**Trump’s Military Deployments and Authoritarian Measures Spark Concerns Over Democracy**
Earlier this month, former President Donald Trump threatened to deploy the armed forces in more American cities during a speech to military leaders. He claimed that some of the generals and admirals present would play a key role in his administration’s efforts to occupy U.S. cities, deploy tens of thousands of troops across the country, and establish a framework for targeting domestic enemies. Trump also cast his political rivals as subhuman and asserted his right to wage secret wars and execute those he deems terrorists.
During the address, Trump specifically 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. “This is a war from within.” He added, “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”
Trump has already deployed the military within the United States in an unprecedented manner during his second term. In September, a federal judge ruled that his deployment of California’s National Guard to Los Angeles under Title 10 was illegal. Despite this, Trump later ordered the military occupation of Portland, Oregon, against the objections of Governor Tina Kotek.
“I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary troops to protect war-ravaged Portland and any of our ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. He also authorized the use of “full force, if necessary.”
Legal experts warn that Trump’s increasing use of the armed forces within the United States represents a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century law that prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement. This law is seen as a cornerstone of American democracy. However, Trump’s actions have raised concerns that the country is moving closer to becoming a police state.
In response to a federal judge blocking his military deployments in Oregon, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that grants the president emergency powers to deploy troops on U.S. soil. “I think that’s all insurrection, really criminal insurrection,” he claimed.
A U.S. District Court judge ruled last month that Trump’s deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles was illegal, comparing it to Britain’s use of soldiers for law enforcement in colonial America. The judge warned that Trump intended to transform the National Guard into a presidential police force.
“Congress spoke clearly in 1878 when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law,” Judge Charles Breyer wrote. “Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”
Despite these rulings, Trump has continued to expand his urban military occupations, threatening to deploy troops in cities such as Memphis and Chicago. According to reports, approximately 35,000 federal troops have been deployed within the U.S., primarily under Title 10 authority, in at least seven states, including Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas.
National Guard forces deployed to Washington, D.C., as part of Trump’s federal takeover of the district are operating under Title 32 status, meaning they are under state control. However, with no governor to report to, the chain of command runs directly from the commanding general to the secretary of the Army, then to Pete Hegseth, and finally to Trump himself.
The Trump administration has also admitted to waging a secret war against undisclosed enemies without congressional approval. This includes designating antifa—a loosely organized anti-fascist movement—as a “domestic terror organization” through an executive order. It also issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum directing the Justice Department and intelligence community to target “anti-fascism movements” and “domestic terrorist organizations.”
These actions have led to widespread concern about the erosion of democratic principles and the rule of law in the United States. Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates argue that Trump’s policies represent a dangerous shift toward authoritarian governance.
**Rise of Far-Right Extremism and Threats to Democracy**
Recent revelations have highlighted the growing influence of far-right extremism within the Republican Party. Leaked Telegram chats among Young Republican leaders revealed discussions of Nazi-style rhetoric, including jokes about sending political opponents to gas chambers. These messages, shared among elected officials and party operatives, have sparked alarm over the normalization of extremist ideas.
Experts warn that such rhetoric signals a dangerous trajectory, where hate and violence are not only tolerated but celebrated. Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, emphasized that “when military troops police civilians, we have an intolerable threat to individual liberty and the foundational values of this country.”
The Trump administration has also faced criticism for its treatment of immigrants and detainees. Nearly 60,000 individuals are currently held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers across the U.S., many without charges or due process. Some have been transferred to foreign prisons, raising concerns about enforced disappearances and human rights violations.
Historical parallels have been drawn between these practices and the early stages of authoritarian regimes. As in Nazi Germany, the gradual normalization of unjust detention and surveillance could lead to broader abuses of power. Civil society groups and activists urge citizens to resist these trends and defend democratic institutions.
**International Context: Ceasefire Violations and Regional Tensions**
Meanwhile, Israel has violated its fragile ceasefire agreement with Hamas by killing six Palestinians in Gaza City and another near Khan Younis. The attacks occurred despite the October 10 ceasefire agreement, which required the suspension of all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment.
While the release of Israeli hostages and the allowance of humanitarian aid into Gaza are positive developments, Israel has failed to fully implement the agreement. It has reduced the number of aid trucks entering Gaza and continues to block international media from reporting on the ground. These actions raise concerns about the sustainability of the ceasefire and the potential for renewed conflict.
The long-term success of the ceasefire depends on equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians, either through a two-state solution or a binational state with guaranteed rights for both populations. However, the U.S. has historically supported Israel, limiting the effectiveness of international efforts to enforce peace.
Global civil society has played a critical role in pressuring Israel and the U.S. to pursue a just resolution. Mass demonstrations, international solidarity efforts, and increased scrutiny of Israel’s actions have contributed to the current ceasefire. Nevertheless, ongoing tensions and regional dynamics continue to shape the situation in Gaza.
**Conclusion: A Call to Action**
As the U.S. faces internal challenges to democracy and global conflicts persist, the need for vigilance and civic engagement has never been greater. Citizens must remain informed, speak out, and demand accountability from their leaders. History has shown that the erosion of democratic norms often begins with small, seemingly insignificant acts—until they become the norm.
The lessons of the past remind us that freedom is not self-sustaining. It requires active defense, resistance to injustice, and a commitment to justice for all. As the nation stands at a crossroads, the choices made today will determine the future of democracy—not just in the U.S., but around the world.
Arabic 
English