Trump Orders US Troops to Portland, Authorizes 'Full Force'
bloomberg.comI live in Portland and while there are homeless people downtown it’s a great city to live in and I’ve never felt unsafe. Fox News has been saying for years that Portland is basically a war-torn shell of a city in which people huddle in their homes afraid of the criminals freely roaming the streets. They’ve even used footage from riots in 2020 and pretended it was present-day [0]. It’s terrifying that we have a president who believes and takes action based on what he sees on TV.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/05/trump-portla...
Nothing says small government like troops on the streets
A perfect accompaniment for firing government attorneys for reminding government agents to follow the law.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/26/trump-fires-...
Our state newspaper: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2025/09/trump-says-hell-...
At first I thought this said Poland - a place with a real military conflict brewing.
Fascinating how easy it is to use the military against your own citizens.
Seems the whole military honor thing is just a myth.
I guess „thank you for your service“ will only be used sarcastically in the future
Already was if you’re one of the millions of Americans from a country America has ravaged.
I don’t care all that much for the book, but I often think of a passage Samuel Huntington wrote in The Clash of Civilizations:
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”
Well there must be something to those vapues and ideas or Ice wouldn't have anyone to remove.
American violence is why we end up migrating to America.
Archive [1]
[1] - https://archive.is/gZ8Q0
"War ravaged Portland"? King Bone Spurs no idea what a war looks like.
His supporters think it's "war-ravaged", or can easily be led into believing it.
His supporters want to believe it is war-ravaged as pretext for oppression.
I wish I could tell you why they want to believe this, but I cannot imagine the depths of the craven and anti-social mindset of someone who desires to inflict the full force of the US military against their fellow countrymen.
Remember when BLM was "burning entire cities to the ground?"
«Execute … Order Sixty Six!»
Am I allowed to advocate for violence yet?
Reuters has a non-paywalled article: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-orders-deployment-tro...
Isn't there something in the constitution about that?
What a shameless oligarch.
>> Isn't there something in the constitution about that?
Yes, "The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
One of the ways Congress has done that was to pass the Insurrection Act, which was the legal basis for President Eisenhower to send 1,000 paratroopers from the 101st Airborne in to Little Rock, Arkansas in order to force racial integration of a high school.
The same act was used by JFK 3 times for similar purposes, 3 times by LBJ to suppress riots and civil unrest, by Reagan to suppress a prison riot, and by George H. W. Bush to deal with looting in the Virgin Islands after a hurricane, and to suppress riots in L.A. after the acquittal in the Rodney King beating trial.
There's also the 3rd Amendment quartering of troops restriction, so if you live in Portland, you won't have to let the troops stay at your house unless you want to, unless Trump declares war.
Yeah, the constitution... let's talk about that for a minute.
The feds own immigration policy and enforcement. For a city to declare itself a "sanctuary city" is, basically, a refusal of federal authority. Yeah, previous presidents didn't make an issue out of it. That doesn't make it anything different, though.
And the federal government does have the right to bring in federal troops to protect federal buildings and federal officials.
But of course it's not that simple. That presumes that Trump's actual reason is the stated one, which is not a reasonable assumption. It presumes that all the troops will do is protect federal property and workers, which is unknowable at present.
And it ignores the ruling that Trump bringing troops into LA was illegal. If that was a federal circuit ruling, well, Portland is in the same federal district, so it's current law there. (Does anyone know what the current situation is with that case? Does that ruling stand?)
Look, don't take any of this as an apology for Trump. But he does have the legitimate authority to enforce immigration law. If the troops wind up doing more than protecting the people who are doing that, then he doesn't have the legitimate authority to do that.
A sanctuary city means not having local police cooperate with federal immigration officials. There is no constitutional requirement for local police departments to do so.
In turn that opens the possibility of sanctuary cities for aggressively enforcing such cooperation.
"Sir... this so-called 'moon bear' issue wouldn't happen to be disrupting the further release of the Epstein files, would it?"