Connect with us

News

Trump’s National Guard deployments aren’t random. They were planned years ago

Published

on

Trump’s National Guard deployments aren’t random. They were planned years ago

Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 1 in Washington, D.C.

Al Drago/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Al Drago/Getty Images

President Trump’s deployments of National Guard troops to U.S. cities have outraged his political rivals, tested legal precedents and led to nationwide protests.

The courts are weighing in on their legality. But — if successful — they could also fulfill a long-running administration goal of employing America’s military to aid in the mass deportation of immigrants without legal status, according to an NPR review of past comments from Trump and his allies. It’s a move that would stray significantly from past federal use of the Guard, challenging laws that dictate how the U.S. military can be used domestically. And with the 2026 midterms looming, some experts worry Guard troops could even be used as a tool of systemic voter suppression and intimidation.

Trump has sent troops into four Democratic-led cities and threatened to send them to several more, claiming they are needed to crack down on crime and protect federal immigration facilities and officers. Those deployments, and the White House’s rhetoric around them, have regularly conflated violent crime and illegal immigration into a single crisis, blurring the lines around the role of the Guard and federal agents.

Advertisement

Taken one at a time, the deployments can seem random or fickle — Trump will often muse about sending troops into a city, only to back track his comments and focus on a different city days later.

But the president and several others in his inner circle — most notably Stephen Miller, a senior aide to Trump in his first term, and now Trump’s right hand man on immigration — have long talked about using the National Guard to help with mass deportations and immigration raids, despite U.S. laws broadly preventing the military from being used for domestic policing. To get around those laws, both Trump and Miller have talked about invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to deploy the military within the U.S. in certain situations.

Legal experts, activists and watchdog groups worry the Trump administration could fundamentally change the way the military is used on U.S. soil, specifically raising concerns about the upcoming 2026 midterm elections and what armed troops on the streets could mean as voters cast ballots.

Laying the groundwork 

Much of Trump’s campaign ahead of the 2024 election was focused on drumming up anti-immigrant sentiment and pushing his plan for mass deportations. He vowed several times on the campaign trail that he would launch the largest deportation operation in American history.

In his first term, Trump and his administration had similar ambitions, but struggled to scale up infrastructure and manpower needed to carry out the goal.

Advertisement

In a TIME Magazine interview in April of 2024, then-candidate Trump was asked specifically if his plan included the use of the U.S. military.

“I can see myself using the National Guard and, if necessary, I’d have to go a step further. We have to do whatever we have to do to stop the problem we have,” Trump responded.

Using the National Guard for immigration enforcement is an idea that Miller had talked about publicly in the years before.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for policy and U.S. Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller speaks after President Trump signed an order sending National Guard to Memphis, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on September 15, 2025.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for policy and U.S. Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller speaks after President Trump signed an order sending National Guard to Memphis, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on September 15, 2025.

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

In 2023, Miller appeared on the late right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s podcast to talk about how mass deportations under Trump’s hopeful second term could work.

Advertisement

“In terms of personnel, you go to the red state governors, and you say, give us your National Guard. We will deputize them as immigration enforcement officers,” Miller explained. “The Alabama National Guard is going to arrest illegal aliens in Alabama, and the Virginia National Guard in Virginia.”

Miller doesn’t specify how that would be legal — under U.S. law, the military can’t be used for domestic policing unless authorized by the Constitution or Congress. For Democratic-run states that don’t comply, Miller said, the federal government would simply send the National Guard from a nearby Republican-run state.

The deployments 

In recent months, the Trump administration has deployed Guard troops to states against the wishes of their Democratic governors — including sending troops from Texas into Illinois. The administration said their purpose was to protect federal immigration facilities and officers. Those deployments are tied up in court challenges.

Members of the Texas National Guard stand guard at an army reserve training facility on October 07, 2025 in Elwood, Illinois.

Members of the Texas National Guard stand guard at an army reserve training facility on October 07, 2025 in Elwood, Illinois.

Scott Olson/Getty Images North America


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Scott Olson/Getty Images North America

Miles Taylor, former chief of staff in the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s first term, worked closely with Miller. He’s since become a vocal critic of the president and his policies.

Advertisement

Taylor says he’s not surprised to see Miller’s plan coming to fruition.

“Trump was deeply deferential to Stephen and I think you’ve seen that with a vastly more empowered Stephen Miller in a second term,” says Taylor, an author and commentator.

Taylor says that during Trump’s first term, the president wasn’t talking publicly about using the U.S. military for immigration enforcement, but it was something that was discussed behind closed doors.

Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security during President Donald Trump's first term, holds up his phone outside of the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse ahead of the arraignment hearing for former FBI director James Comey in Alexandria, Virginia on October 8, 2025.

Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security during President Trump’s first term, holds up his phone outside of the U.S. courthouse in Alexandria, Va., ahead of the arraignment hearing for former FBI director James Comey on Oct. 8

Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

“I can remember in meetings with him in the Oval Office, or on Air Force One, or at the border, him starting to bring up this idea of using the United States military to solve the problem,” he says.

Advertisement

It wasn’t something that Trump just talked about. In 2017, The Associated Press reported on a memo it obtained from DHS, outlining a draft proposal to use the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants throughout the U.S. At the time, the White House denied it, saying there was no such plan.

Taylor says there very much was — but it was also more than that.

“It was the invocation of the Insurrection Act to deputize the military to enforce domestic law to basically become a domestic police force,” he says, noting that this particular idea was something that troubled him and several other staffers.

“It rocked us to our core,” he says.

Trump invoking the Insurrection Act would legally allow for the military to act as police on U.S. soil — to carry out immigration enforcement, but possibly other enforcement too, according to legal experts.

Advertisement

NPR asked the White House about potential plans to deputize the Guard for law enforcement and to use the Insurrection Act, but it did not directly respond to those questions, instead criticizing Taylor and NPR. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson also referenced Trump’s “highly successful operations to drive down violent crime in American cities.”

Project 2025

The broader themes of these National Guard deployments are also embedded in Project 2025, a conservative action plan written by the Heritage Foundation after Trump’s first term that’s more than 900 pages long.

Trump has incorporated many of its policies, and authors into his second administration. So much so that the report’s architect, Russell Vought, is the head of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

Russ Vought, Director of the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB), speaks at the National Conservative Convention in Washington D.C., Sept. 3, 2025. (Photo by Dominic Gwinn / Middle East Images via AFP) (Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, in September.

Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty

Matt Dallek, a professor at The George Washington University who studies the American conservative movement, says that Project 2025 essentially opens the door for Trump’s National Guard deployments — particularly to Democratic-led cities — without explicitly calling for them.

Advertisement

“The subtext of Project 2025 is to take any and all steps at the executive level to go into cities and states to enact the priority — which is to root out illegal immigration,” Dallek says.

The idea of bullying states and cities into following orders from the president is a key part of the text, says David Graham, a journalist for The Atlantic who also wrote a book on the project. So is the use of the military.

“There is this idea in Project 2025, and among the authors, that the military is just an underused resource for policing immigration,” Graham says, noting that often illegal immigration is presented as a national security problem. He says the report’s authors believe that the U.S. has “this huge, huge resource of armed people, and we’re not doing anything with it, and we need to use it to secure the border.”

Beyond mass deportation 

In recent weeks, Trump has talked about invoking the Insurrection Act often, especially in regard to deploying the National Guard. Earlier this month, he said that he was “allowed” to invoke it if the courts deny his deployments in places like Portland, Ore., or Chicago, where prosecutors and federal judges have questioned the need for troops on the ground.

Trump invoking the Insurrection Act to allow troops to help with immigration enforcement is also something that Stephen Miller has talked about.

Advertisement

He told the New York Times back in 2023: “President Trump will do whatever it takes.”

That possibility has both legal experts and immigration advocates worried, especially about the implications it could have for Americans at large.

Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center, an immigration rights advocacy group, says it has her worried about the upcoming 2026 midterm elections and what the presence of troops might mean for voters as they cast ballots.

“What I have said repeatedly is that the path to authoritarianism in this country is being built on the backs of immigrants. They will begin with immigrants. They will not end with immigrants,” she says.

Advertisement

News

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending