We aim to be a voice in the ongoing political discourse, providing both factual information and opinionated analysis, from a progressive or center-left perspective, free from the direct influence of major established Main Street Media.
Donald Trump’s assertion that Los Angeles required National Guard support is patently false. In reality, Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell emphasized that the protests were nowhere near the level that would necessitate deploying troops.
During a visit to the Kennedy Center to attend a performance of “Les Misérables”, Trump made the unsubstantiated claim, “If we weren’t there, if we didn’t bring in the National Guard and the Marines, you would probably have a city that was burning to the ground.” He further distorted the facts by suggesting that Police Chief McDonnell had acknowledged the necessity of their presence. However, McDonnell swiftly countered Trump’s false assertion, stating, “No, we were not in a position to request the National Guard. We’re nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for National Guard at this stage.”
It is abundantly clear that Trump concocted a false narrative to justify the deployment of federal troops in Los Angeles. The very purpose of these troops is shrouded in ambiguity, sparking serious doubts about the legitimacy of their presence. The authorization for National Guard troops and Marines to temporarily detain civilians stands on shaky legal ground, as they are typically barred from law enforcement duties unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act. By recklessly sending unnecessary federal troops to Los Angeles without the city’s consent, Trump has ignited a constitutional crisis that demands rigorous examination!
The Trump administration’s brazen move to federalize the California National Guard, deploying them to suppress protests against ICE detentions in Los Angeles without any request from the state’s governor, illustrates a chilling power grab. This reckless decision comes despite local law enforcement’s reassurances that the situation was well in hand, revealing a disturbing intersection of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies and his campaign’s most alarming promises.
The decision by the Pentagon to activate 700 Marines from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, California, to accompany the 4,000 federalized National Guard troops in occupying sections of Los Angeles represents a significant commitment to deploying military forces within the United States. This action aligns with Trump’s ongoing declarations throughout the 2024 campaign cycle regarding his intention to utilize military personnel to suppress civil unrest.
Trump, the mastermind behind the 2020 coup attempt and the instigator of a deadly insurrection at the Capitol, now has the audacity to claim that protesters in Los Angeles are staging an insurrection. This display of military might is nothing but a calculated move to flex his muscles and stifle dissent—an alarming tactic to reclaim control and intimidate those who dare oppose him.
Like a quintessential bully, Trump reveals his cowardice at every turn. Humiliated by powerful adversaries—China, Harvard, and the federal courts—he has resorted to waging war on the most vulnerable among us, specifically targeting a progressive state like California, where the overwhelming majority stand firmly against him.
The deployment of the military to Los Angeles comes at a time when state and local officials have deemed it unnecessary. This manufactured crisis is a product of Trump’s creation, and the presence of federally controlled troops on American streets is a historically ominous sign of social crisis.
The Trump administration has waged a ruthless campaign to punish Democratic cities and states, a vendetta that was brewing long before he even stepped back into office. A shocking expose from November revealed that Trump and his inner circle were deep in discussions about mercilessly cutting federal funding to defiant cities like Chicago—bold bastions of resilience that have dared to stand up against his heartless deportation agenda.
Trump and his cohorts are fervently seeking to unleash chaos and bloodshed on our streets. On Truth Social, Trump proclaimed, “Looking really bad in L.A…. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!” The events over the weekend have gifted Trump a golden opportunity to attack a blue state, fabricate a dramatic spectacle in its largest city, and dangerously blur the boundaries between a constitutional president and a would-be monarch.
Over the weekend, President Trump ordered the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles in an effort to suppress protests against his aggressive and unlawful mass deportation campaign. This decision ignited a clash with California’s state government, which neither requested the military assistance nor supported the deployment.
The largely peaceful protests in Los Angeles against the Trump administration’s deportation policies have now entered their fourth day, but the response to them is generating significant controversy. Specifically, the decision to potentially deploy up to 2,000 troops under federal control to the streets of LA has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from former top military figures. They argue that this move constitutes a violation of the military’s long-held commitment to remain separate from domestic politics, except in the most extreme and justifiable circumstances.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, announced his intention to sue Trump, labeling the president a “dictator” who is deliberately “fanning the flames” of tension and potential violence in Los Angeles. Newsom also highlighted the broader implications of the June 7 memorandum Trump signed, emphasizing that its reach extends beyond California.
The memorandum, titled Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions, grants Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth the authority to “employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.” This marks an unprecedented assertion of federal military power across the nation.
Recognizing the profound and far-reaching consequences of Trump’s actions, courageous demonstrators across the United States—from Portland, Maine, to the vibrant streets of Houston, Texas, and the resilient heart of Salt Lake City, Utah—rallied with unyielding solidarity alongside the brave protesters in California who are courageously facing military repression.
Trump himself has previously made no secret of his willingness to utilize the military for domestic purposes. During his reelection campaign last year, he repeatedly told supporters that, if re-elected, he would deploy the armed forces against what he termed “the enemy within.” This history further fuels the perception that the troop deployment is not a response to a genuine emergency, but rather an attempt to use the military to suppress dissent and further a political agenda.
Trump’s use of force and intimidation tactics reflects authoritarian tendencies, signaling a constitutional crisis in the United States.
The former White House advisor has intensified his criticism of the large Republican bill that proposes significant tax cuts and Medicaid reductions, urging Americans to contact their lawmakers and oppose the legislation. While Musk’s reasons differ from those of Democrats, both sides share a common goal: to avoid increasing the national debt further. Historically, Republican presidents have contributed slightly more to the national debt per term than their Democratic counterparts, according to inflation-adjusted data from the U.S. Treasury Department and the Bureau of Labor Statistics dating back to 1913. Notably, President Trump is the largest contributor, having added an estimated $7.1 trillion to the national debt during his first term from 2016 to 2020.
The Republican bill combines over $4 trillion in tax cuts and new spending with less than $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other social programs, resulting in a net deficit increase of $2.4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts predominantly benefit the wealthy and corporations, which some argue are not paying their fair share.
On Wednesday, Musk posted, “A new spending bill should be drafted that doesn’t massively grow the deficit and increase the debt ceiling by 5 TRILLION DOLLARS.”
Musk is asking the public to trust someone who can land rockets vertically and develop self-driving cars more than the Republican lawmakers who passed this bill by a single vote under pressure from Trump and wealthy interests.
Now, the question remains whether the Republican-controlled Senate will stand firm or yield to Trump and his affluent allies.
President Trump has issued pardons that have eliminated over $1 billion in debts owed by wealthy individuals convicted of fraud and other crimes. These debts often include financial penalties imposed as part of a criminal sentence, as well as restitution payments intended to compensate victims for their losses. By granting pardons to these individuals, President Trump effectively leaves victims without the restitution they are entitled to receive.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee noted in a March 2025 letter that individuals pardoned for January 6-related offenses collectively owed nearly $3 million in restitution before receiving their pardons. This scale of pardons wiping out significant fraud-related debts is unprecedented in American history.
For a president who has positioned himself as a champion of “law and order,” the decision to pardon numerous wealthy individuals raises questions about the motivations behind these clemency actions and whether they serve legitimate purposes.
Analyses of the financial relationship between states and the federal government consistently reveal a significant, though often overlooked, pattern: states that predominantly vote Democratic tend to contribute more in federal taxes than they receive back in federal spending and benefits, while states that predominantly vote Republican often receive more than they contribute. This effectively means that “blue states” are subsidizing “red states.”
This fiscal dynamic is evident in various federal programs and investments. For instance, under traditional Medicaid programs, the federal government covers a larger share of costs in several red states, including Texas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and West Virginia. Furthermore, while blue states initially received a larger share of COVID-19 relief funds, analyses indicate that red states have disproportionately benefited from significant Biden-era legislative investments like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the CHIPS Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), sometimes receiving benefits at a much higher rate.
Looking at overall flows, data from 2018 to 2022 provides a clear illustration of this pattern. During this period, individuals and organizations located in blue states collectively accounted for nearly 60% of all federal tax receipts but received only 53% of all federal spending directed back to states in the form of direct payments, grants, contracts, or wages.
Despite this consistent flow of resources from blue states to red states, political discourse and actions sometimes appear to contradict this fiscal reality. Examples include past threats from figures like President Donald Trump and the GOP to block disaster relief for blue states like California, proposals to impede the return of federal relief funds for state and local taxes, and opposition to the very industrial investments from Biden-era legislation that benefit red states. This fiscal dynamic exists alongside the political power structure where red states often hold significant influence in Congress, partly facilitated by gerrymandered districts.
Republicans are contemplating controversial budget cuts that could impact health care for seniors. Is this what you signed up for American MAGA Seniors?
The House recently passed a tax-and-spending bill totaling $5 trillion, which proposes nearly $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid, affecting over 70 million low-income Americans. In addition, some Senate Republicans are advocating for further spending reductions by targeting perceived inefficiencies in Medicare, a program crucial for many seniors across the nation.
Recall that George W. Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security in 2004 led to significant backlash, resulting in Republicans losing the popular vote for two decades.
In a separate development, billionaire Elon Musk has been vocally critical of the current Republican bill on his social media platform, X. He deems it an “abomination” due to its adverse effects on the federal deficit and urges Trump and the GOP to abandon the proposal and start anew.
Additionally, some Senate Republicans are looking to alter provisions within the House bill that could inadvertently raise its overall cost, including the repeal of renewable energy tax credits established by the Inflation Reduction Act, changes to the Medicaid “provider tax,” and cuts to federal food assistance programs.
It seems that Trump and the GOP are far more interested in fattening the wallets of their wealthy donors, like Jeff Bezos, than actually giving a damn about the struggles of the average American.
Some farmers are beginning to reconsider their support for Trump. However, it’s important to remember that they elected him fully aware of the damage he caused during his first term—a period when American taxpayers had to step in and provide bailouts to struggling farmers. Now, similar challenges are arising once again.
In the past, Republicans have eagerly cited rising trade deficit figures during the Biden administration to criticize Biden officials for not doing enough to support U.S. farm exports. Yet, it remains uncertain if or when the Trump administration will release the full written analysis of its own report. This silence persists months after Trump declared, “our farmers are going to have a field day right now” thanks to his international trade policies.
Clearly, Trump lacks a firm grasp on agricultural economics, and the consequences are evident. American farmers made their choice, and now they must face the results.
Now, we are left wondering what his next steps will be. The administration has recently cut approximately $500 million in grants to organizations that promote public safety, including many dedicated to preventing gun violence. In April, the U.S. Department of Justice abruptly terminated 373 grants, with a significant portion allocated for community-based violence intervention programs. These programs encompass various initiatives, from conflict resolution and de-escalation efforts to hospital-based strategies aimed at preventing retaliation among individuals who have suffered violent injuries. The termination of these grants has impacted efforts to protect children, assist victims, prevent hate crimes, and bolster law enforcement and prosecution.
As a result of these cuts, many organizations across the country have already faced layoffs and reductions in their services. In response, five groups have filed a lawsuit on May 21 seeking to restore the grants in full.
This situation raises the question of whether Trump is merely paying lip service to his campaign promises. His record suggests a tendency to prioritize rhetoric over tangible actions, making it difficult to take his commitments seriously to crime reduction.
Blue Press Journal 