The Dictatorship
The stunning hypocrisy of red state leaders stepping up to help Trump take over D.C.
In one sense, the decisions of the governors of Ohio, Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia to send National Guard troops from their states to aid President Donald Trump’s authoritarian takeover of Washington, D.C., should not have surprised anyone. Like their GOP colleagues in Congress, these red-state executives are eager to show their fealty to the MAGA leader. But in another sense, it is a truly stunning development coming from politicians who love nothing more than to tout their allegiance to the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
Just five months ago, West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey proclaimed such allegiance when he signed three pieces of legislation that his office said were “meant to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of West Virginians.” Morrisey said at the time: “As Governor, I will always support and defend West Virginians’ God-given constitutional rights. The bills I signed today further enshrine West Virginia’s strong support for the Second Amendment.”
This is not the first time that President Trump has tested the loyalty of red-state governors in this way.
But let’s compare the decisions of Morrissey, South Carolina’s Henry McMaster, Mississippi’s Tate Reeves and Ohio’s Mike DeWine to deploy their states’ National Guard with the language of the Second Amendment. It reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Note why the militia is needed: for the “security of a free State” [emphasis added]. That is hardly what Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard is designed to secure.
The GOP governors likely know that. But Trump carried all but seven of Ohio’s eighty-eight counties and won 55% of the popular vote. He received 58% of the vote in South Carolina and 70% in West Virginia, where he also carried every county. The governors were eager to make clear that they, as McMaster explainedstand “with President Trump as he works to restore law and order to our nation’s capital.” Or take Morrisey, who said“West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation’s capital.”
This is not the first time that Trump has tested the loyalty of red-state governors in this way. In June 2020, during the nationwide protests following the murder of George Floyd, he asked state chief executives from across the country to send National Guard to Washington, D.C.
As The Washington Post reported at the time: “The request had the effect of cleaving state militias along partisan lines, according to interviews and internal Guard documents. While red states jumped to answer the president’s call, governors and Guard commanders in blue states were incredulous.”
“The result,” the Post continues, “was a deployment to the nation’s capital that military historians say appears to have been without precedent: Over 98 percent of the 3,800 troops that arrived in the District came from states with Republican governors.”
Five years later, the deployment of troops from Trump-loving states in the District of Columbia, where every one of Trump’s Democratic opponents has received over 90% of the vote and where Blacks make up almost 45% of the population, is no less disturbing. It looks like another effort to achieve “total domination” — as Trump put it in 2020 — in the least Trump friendly place in the country.
Alexander Hamilton thought it was important that states have their own military force.
“Total domination” by the federal government was hardly the rallying cry for the people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Quite to the contrary. They had seen firsthand the British use military forces to subdue and oppress people in the colonies. And they feared “that the president would use standing armies to oppress the citizens, as the British had done, and turn us into a garrison state,” as Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., then serving in the House, wrote in 2020.
The drafters of the Declaration of Independence included among the British monarchy’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” the following: “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures; He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power;” and kept “large bodies of armed troops among us.”
That’s why people like Alexander Hamilton thought it was important that states have their own military force. They thought state militias would resist, not aid, the federal government, should it want to follow the British example.
Hamilton made this clear in 1788, before the ratification of the Constitution or the Second Amendment. “If standing armies,” he wrote, “are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions.”
Hamilton hoped that militias controlled by the states would be all that would be necessary to assure peace in the new Republic and did not think that they ever would threaten liberty. They would, after all, be composed of “our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens.”
The National Guard had its origins in the militias about which Hamilton wrote. The Guard traces its start to 1636, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony established the first colonial militia.
Whatever their views on whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, historians generally agree that one of the key purposes of the amendment was to ensure that states had the resources needed to resist encroachments on liberty perpetrated by the federal government. As Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds put it in 1939“In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier.”
Troops from Ohio, South Carolina, Mississippi and West Virginia deployed in Washington are being asked to display the character of soldiers, not that of the “neighbors” that Hamilton envisioned. Hamilton thought that there would be no danger “from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits, and interests.”
Sending members of state National Guards to a place different in “feelings, sentiments, habits and interests” from the District of Columbia may please the president. But it should not please Americans eager to preserve freedom and honor the legacy of the Founding generation.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. The views expressed here do not represent Amherst College.
The Dictatorship
‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile
More than a month into the war in Iran, there’s still great uncertainty about why the United States launched this military offensive in the first place. There’s reason to believe, however, that the conflict has something to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
At an unrelated White House event on Tuesday, for example, Donald Trump said“I had one goal: They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
It was a curious comment, in part because by the president’s own assessmentIran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before he decided to launch the war, and in part because Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week presented the administration’s four major objectives in the conflict, none of which had anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
As for whether Trump’s newly manufactured “goal” has actually been “attained,” The New York Times reported“Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing.”
The American president has acknowledged that these details are true, though he apparently no longer cares. Ahead of an Oval Office address to the nation about the war in Iran, the Republican spoke to Reuters about his perspective:
Of the enriched uranium, Trump said: ‘That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that.’
‘We’ll always be watching it by satellite,’ he added. He said Iran was ‘incapable’ of developing a weapon now.
The president’s comments definitely have a practical element: It’s been an open question for weeks as to whether Trump intends to try to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, which would require ground troops and be profoundly dangerous for U.S. military service members.
If Trump told Reuters the truth and is prepared to let Iran keep the uranium it already has because he no longer “cares about that,” it would drastically reduce the likelihood of a ground invasion — one that would almost certainly cost lives.
But there’s another element to this worth keeping in mind as the process moves forward: Ever since the Obama administration struck the original nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, Trump has insisted that it was wrong to allow the country to hold onto nuclear materials that might someday be used in a nuclear weapon.
A decade later, he’s suddenly indifferent to Iran’s uranium stockpile — which has only grown larger since Trump abandoned the Obama-era policy.
Trump’s goalposts, in other words, are on the move.
Indeed, if the American president’s comments reflect his true perspective (and with this guy, one never really knows), we’re due for a serious public conversation about the motives and objectives for the war. Because as things stand, before the war, Iran had a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country had a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz was open.
And now, Trump’s apparent vision for a successful offensive will include Iran with a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country still holding a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz will be open.
Mission accomplished, I guess?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Mike Johnson caves to the Senate, paving the way for likely DHS shutdown deal
Just days after labeling the Senate deal to end the record-breaking shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security a “crap sandwich,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., now appears ready to swallow it whole.
Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Wednesday they will move forward with the two-track approach senators unanimously backed last Friday. They will pass a bill to fund most of DHS — with the exception of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Patrol — and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package.
“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” Johnson and Thune said in a joint statement.

The announcement amounts to a stunning reversal for Johnson, who was facing pressure from conservatives to oppose the Senate deal. Their objections centered on the lack of money for ICE, as well as the Senate’s failure to include new voter ID restrictions, championed by President Donald Trump, with the so-called SAVE America Act.
Instead, Johnson on Friday forced a House vote on an alternative measure to fund all of DHS for eight weeks. While it passed almost entirely along party linesthe stopgap measure stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats have repeatedly rejected a similar proposal in recent weeks.
Lawmakers were back to square one.
But it turns out, all they needed was a little push from Trump.
Less than three hours before Johnson and Thune’s announcement, Trump urged Republicans — in a lengthy statement on Truth Social — to pass funding for ICE and border patrol through budget reconciliation. While that approach allows GOP lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition, it requires near-unanimous GOP support.
Trump said he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1 — an ambitious timeline that dramatically increased pressure on Republicans.
“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”

With Johnson suddenly on board, lawmakers appear poised to end the DHS shutdown just as soon as the House can reconvene. It’s unclear exactly when that might happen. The House isn’t due back until April 14. But Johnson could always call lawmakers back sooner — or look to pass the Senate bill while both chambers are out on recess through a special process.
Because the House never technically sent its 60-day continuing resolution to the Senate, the House could just recede from its amendment of the Senate-passed bill and immediately send the legislation to the president.
Either way, barring another sudden shift from Trump or House leadership, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history may soon be over — and Democrats are already taking a victory lap.
“Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”
“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer added.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
Former White House official: Trump’s Supreme Court attendance could be ‘perceived as intimidation’
President Donald Trump became the first sitting American president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning when he sat in the audience to hear his administration argue to limit birthright citizenship guarantees for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary U.S. residents.
Before arguments began, Trump entered the courtroom wearing his usual red tie and sat in the front row of the public seating area. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Attorney General Pam Bondi were also in the room.
None of the justices acknowledged Trump’s presence while he was in the courtroom.
As the justices began to question U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who was arguing on behalf of the administration, Trump remained focused and wore a blank expression.
After Sauer finished his arguments, Trump remained in the courtroom for a few minutes. He got up and quietly left, flanked by Secret Service agents, shortly after Cecillia Wang began her arguments for the ACLU.

Trump’s presence at the court is significant. A sitting president of the United States has never attended oral arguments at the high court before, which is widely considered a sign of respect for the balance of power between the federal government and the judiciary.
Two senior White House officials who requested anonymity to speak about the president’s internal strategy told MS NOW that Trump wanted to listen to the oral argument because “it’s an important case.” The outcome of the case will have sweeping legal implications for Trump’s sprawling immigration enforcement agenda.
“Behind closed doors there’s a realization of the tremendous legal wall this is to climb,” a former White House official familiar with Trump’s thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity told MS NOW.
“I’m not sure of the calculation from him to go today. It will be perceived as intimidation, and some justices won’t like that,” the former official said.
Trump has shown scorn for the justices for their ruling on his aggressive tariff policy. Earlier this year, Trump said the justices who ruled against the policy were an “an embarrassment to their families.” The president has railed against the justices, including the ones he appointed in his first term, for striking down his sprawling trade agenda.
Trump has pivoted between slamming the justices on social media for the February tariff ruling and calling on them to uphold his birthright citizenship order.
Domicile, the legal term for the place where an individual maintains a permanent home, was at the heart of Sauer’s argument Wednesday. Sauer argued that parents of children born in the U.S. must be domiciled in the United States and demonstrate allegiance to the country in order for their children to be granted citizenship.
Trump left the court after his administration’s argument faced pushback from the court’s key conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, as well as the rest of the justices on the bench.
As Trump’s motorcade rolled back to the White House, droves of tourists watched and responded with positive and negative gestures. National Guard members were in the crowds, as well.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to confer citizenship to almost all individuals born on U.S. soil: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Shortly after returning to the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end that guarantee. The justices will weigh whether the executive order complies with the federal statute that codified that clause.
Trump did not stay to hear more than the first few minutes of the dissenting arguments. But after returning to the White House, he posted a response on his Truth Social platform. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!”
Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.
Jake Traylor is a White House correspondent for MS NOW.
Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics12 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’



