**U.S. President Trump’s Military Deployments Spark Concerns Over Authoritarian Shift**
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump threatened to deploy the armed forces in more American cities during a speech addressed to high-ranking military officials. He claimed that some of these officers would be tasked with playing a central role in an administration that has occupied U.S. cities, deployed tens of thousands of troops nationwide, and established a framework for targeting domestic enemies. Trump also characterized his political rivals as subhuman and asserted his right to wage secret wars and execute individuals he deems terrorists.
During the address, Trump targeted cities he accused of being controlled by “radical left Democrats,” including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco. “We’re going to straighten them out one by one,” he said, adding, “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.” He further suggested using some of these cities as training grounds for the military.
Trump has already deployed the U.S. military domestically in unprecedented ways during the first year of his second term. In September, a federal judge ruled that his deployment of California National Guard members to Los Angeles under Title 10 was illegal. Weeks later, he ordered the military occupation of Portland, Oregon, despite objections from Governor Tina Kotek. The president authorized the use of “full force” if necessary.
**Legal Challenges and Judicial Pushback**
When a different federal judge blocked Trump’s attempt to deploy Oregon National Guardsmen to Portland, the president ordered troops from California and Texas instead. The judge then blocked this effort, citing a lack of legal basis. In response, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act—a law from 1807 that allows the president to deploy troops on U.S. soil—to bypass court rulings. “I think that’s all insurrection, really criminal insurrection,” he claimed.
Experts argue that Trump’s increasing use of the military domestically violates the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century law that prohibits federal troops from enforcing domestic law. This law is seen as a cornerstone of American democracy. However, the president’s actions have raised concerns about the country moving closer to becoming a police state.
**Constitutional Violations and Legal Precedents**
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer recently ruled that Trump’s deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles was illegal and likened it to Britain’s use of soldiers for law enforcement in colonial America. He warned that Trump intended to transform the National Guard into a presidential police force.
“The Congress spoke clearly in 1878 when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law,” Breyer wrote in his 52-page opinion. “Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”
The judge concluded that the Pentagon had systematically used armed soldiers to perform police functions in California, violating the Posse Comitatus Act, and planned to do so elsewhere in the country. As he put it, “President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into federal service in other cities across the country… thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief.”
**Military Deployments and Political Implications**
Despite the judge’s ruling, Trump has continued to expand his urban military occupations. During a celebration of the Navy’s 250th anniversary earlier this month, he told a crowd of sailors, “Now we’re in Memphis… and we’re going to Chicago.” He added, “And so we send in the National Guard, we… send in whatever’s necessary. People don’t care.”
According to reporting by The Intercept, Trump has deployed approximately 35,000 federal troops across seven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas—under Title 10 authority. These deployments are part of the administration’s anti-immigrant agenda and aim to further militarize the country.
In addition to these deployments, Trump has threatened to send National Guard troops to cities such as Baltimore, New York City, Oakland, Saint Louis, San Francisco, and Seattle.
**Civil Liberties and Constitutional Concerns**
Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, warned that the presence of military troops policing civilians poses an “intolerable threat to individual liberty and the foundational values of this country.” She emphasized that no matter the uniform, federal agents and military troops must respect constitutional rights, including the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and due process.
Local leaders and lawmakers in Oregon, where Trump sought to deploy troops to Portland, argued that there was no need for federal intervention. Governor Kotek stated, “There is no national security threat in Portland. Our communities are safe and calm.” Independent reporting supported her assessment.
**Militarization and Secret War**
The Trump administration has admitted to waging a secret war against undisclosed enemies without congressional approval. A confidential notice from the Department of War revealed that the president has unilaterally declared a “non-international armed conflict” with “designated terrorist organizations” or DTOs. This has led to the summary execution of suspected drug dealers, a departure from standard U.S. law enforcement practices.
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer specializing in counterterrorism, described the White House’s claims as “dangerous and destabilizing.” He noted that the president could potentially use this authority to target anyone he labels a terrorist, including groups like antifa.
**Authoritarian Measures and Historical Parallels**
Trump’s military occupations of American cities, his deployment of tens of thousands of troops, and his emerging framework for targeting domestic enemies have raised alarms about the country’s trajectory toward authoritarian rule. His dehumanization of political opponents and assertion of the right to wage secret wars and execute individuals deemed terrorists have further fueled concerns.
The president has also attempted to create a presidential police force of armed soldiers for domestic deployment, which poses a significant threat to the rule of law in the United States.
**Rise of Far-Right Extremism**
Recent revelations have exposed private Telegram chats among Young Republican leaders, where they expressed admiration for Nazi ideology, joked about sending political rivals to gas chambers, and mocked the concept of human dignity. These messages, shared among elected officials of Republican youth organizations, highlight a disturbing trend of far-right extremism.
Such rhetoric, if left unchecked, could normalize fascist ideologies and threaten democratic institutions. The normalization of violence and the erosion of civil liberties are warning signs of a potential slide toward authoritarianism.
**ICE Detention and Enforced Disappearances**
The Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants has also drawn criticism. Nearly 60,000 people are currently held in ICE detention centers across the U.S., many of whom have not been convicted of any crime. Some were taken from their homes without judicial warrants, and families often lose track of them for weeks or months.
Enforced disappearances, such as the transfer of Venezuelans to El Salvador’s CECOT prison, reflect a troubling pattern of arbitrary detention and lack of transparency. This mirrors historical precedents of authoritarian regimes, where the state operates outside the bounds of the law.
**Calls for Resistance and Democratic Defense**
As the nation faces growing threats to its democratic foundations, calls for resistance have intensified. Activists urge citizens to demand accountability from lawmakers, attend protests, and speak out against unjust policies. The message is clear: democracy must be defended, not taken for granted.
Historical parallels to authoritarian regimes underscore the urgency of action. Without vigilance, the normalization of injustice can lead to irreversible consequences.
**International Context and Peace Efforts**
Meanwhile, Israel has violated its fragile ceasefire agreement with Hamas, killing six Palestinians in Gaza City and another near Khan Younis. This has raised concerns about the sustainability of the truce and the humanitarian situation in the region.
While the release of Israeli hostages and the easing of aid restrictions are positive developments, challenges remain. Israel has failed to fulfill its commitments under the ceasefire, and the international community continues to pressure both sides for a lasting solution.
A real and permanent peace between Israelis and Palestinians requires equal rights for both peoples, either through a viable two-state solution or a single binational state. However, the U.S.’s longstanding bias toward Israel and its failure to condition military aid have hindered progress.
Global civil society and international pressure will play a critical role in ensuring a fair and just resolution to the conflict. The path to peace demands accountability, justice, and a commitment to human rights for all.
English 
Arabic