[POST] To live and die in L.A.
What happens when POTUS seeks rebellion
This is a reader-supported publication. I give it all away for free but could really use your support if you want me to keep doing this.
Continuing yesterday’s theme, I find myself consistently drawn to the comparison of Trump’s big-bang strategy (flood the zone) regarding regime change here in the US with the Neocons’ big-bang strategy (invasion) regarding regime change in Iraq.
The sense that only an extreme course can break through a calcified system (Trump’s Deep State, Bush’s broken Middle East).
The emphasis on inflicting comprehensive damage (regime change with extreme prejudice), with little sense of what comes next, because, no matter what comes next, the worse it is, the better it is for their purposes.
Based on those observed realities, the sneaking suspicion that the architects of this chaos are actually more interested in the power that accrues to them as a result than in the outcome itself.
In other words, what’s going on in LA is all pretext while the subtext remains far more dangerous and transformative in a Weimar Republic kind of way.
Point being, there is no fear of fucking something up when the goal is to fuck everything up. As such, you jump on every trolley car coming down the tracks, like Trump is doing right now in LA.
ICE’s approach is designed to instill widespread fear. That fear naturally finds popular expression in resistance and protest. That resistance and protest “proves” the need for even more extreme responses (federalizing CA’s national guard without the governor’s request and without invoking the insurrection excuse — but hinting that that is next on the agenda; plus the sheer symbolism of Marines on American streets). Kristi Noem signals that LA isn’t a “city of immigrants” but a “city of criminals.” More than just alarmism, we are actually moving down the path of martial law being imposed to prevent the very “chaos” this administration is stirring.
Trump’s economic and fiscal policies will prove damaging in a systematic, long-term manner. That is not a problem for this administration but a choice and an opportunity seized, because the more worse things become, the more we need “stable leadership” and then we’re into Alex Garland’s scenario in his film “Civil War”: Nick Offerman’s POTUS refuses to leave at the end of his term. Why? Garland won’t say. He just puts it out there as a scenario insert.
Imagine what happens if Newsom seeks to assert control over the California National Guard, or if those units themselves refuse to engage in certain acts and tactics against their fellow Californians. Does that put them at odds with the Marines in theater? Does that push the White House to federalize National Guard troops from Red States and send them in?
The last time a POTUS federalized National Guard units over the head of the local governor was LBJ working the civil rights crisis in 1965 in the Deep South. But we’ve already been sold the concept that the civil rights struggle of today is that of persecuted Whites, so the symmetry there is welcomed — even celebrated in MAGA ranks.
Trump stated it plainly during the election: I am your retribution!
So, if DEI is the great monster to be slain by this administration, then some “necessary” imposition of emergency federal powers is justified in this wholly justified “correction” of the Civil Rights movement — or, as we are being sold, when everything about America went wrong.
The Boomer-triggered conflicts of the 1960s are still being fought today. If the 1950s were the Golden Age, then the only route back to that magical era is to reverse-engineer the pre-Nixon 1960s of Kennedy and Johnson — in other words, White Christian nationalism restored.
Can we assume Trump is being careful to hold his “trump card” (i.e., citation of the Insurrection Act) back for now, because that’s when he truly seeks to make California an example for the rest of Blue States — in effect, stating that either you go along with my immigration crackdown or I will subject your state to quasi-martial law?
Yes, yes we can assume that such signaling is real and purposeful.
The pot that is now California needs to be brought to a boil to justify that switcheroo to outside NG troops coming in to pacify a rebellious member state whose citizenry are obviously in “open rebellion” against the Federal Government. All one needs for that is a Kent State-like cock up. After all, that’s all we needed back in the day to start our Revolution — i.e., the Boston Massacre.
A Boston Massacre–like or Kent State–like event, where military or federal forces fire on civilians during a protest, could indeed serve as a flashpoint, dramatically escalating tensions between state and federal authorities. Historically, such incidents have a powerful effect on public opinion and political resolve, forcing rapid and profound shifts in government response.
How plausible is a state-federal military standoff after such a flashpoint event? A lot of it comes down to Trump’s eagerness to deploy US active duty troops against declared “insurrectionists.” If federal troops or federalized National Guard units were involved in a deadly confrontation with protestors, especially over state objections, it could galvanize state leaders to openly resist further federal interventions. Blue State governors might refuse to cooperate with federal orders, withdraw state law enforcement support, or even mobilize state-controlled National Guard units in defiance.
At that point, we enter into the sort of escalation dominance situation that I believe the Trump administration would actually welcome, thus making the Garland Civil War scenario entirely plausible.
Why?
Again, Trump’s economics are not going to work and so, as the economy suffers and turns the majority of Americans against the administration, some new struggle will be required to win back that loyalty — or at least that indifference and inaction. Thus, purposefully stoking local “insurrections” to trigger widespread resistance affords Trump the situation in which he inevitably attempts to stay in power/office in some manner, as, say, JD Vance becomes a Dimitri Medvedev to his Putin.
It’s not hard to imagine the rationales offered: This fight is about the very soul of what it means to be an American! We are being invaded, with the Dems conspiring to subjugate “true Americans” by importing non-Whites en masse!
That’s basically the Alt-Right’s replacement theory — a trope that MAGA has seized upon quite openly for years now.
Yes, the US military command structure is designed to prevent direct conflict between federal and state forces, but it could most definitely break down under extreme political stress. If both sides claim legal authority — Trump under the Insurrection Act, the other under state sovereignty — confusion and standoffs are entirely plausible, especially if orders are ambiguous or contradictory — the very definition of Trumpist rule.
While America has not suffered open armed standoffs since our Civil War, the precedents (or close calls) are there in the 1957 Little Rock crisis and the 1960s civil rights deployments, in which state National Guards initially resisted federal authority until overwhelmed by legal and military pressure.
Just remember: in this scenario the Trump administration isn’t seeking a de-escalation, so, when a massacre-type event triggers immediate court challenges, emergency legislative sessions, and no serious Congressional pushback … then the purposefully stoked public outrage could readily harden both sides’ positions, making some Constitutional standoff entirely plausible.
Is Trump 2.0 willing to go all that way?
After the January 6th Insurrection, I would have to say yes.
Yes, despite these risks, the US political system possesses strong institutional and cultural barriers against military infighting. Senior commanders, both state and federal, are trained to avoid direct confrontation and seek legal or political resolution. However, in a highly polarized environment — one purposefully engineered by a sitting president, the risk of miscalculation or rogue actions is entirely real.
Indeed, such “inserts” should be anticipated.
There is significant concern among legal scholars, lawmakers, and state officials that Trump’s deployment of federal troops and National Guard units to LA — over the objections of state and local authorities — is intended to provoke or escalate confrontations with Blue State governments, potentially as a pretext to justify the imposition of martial law.
Currently, 20 states are considered reliably blue. If enough of these states were knocked out of action, meaning their legislatures could not participate or vote, then — theoretically — the remaining states could more easily meet the three-fourths threshold to amend the Constitution by revoking the 22nd Amendment. Recall, for example, how much the Republican-dominated Congress was able to do during the Civil War, when the Confederate states removed themselves from the process.
What if such a removal was engineered by the administration itself?
In that scenario pathway, we are talking about true transformation of the US political system. It would just be a matter, this time, of encouraging that “self-deportation” of Blue States or declaring it through imposed martial law.
Understand, the Constitution does not explicitly provide a mechanism for excluding states from the amendment process, and any attempt to do so through martial law would be unprecedented, likely unconstitutional, and almost certainly provoke a severe political and legal crisis.
You write that sentence and then you say to yourself: Well, that just shows how implausible this whole scenario is!
But that confidence only makes sense if the other side has any respect for, or fear of, being unprecedented, unconstitutional, or is wary of severe political and legal crises.
Does that sound like Trump 2.0?
No, it does not.
POLITICO: Trump’s troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear; Trump has cited a provision of U.S. law that allows the president to use the National Guard to suppress the “danger of a rebellion.”
An abstract faith in “guard rails” and precedence strikes me as foolish and dangerous right now.
Trump’s stated rationale, legal scholars say, appears to be a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step. The real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump’s deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tension in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission.
“It does appear to be largely pretextual, or at least motivated more by politics than on-the-ground need,” said Chris Mirasolo, a national security law professor at the University of Houston.
Again, Garland’s scary film scenario strikes me as less fantastic by the day. A president forcing local crises to justify his continued rule. Some states going rogue in response, but most of them quietly sitting out the conflict. Military units forced to pick sides and, once a triggering “massacre” unfolds, “avenging” that profound injustice — in both directions.
Beware the “bloody shirt” dynamic. It has worked its powerful magic in America’s past and it can most definitely return — in force — to our present situation.
We can keep telling ourselves that this is nothing more than Trump Derangement Syndrome. But, if you think Trump isn’t ready, willing, and able to aggressively deploy the US military against his domestic opponents, then I think you’re kidding yourself.
I myself have considered this his plan all along.
SECDEF Hegseth told Congress yesterday that this military deployment to Los Angeles would last at least 60 days. As he put it, “we’re not going anywhere.”
The conservative Boomers finally have their Robespierre. The restoration is just beginning.
To not consider this scenario is becoming an untenable act for any American citizen.
