By Douglas V. Gibbs
The progressive left’s play with words just shot them in the foot. The Democrats and their socialist allies depend upon optics more than truth, so they parse words in the hope of making you have one perception when the reality might be something different. With that in mind, in retaliation against Trump’s use of the National Guard to assist ICE in the execution of immigration law, they call it the use of the military in our cities. They want the reasons behind the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 to bubble fearfully inside your head.
The Posse Comitatus law came at the end of Reconstruction to limit the use of the U.S. Army after it was used to occupy The South after the War Between the States. The term posse comitatus is Latin for “power of the country,” referring to citizens having the preferred option of calling upon the sheriff, local law enforcement, and if necessary the local militia to keep the peace rather than a standing army under the control of the federal government. The law was passed after pressure from Southern Democrats calling for restrictions on the use of the military in internal affairs. The act also reflected a long-standing suspicion that was shared by the Founding Fathers of the use of standing armies to enforce civilian law, which is also rooted in English common law and colonial history.
The Democrats, from day one of Donald Trump’s presidency, have argued he is a wannabe dictator willing to use the force of the federal government in an authoritarian manner, so when he sought to deploy the National Guard to assist in the execution of immigration law, his opponents saw their opportunity and screamed that he was using the military against the American People. According to Congress, there are exceptions to the domestic use of the military by the federal government, like:
- The Insurrection Act: Allowing deployment to quell rebellion or execute federal law
- Disaster Response: When assisting, but not leading law enforcement
- Counter-Drug Operations: In a support role, only
- Border Support: Logistical roles, but may not be used to police civilians
Basically, the understanding in American Law is that the military may be used to assist, but generally they have no policing powers (arrest, search, seizure, or investigation of civilians unless authorized by law).
In the past, the use of the military domestically has become a topic of debate during times of major riots, civil unrest, border enforcement strategies, pandemic or natural disaster responses, and terrorism events within U.S. territory.
Getting back to the Democrats using optics and perception for their narrative, rather than actual truth, their aim from the beginning has been to create in the minds of Americans a totalitarian military minded system being pushed by Donald Trump. That’s one of the reasons they have called him a fascist, and a modern-day Hitler. They want to stir up images of Nazi soldiers marching through the streets of America – a police-state enforced by military rule.
So, with that narrative in mind, the line between who the military is and who the militia is has been blurred. The Democrats have been relentless in their use of language calling the militia the military. But, the National Guard is not the military. It is the militia.
Aside from a narrative filled with illusory optics and perception, the Democrats have also deployed a massive lawfare campaign. Yes, they’ve been hitting Donald Trump with lawsuits ever since he first emerged on the political scene, but during this second term the lawfare has been ratcheted up targeting pretty much everything he does. The lower courts have been pretty consistent in ruling against the President, but more often than not he wins once it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Among the most recent cases to reach the Supreme Court is Trump v. Illinois. The High Court ruled 6-3 against President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago, and the media is calling it a big defeat for The President. But, because of the language used in the ruling, using the word “military” rather than “militia” when it comes to the National Guard, the ruling created an interesting unintended consequence. The language of the ruling changes how a President of the United States may execute federal law when it comes to the use of military resources.
President Trump deployed the National Guard to Chicago in early October of 2025 using 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, plus additional Guard members from Texas. The justification used by the Trump administration was that the deployment was necessary due to political and civilian obstruction to federal immigration operations. The Guard was deployed to support ICE facilities and personnel, including at the Broadview ICE facility. The deployment aligns with the U.S. Constitution where in Article I, Section 8 it calls for the militia being used to execute federal law.
President Trump also publicly stated that Chicago’s violent crime justified federal intervention, considering the level of violence to be “rebellious,” which makes the deployment of the militia (National Guard) consistent with the Article I, Section 8 power to “suppress insurrections.”
Once the Democrats launched a lawsuit against the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry blocked the deployment almost immediately ruling that the administration had not identified lawful authority for using the Guard in this manner, despite the fact that the White House had already identified constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8.
Once the case got to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court ruled 6-3 not to lift the injunction, leaving the block in place while litigation continues. The unsigned order stated:
“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.”
The three justices who dissented were Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
From an original intent point of view of the U.S. Constitution, according to Article I, Section 8, Congress may call forth the militia (which, according to the Militia Act of 1903 is the National Guard) to:
- Execute the laws of the Union
- Suppress insurrections
- Repel invasions
When called into federal service, the Guard falls under the authority of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). Therefore, if the Guard was deployed to assist ICE in executing federal immigration law, the deployment fits squarely within this clause. If the Guard was deployed to suppress violent crime rising to the level of insurrection, it also fits.
Article IV., Section 4’s “Domestic Violence” Clause requires that the state legislature (or the governor if the legislature cannot convene) must request federal support to quell “domestic violence.” This clause, which is likely what the Democrats are using when they claim President Trump may not use “troops” inside the states without their permission, only applies when the purpose is to restore order that has not risen to the level of insurrection, and when the federal government is not executing federal law. This may also be the clause some of the Supreme Court justices were focusing on, but it’s a misapplication if the stated purpose was to execute federal immigration law, or suppressing insurrection-level violence. During the Whiskey Rebellion during President George Washington’s time in office the violence in that instance was considered to reach the level of insurrection, and Washington used the militia for the purpose of executing a federal tax – both serving as historical precedent supporting President Trump’s use of the National Guard in Chicago.
In the ruling the Supreme Court stated that the government failed to identify the authority allowing “the military” to execute the laws in Illinois, which brings us back to the progressive left’s use of language for optics. The National Guard, when federalized, is not the same as the standing Army. It is the constitutional militia according to U.S. Law – the very force the Founding Fathers intended to be used instead of the standing army for domestic law execution. The Court’s language implies that the Guard is the military, and since it is the military it cannot execute laws unless using a law that allows it; therefore, the President must first justify using “the military.” This flips the logic of the Founding Fathers on its head.
From a historical point of view, the Founders desired that communities used local authorities first. Then, if federal law needed to be executed domestically, the President may utilize federal civil officers and then the militia. The military may be used only as a last resort. The Court’s response seems to reverse this order, justifying military use before militia use – directly opposite of constitutional design.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling misreads and misapplies the Constitution by treating the National Guard as if it were a standing army. As previously stated, under Article I, Section 8, the militia is the constitutionally preferred force for executing federal law and suppressing insurrections. By implying the President must first justify the use of the regular military before federalizing the Guard, the Court has inverted the Founders’ intended hierarchy of force and undermined the very safeguards they built to prevent domestic military rule.
In the end, when trying to convince the American People with a narrative that called the militia (National Guard) the military, and by using that same language in the ruling by the Supreme Court regarding Illinois v. Trump, the language of the ruling instructs that the regular Armed Forces must be used first before the President can bring out the National Guard. In other words, because of their screaming and trying to convince you that the National Guard is the military, the Supreme Court’s ruling using that kind of language may actually lead to the use of active-duty military units domestically – an unintended consequence they brought about themselves due to their games with language.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
