Tag: national guard

Left-Wing Dark Money Megadonors Including George Soros Spent $20 MILLION to Oppose Trump’s National Guard Deployment in D.C.

Washington, D.C., is under siege not only from rising crime but also from left-wing dark money groups working to undermine law and order. 

Financial disclosures reveal that progressive megadonors, including George Soros, have poured more than $20 million into organizations backing protests against President Trump’s crime crackdown in the nation’s capital.

At the center of this network is “Free DC,” a project sponsored by Community Change and Community Change Action. 

The group staged demonstrations near the White House to oppose Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and his goal of federalizing the district’s police force. 

The president’s goal is straightforward: to restore safety by cleaning up homeless encampments, increasing law enforcement presence, and making D.C. one of the safest cities in the world. 

Yet Free DC and its backers have mobilized to resist these efforts, using protests and coordinated campaigns to weaken public confidence in the crackdown.

Free DC promotes radical tactics under the guise of “resistance.” 

Its principles urge followers to “take up space,” “do not obey in advance,” and engage in nightly disruptions by banging pots and pans in neighborhoods across the city. 

The group has also launched “Cop Watch” trainings to prepare activists for further confrontations with law enforcement. 

These methods mirror the organized protest playbook of the radical left—loud, disruptive, and designed to generate chaos rather than solutions.

The money trail exposes how deeply entrenched dark-money networks are in shaping D.C. politics. 

Between 2020 and 2023, Community Change and its affiliated entities received $12.6 million from Soros’ Open Society Foundations, $5.6 million from Arabella’s network, and nearly $2 million from the Tides Foundation. 

Additional grants from Future Forward USA Action—a Democrat-aligned super PAC—brought millions more into their coffers.

These funds were officially labeled for “civil rights” or “social welfare” but have flowed into groups manufacturing unrest in the streets.

While Free DC only formally began in 2023, its rise coincided with congressional efforts to block a controversial rewrite of D.C.’s criminal code that would have reduced penalties for violent crimes. 

The timing suggests that dark-money donors viewed the group as a vehicle to push back against any attempt to hold criminals accountable.

Keep reading

Oregon National Guard Chief Brig. General Vows to “Protect Protesters” Targeting ICE Facilities — Disobeying a Lawful Order from the Commander-in-Chief

Oregon National Guard Chief Brigadier General Alan R. Gronewold is facing mounting backlash after declaring his troops would be tasked with protecting protesters at federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, a direct contradiction to the orders of President Donald Trump.

The week-old remarks, made before an Oregon Senate subcommittee, resurfaced on social media this week as a federal appeals court weighs whether Trump can deploy the Guard to Portland to quell ongoing anti-ICE protests.

During an appearance last week before the Oregon Senate’s Veterans and Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee, General Gronewold attempted to reassure state lawmakers about what the National Guard’s role would be if federalized under Title 10 orders.

“I don’t want to speculate on what level of training they will receive or what they will be authorized to perform as far as rules for the use of force. The Title X headquarters will provide that training to them.

It is my understanding, however, that protective crowd control will be one of the things they’re trained on, and I will provide my advice to the Title X commander. The Oregon National Guard men and women serve two purposes: one, to defend America, and two, to protect Oregonians.

So, by serving in this mission, they will be protecting any protesters at the ICE facility. That’s my desire.

Now, to answer your question — “full force” is not a doctrinal term that the Army uses, so I’m not sure exactly what that means, and I don’t want to speculate as to what level of force they will be allowed to use.”

Keep reading

Biden Judge Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Chicago

A federal judge on Thursday issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking President Trump’s National Guard deployment in Chicago.

US District Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said Trump’s troop deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act as well as the 10th and 14th Amendments.

President Trump mobilized Texas National Guard Troops and sent them to Chicago to protect ICE agents from violent far-left Antifa terrorists.

“The National Guard’s mission in Chicago is to protect federal lives and property that are facing constant criminal assault. The guard protecting DHS is activated under *federal control* and therefore, like any federal troops, can emanate from any state if such resources prove necessary to DHS (the way troops are pulled from any base). They are operating as a federal force protecting federal assets,” White House Advisor Stephen Miller said.

Texas Congressman Lance Gooden hilariously trolled failed Chicago Mayor Johnson for being both outraged over Texas busing illegals to his city AND outraged over Trump sending the National Guard to his city.

“You can’t have it both ways, Brandon,” Lance Gooden said.

Keep reading

Trump blocked from deploying National Guard in OR but can federalize troops, court says

 The 9th Circuit Court has granted an administrative stay on a temporary restraining order that had blocked the federalization and deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members.

The administrative stay follows a Tuesday order from Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek telling guardsmen to demobilize and go home.

Wednesday’s order from the 9th Circuit judges keeps the Guard under federal control but blocks their deployment until the panel of judges can rule more broadly on the Trump administration’s request to overrule a district judge’s order that blocks the Guard’s deployment in Portland.

Arguments on the federal government’s appeal are scheduled for Thursday morning at 9 a.m.

The initial restraining order, issued on Oct. 4, was in response to a memorandum from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorizing the deployment.

Keep reading

National Guard troops begin arriving in Chicago to help with crime despite governor’s opposition

Hundreds of National Guard troops began arriving in Chicago on Wednesday morning to help with the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce violent crime in the Illinois city, despite pushback from the state’s governor.

The National Guard deployment consisted of approximately 200 troops from Texas and 300 from the Illinois National Guard, according to U.S. Northern Command. The troops will be stationed in the city for 60 days.

“These forces will protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other U.S. Government personnel who are performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property,” Northern Command said in a statement. 

The troops will be under Northern Command’s control.

Chicago and Illinois have sued the Trump administration to prevent the deployment of the National Guard and the city and state leaders have furiously condemned federal law enforcement operations in Chicago. 

​“The brave men and women who serve in our national guards must not be used as political props,” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said on Sunday. “This is a moment where every American must speak up and help stop this madness.”

Keep reading

National Guard “Accidentally” Gives Service Members COVID-19 Vaccine Instead of Influenza Shot

This week it was revealed that the US National Guard wrongly administered the Covid vaccine to a group of service members who were expecting to receive an influenza vaccine, according to The Epoch Times. The incident occurred during a mobile vaccination clinic for the Maine National Guard and at least one member who refused the mRNA vaccine on religious grounds received the experimental injection without his knowledge.

That service member, Mathew Bouchard, is no longer a member of the National Guard. After the incident, he felt that the trust was completely broken. He was ordered to take a flu shot and feels like he was duped. Because the incident happened close to the end of his service contract, he chose not to renew.

Bouchard explained his decision to The Epoch Times:

“Bouchard said he was ordered to receive an annual flu vaccine and went to the clinic to get that vaccine. He verified his name, date of birth, and part of his social security number, and told officials at the clinic he was there for the flu vaccine. But he was injected with a dose of a messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine, officials told him.

‘You know how you went in for the flu shot? Well, that wasn’t a flu shot. That was a COVID-19 vaccine,’” Bouchard told The Epoch Times, recounting the meeting with superiors.

“I think, in my mind, at that point, it was like, I completely didn’t know if I trusted any people in the military,” he added.”

In addition to Bouchard, two other service members “were accidentally given a Covid vaccine” instead of a flu injection that day, Maine National Guard spokesperson Maj. Carl Lamb explained in an email to The Epoch Times. The clinic was administering both types of vaccine, which likely led to the egregious error.

“Accident” or not, the incident is inexcusable. Especially considering the recent data that has been revealed about the dangerous and deadly adverse reactions caused by the experimental mRNA vaccines – particularly among otherwise healthy young adults. Just this week, the surgeon general of Florida announced new guidelines about the vaccine that show the jab causes a stunning 84% increase in cardiac-related death among 18-39-year-old men. The state of Florida now officially recommends that young males refrain from receiving the mRNA vaccine completely.

Keep reading

J.B. Pritzker Cries “Trump’s Invasion”, Gavin Newsom Warns “America Is on the Brink of Martial Law”, After President Trump Orders Texas National Guard Troops to Chicago and Portland

President Donald Trump on Sunday ordered the deployment of four hundred Texas National Guard troops, with the consent of Gov. Greg Abbott (R), to Illinois and Oregon to protect ICE agents and federal facilities under violent siege by Antifa and other leftist terrorists in Chicago and Portland.

The orders federalize about 2,000 Texas National Guard under Northern Command, authorizing their deployment to “Illinois, Oregon and other locations throughout the United States,” with an initial deployment of 400 troops to Portland and Chicago.

The move follows Trump ordering California National Guard troops to Portland after a federal judge on Saturday blocked Trump from deploying the Oregon National Guard. Oregon, California and Portland went to court Sunday night to fight the new California orders.

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) flipped out earlier Sunday when he learned Trump, who had already federalized the state guard to protect Los Angeles in June, sent California National Guard troops to Portland, calling the orders “appalling” and “un-American.”

Keep reading

Judge again blocks deployment of National Guard troops to Oregon, this time from any state

A federal judge on Sunday night issued a second temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Oregon, this time from any state, The Associated Press reported, as protests in the state’s largest city continued.

The judge’s ruling came after the Trump administration ordered 400 members of the Texas National Guard to deploy to several states, including Oregon, as well as 300 from California. Both states then asked the judge to block the Trump administration’s moves.

During a hastily called evening telephone hearing, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order sought by the two states.

Immergut, who was appointed by Trump in his first term, seemed incredulous that the president moved to send National Guard troops to Oregon from neighboring California and then from Texas on Sunday, just hours after she had ruled the first time.

“How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not be in direct contravention to the temporary restraining order I issued yesterday?” she questioned the federal government’s attorney, cutting him off.

“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?” she said later. “Why is this appropriate?”

Keep reading

Who Will Protect Us From the Protectors?

In the same week in which President Donald Trump announced that he was federalizing 200 Oregon National Guard soldiers and dispatching them to the streets of Portland, he quietly signed a Presidential National Security Memorandum that purports to federalize policing. The Memorandum, just like the federalization of troops in Oregon, completely disregards constitutional safeguards against such practices.

Here is the backstory.

When James Madison and his colleagues crafted the Constitution and shortly thereafter the Bill of Rights, they intentionally created a limited federal government. They confined the federal government to the 16 discrete powers granted to Congress. Those powers identify areas of governance uniquely federal.

Conspicuously and intentionally absent is public safety. To clarify this, the 10th Amendment articulates the reservation by the states of powers not granted to the feds. This relationship is called federalism.

Constitutional scholars often refer to the powers retained by the states as the police power. The use of the word “police” here doesn’t mean police officers on the streets. It means the inherent and never-delegated-away powers of the states to govern for the health, safety, welfare and morality of all persons in those states.

In his famous Bank Speech, in which Madison argued brilliantly but unsuccessfully for a textualist understanding of the Constitution – he was opposing the creation of the First National Bank of the United States essentially because it was not authorized by the Constitution – he laid out the principles of limited government. He reminded those in Congress who had just sent the proposed Bill of Rights to the states for ratification that they did not constitute a general legislature that can right any wrong or regulate any behavior or intrude upon any relationship. Rather, their powers were limited to federal matters.

Merely because an area of governance is reflected nationally does not make the area federal. Chief among these is the police power.

The wall between state and federal law enforcement was generally recognized until 9/11. Prior to that, the FBI and other federal police agencies, none of which is authorized by the Constitution, generally devoted their efforts to enforcing federal law. After 9/11, the Bush administration – perhaps to divert public attention from its having slept on that fateful day – began a federal/state collaboration to fight “terrorism.”

Just as the war on drugs in the 1970s and ’80s weakened the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment, the war on terror in the 2000s weakened the constitutional fabric of federalism. With a public still shell-shocked over the attacks, and a Congress pliant to the presidency and the intelligence community, Congress enacted the Patriot Act, which permits federal agents to write their own search warrants, and the states fell subject to federal domination over their policing. Slowly, the feds began to intrude and dominate into areas of law enforcement with the false claim that nearly all crimes affected national security.

To garner public support for this, the feds engaged in ostentatious sting operations in which they lured disaffected young Muslim men into traps that were ostensibly criminal but were totally controlled. They then took credit for solving “crimes” that they had created. None of this was constitutional, yet few but the victims of the stings complained. Even the courts went along.

As Benjamin Franklin warned, when people fear for their safety, they will allow the government to curtail their liberty. Of course, this is all illusory, as history teaches that sacrificing liberty for safety enhances neither.

Keep reading

“Invasion From Within”: Trump’s Plan to Use the Military in U.S. Cities

On Tuesday, President Trump addressed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his war secretary, and senior commanders (transcript is available here) at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. The session was convened to review military readiness, budget priorities, and upcoming initiatives. The agenda included new weapons programs, expanded force structure, and the administration’s shift in doctrine under the restored name “Department of War.” It was both a policy briefing and a directive, outlining the missions Trump expects the armed forces to undertake in the coming year.

However, the most striking element of the address was not the budget figures or hardware announcements, but the language Trump used to describe the nation’s internal situation. He warned that America is under assault, not from abroad but from within:

We’re under invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways…

The military, he stressed, should defend not only the nation’s borders but its streets, treating domestic disturbances as a theater of war.

D.C. as a Case Study

Trump held up Washington, D.C., as a proof of concept for his vision of military intervention in American cities. On August 11, he signed Executive Order 14333 placing the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under federal control. The order also mobilized the D.C. National Guard under federal command and called in Guard units from other states to “augment the mission.” Trump justified the takeover by citing a “crime emergency,” even though both independent and official data (see here and here) showed violent crime in the capital was already at or near a 30-year low.

Keep reading