In Donald Trump’s increasingly confused worldview applies: If he can imagine it, he can do it too. “I have the right to do everything I want. I am the President of the United States,” he said this week in the Oval Office in front of reporters. In doing so, he justified his decision to send armed National Guard units to Washington, DC. And his threats to send forces to Chicago and beyond. “When I think our country is in danger – and it is in danger in these cities,” he said, “then I can do that.”
Police state as a test run
Trump uses the military to test an American police state in the test business. And he does it in a way that, according to Major General Ad Paul Eaton, who spoke to reporters on Tuesday, could heat up conflicts between units in Republican and democratically ruled states. “This is the most frightening of what we are watching.”
This week Trump signed a drastic executive arrangement. The Pentagon indicates this to “immediately” set up a special unit within the DC National Guard. It should ensure “public security and order” – in response to the “crime stand” he declared in the capital. (The Federal Government itself reported that violent crime in the district was at the lowest level in three decades.)
National intervention force planned
But the decision is not limited to the capital, where Trump has far -reaching powers. It requires the establishment of similar capacities in national guard units across the country. As well as the establishment of a “constant fast intervention force of the National Guard”, which can “be used quickly nationwide”. Trump’s order stipulates that these units should “knock down bourgeois unrest and ensure public security”.
Lawyers raise the alarm. “There is no legal authority to federize the national guard to combat local crime,” says Liza Goitein, security expert at the Brennan Center. She pointed out the devastating consequences of Trump’s approach. “At least the use of soldiers as police forces in Germany creates a intimidation effect”. Especially for people who want to protest against those who command these soldiers. “
Citizens intended as a helper
Trump’s order provides more than just the use of the military. It also opens the door for civilians who are supposed to enforce his ideas of “law and order”. The disposal announces the creation of an online portal, through which Americans can apply with “experience in law enforcement or other relevant areas” in order to accompany “federal authorities for law enforcement” and support “the political goals” of the president.
The language of the order, which was first made public by the New York Times, is vague. Should these civilians be paid for? Or is it – as the newspaper wrote – “civil volunteers”, comparable to a federal posse? A spokesman for the White House did not want to commit himself and only told Rolling Stone that the portal should attract “qualified applicants” who support Trump’s initiative for “fighting crime in DC”.
Stephen Miller as a key figure
Trump commissioned a task force, chaired by his closest consultant Stephen Miller, with the management of recruitment efforts. Trump’s most authoritarian followers regularly demonize everyone who stands on the left of the Maga movement. In an appearance at Fox News with Sean Hannity, Miller described the Democrats with words that would even drive the blush into the face of a demagogue:
“The Democratic Party is not a political party, but a domestic extremist organization,” said Miller. He picked his tirade with false claims, such as that the Democrats did not represent “American citizens”, but “only devoted himself to defense of serious criminals, gang members as well as illegal murderers and terrorists”. He called Democratic Mayor “Evil” and wrongly assumed that they “were delighted” to expose their citizens to a “constant bloodbath”. He described Trump’s militarization of the streets of the capital as “liberation” and said: “President Trump has literally freed the people of Washington, DC.”
Extremist docking points
Schinging an enemy image inside is not new to the Trump government. However, the idea is that the militarized police state should be used against one of the country’s two large parties. This is alarming – and a bright red warning signal for anyone who is responsible for recruiting security forces.
The language in Trump’s executive arrangement is also worrying. It can be understood as a dog whistle for the extremists of the right. In the ranks of the Oath Keepers, for example, numerous ex-soldiers and ex-police officers sit. As legal proceedings showed, their leader only waited for a signal of the president on January 6th to violently act against Trump’s opponent in DC. At that time, the militia had stationed its own armed “fast intervention force” beyond the river in Virginia. After Trump’s mass gestures, many of these people are at large again.
Investigation as a political means
“The problem here is the job,” says Max Rose, former democratic congress member from Staten Island, to Rolling Stone. “The president’s intention is to scare millions of people – especially his political opponents.” Therefore, everything happens so “public and brazen”.
Rose, Eaton and Goitein were participants of a press conference organized by the Vet Voice Foundation – an organization that is committed to protecting democratic values. Her boss Janessa Goldbeck condemned Trump’s “unstoppable march” to make the military a “party tool”. She called the new decision to the President’s “most dangerous step so far”. “It is a blueprint to use America’s military forces to monitor our own citizens.”
Threats of governors
Several participants in the press conference pointed out the risk that Trump could commit a taboo break and use national guard units of a state in another-even against the will of the governor there. “This standard was always treated as inviolable because the opposite would obviously be unconstitutional,” said Goldbeck. “In short: the constitution prohibits the states of attacking other states.”
This threat is no longer a theoretical. In a press conference, the democratic governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, explicitly warned his “co-governors” of missions in his state against the will of the representatives there. Pritzker formulated in emphasis, almost like a veiled threat: “Every action that violates the sacred sovereignty of our state to flatter a dictator’s ego will be answered.”
Civil war scenario
General Ad Eaton, consultant at Vet Voice, warned in military jargon of a “Blue-on-Blue” scenario-a form of “fratricide”, in which American units shoot together, because both believe that they are doing the right thing, but their command command is faulty. “
Eaton introduced himself a dangerous scenario in which South Carolina or Mississippi send troops to California – only to hear from his governor: “You will not enter the state of California.”
“This can come out of control if the governors see themselves as the last line of defense for US democracy,” says Eaton. America’s current Cold War between Republican and Democratic States could suddenly get hot. “The last time America experienced a ‘blue-on-blue’,” he warns, “was in the civil war.”