to deploying U.S. soldiers onto the nation’s streets.
Coupled with the D.C. takeover, Tuesday’s revelations about the Pentagon’s more expansive plan served to increase those fears, especially in the light of looming political battles regarding gerrymandered districts for next year’s congressional elections and growing disgust with the broader Trump policy agenda.
“If people aren’t allowed to peacefully protest and the elections are being rigged through gerrymandering and voter suppression, how are Americans supposed to respond when they figure out their lives are being actively destroyed by a corrupt, fascist government?” asked Wisconsin state Rep. Chris Larson, a Democrat.
“The U.S. military should never be used against peaceful civilians,” said Larson. “The criminal president who thinks it’s cool can f*ck all the way off.”
Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice specializing in the domestic use of the U.S. military, told the Post that the lawfulness of the proposal is far from clear and that the creation of such a force would be deeply troubling.
“You don’t want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement,” Nunn warned. “You don’t want to normalize routine domestic deployment.”
“When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you’re going to want to use it,” he added. “It actually makes it more likely that you’re going to see domestic deployments—because why else have a task force?”
A demonstrator holds a Union Jack flag, during an anti-immigration protest outside the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf, London, Britain, July 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jaimi Joy
‘My concern is the safety of bringing fascism to my neighborhood.’
Earlier this month, the Mail on Sunday claimed to reveal “the shocking scale of serious crime committed by migrants living in hotels in communities across Britain”.
The newspaper’s investigation claimed that the scale of a “migrant crime wave” had “until now been unknown”. It showed that at least 312 asylum seekers have been charged with an “astonishing” 708 alleged criminal offences in just three years.
The investigation was endorsed by shadow home secretary Chris Philp. Scratch its surface and all it reveals is the prejudice of the Mail, campaigners say.
They point out that the Mail’s figures include innocent people who’ve been acquitted, as well as those yet to be found guilty of any crime. They add that the 312 who’ve been charged represent a fraction of the tens of thousands of people who have passed through asylum accommodation in the three years reported on by the Mail.
“Describing this as a ‘migrant crime wave’ is not only completely dishonest but incredibly dangerous, at a time when families forced to live in asylum hotels are being threatened on their doorstep by violent crowds,” Nathan Phillips, head of campaigns at migrant charity Asylum Matters, told Novara Media.
By this point, it was too late. The Mail’s scaremongering appears to have had a direct role in sparking at least one anti-migrant protest, due to take place on Saturday. The protest has been endorsed by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon AKA Tommy Robinson, currently in Tenerife while police investigate his alleged assault of a man at St Pancras station.
Alongside its piece on the migrant “crime wave”, the Mail published an accompanying report focusing on the number of crimes linked to one hotel that also houses asylum seekers: the Barbican Thistle in Islington, north London. The day after the article was published, a Facebook group sprang up organising a protest at the accommodation, carrying the Mail’s headline as its header image.
The Mail’s report on the Barbican Thistle said that 41 residents of the hotel had been charged with 90 crimes over the past three years. Once again, the sensationalist framing only told part of the story. A coalition of local residents, community groups and anti-racist campaigners who are opposing Saturday’s demonstration called the Mail’s claims “inflammatory, misleading, and politically motivated.”
Kai Cunningham speaking to YouTuber Wesley Winter. Credit: Wesley Winter/YouTube
This ‘may come across as racist’.
A far-right activist who said Britain needs a “national socialist government” has been suspended from Reform UK following a Novara Media investigation.
In April, a reporter from Unherd, a news and commentary website owned by GB News owner Paul Marshall, went to Dagenham, Essex to report on the insurgent rise of Reform UK.
According to Unherd’s dispatch, in a tense meeting in Rainham working men’s club where a party seeking to professionalise met with a “lagered-up, pissed-off crowd”, one voice cut through the atmosphere. “There’s no point squabbling,” Kai Cunningham is reported to have said, to the loudest cheer of the night. “Reform is our only chance. The country is broken. Barking and Dagenham is broken, and all the lefties need to hear us say it’s broken, and realise we’re still here advocating for our country.”
Cunningham was described by Unherd as “representative of the new Reform”, but he also appears to be representative of something else.
In May, Cunningham was filmed among the small number of attendees at a “remigration” rally in Birmingham organised by far-right party Britain First.
In comments to a YouTuber who was filming the event, Cunningham said: “What Britain needs is a national socialist government.”
He then promoted the political group White Vanguard. “White Vanguard are the only British national socialist activist group. That’s what’s going to bring change – the only change.”
“National socialism is on the rise. It’s the only thing that’s going to save Britain,” he said.
…
When approached by Novara Media, a Reform UK spokesman said: “Kai Cunningham’s membership has been suspended with immediate effect pending the outcome of an internal investigation. We will never tolerate those with extreme views in our party.”
Nigel Farage explains the politics of Reform UK: Racism, Fake anti-establishmentism, Deregulation, Corporatism, Climate Change Denial, Mysogyny and Transphobia.Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
People take part in a protest against the deportation of alleged Venezuelan criminals from the USA to a high-security prison in El Salvador in Caracas, Venezuela on April 9, 2025. (Photo: Jesus Vargas/picture alliance via Getty Images)
By permitting the U.S. government to deport asylum-seekers and noncriminal undocumented immigrants to random third countries, the six Republicans on the bench handed a dangerous tool to a man most inclined to abuse it.
The American people just got a taste of authoritarianism wrapped in judicial robes. In a stunning 6-3 ruling this week, the Supreme Court green-lit the mass deportation of immigrants, not to their home countries but to third nations where they have no legal status, no family, and often no hope.
In her dissent, Justice Sonja Sotomayor, calling the shadow docket ruling “inexcusable,” pointed out how destructive this is to the rule of law (both U.S. and international law largely prohibit this) and to the lives of the people who may be deported without due process:
The Government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The episodes of noncompliance in this very case illustrate the risks.
The Due Process Clause represents “the principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules.” By rewarding lawlessness, the court once again undermines that foundational principle.
In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration judge found he was likely to face torture there. Then, in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel.
This ruling by six corrupt Republican justices allows Donald Trump or any future president to designate any country they choose as a “safe third country” and deport people there without meaningful review, even if they’ve committed no crime and have a valid asylum claim.
If that sounds familiar, it should. It echoes one of the most cold-blooded decisions made by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime: to locate their extermination camps not within Germany, but in the foreign lands of occupied Poland.
Let’s be clear: Deportation is not genocide. But both decisions—then and now—are grounded in the same logic of moral evasion through geographic displacement.
When regimes want to commit acts that would stir conscience or provoke backlash at home, they find ways to outsource the cruelty.
The decision wasn’t just about deportation. It was about moral laundering, washing the blood off our hands by putting it on someone else’s tarmac.
The Nazi leadership understood that while Germany’s public had been bombarded with antisemitic propaganda for years, they still might balk at the wholesale slaughter of millions of people inside German borders. So they built Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec far away, deep in Poland, where there were no German newspapers, no prying eyes, and no courts to second-guess their machinery of death.
As Raul Hilberg and other Holocaust historians have documented, Nazi leaders like Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich made this decision deliberately to preserve the illusion of “moral cleanliness” at home while carrying out genocide abroad.
Today’s Trump version of this practice is more sanitized, but no less cynical.
By permitting the U.S. government to deport asylum-seekers and noncriminal undocumented immigrants to random third countries—often places they’ve never even set foot in—the Supreme Court has granted the executive branch a license to erase moral responsibility.
As long as the suffering happens somewhere else, we’re told, it’s not our fault. It’s not our soil. Not our responsibility.
That kind of logic is the death of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. As Federal Judge Patricia Millett said of Trump’s deportation of Venezuelan prisoners to a concentration camp in El Salvador, compared with FDR’s actions in WWII, “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act.”
A future president with dictatorial ambitions could cite this ruling to round up political dissidents, journalists, or whistleblowers and ship them off to “safe third countries” that are anything but.
The Trump administration argued—and the court’s on-the-take, Republican-appointed majority agreed—that migrants have no right to American judicial processes once they’re transferred elsewhere. In other words, we can dodge our legal obligations under both U.S. and international law simply by putting someone on a plane.
This is the same loophole thinking that allowed George W. Bush’s administration to kidnap terror suspects and ship them to places like Egypt and Syria, where they were tortured out of view. That policy was called “extraordinary rendition.” Today, we might call this new policy extraordinary rejection: a way to deny asylum without confronting its human cost.
And here’s the truly chilling part: Once someone has been deported to a third country, they are functionally outside the U.S. legal system. They can’t sue. They can’t appeal. They may not even survive. And, to Trump’s delight, it’ll all be outside the reach of American courts and U.S. media.
This obscene policy isn’t about safety, it’s about displacement as punishment and the creation of a pseudo-legal infrastructure of indifference to the humanity of the people we’re “processing.”
Whether it’s a camp outside Kraków or a deportation center in Guatemala, the strategy is the same: create a zone of moral invisibility. A legal no-man’s-land where acts that would outrage decent people become routine, because they happen far away, beyond the reach of media, law, and conscience.
That’s not how democracies behave: That’s how authoritarian regimes insulate themselves from dissent.
And like all authoritarian tools, once it exists, it will be used again.
You may think this only affects immigrants. But consider: The legal precedent now exists for the government to forcibly remove someone from U.S. soil and drop them in another country without due process. Today it’s asylum-seekers. Tomorrow, who knows?
A future president with dictatorial ambitions could cite this ruling to round up political dissidents, journalists, or whistleblowers and ship them off to “safe third countries” that are anything but.
You think that’s paranoid? So did people in 1932 Berlin.
The genius of the American system—at least in theory—is that it puts checks on state power. The executive cannot act like a king. The courts must protect the vulnerable. And the public must have visibility into the actions done in our name.
This week, though, the Supreme Court abdicated that role. And in doing so, the six Republicans on the bench handed a dangerous tool to a man most inclined to abuse it.
Let’s not kid ourselves. The decision wasn’t just about deportation. It was about moral laundering, washing the blood off our hands by putting it on someone else’s tarmac.
The Nazis did it. So did the Bush administration. Now Trump’s backers on the court have opened the door once more.
History doesn’t repeat, but, as Mark Twain said, it rhymes. And if we’re not careful, we may soon find that rhyme turning into a full verse we’ve heard before.
The original Fascists Mussolini and HitlerElon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then. (and responsibility).Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
