Category: political science Page 1 of 4

Illustration contrasting “own the libs” cruelty with progressive compassion. (Image generated by ChatGPT, 2025)

In recent years, the phrase “own the libs” has become a rallying cry for many conservatives. At first glance, it might seem like harmless political banter—a way to laugh at the other side. But taken seriously, this mindset reveals something troubling about how politics is being practiced in the United States. It shows a shift away from solving problems and toward something much darker: treating politics as a game where the goal is to make other people suffer.

The idea of owning the libs is not about making life better for ordinary people. Instead, it’s about celebrating when someone else is angry, humiliated, or hurt. Passing laws that restrict healthcare, rolling back rights for LGBTQ+ people, or undermining voting access aren’t framed as solutions to real problems. They are framed as victories precisely because they upset progressives. Cruelty itself becomes the goal.

But politics should not be about harming others—it should be about helping people. That is the central difference between the conservative “own the libs” mindset and progressive politics. Progressives, at their best, focus on policies that improve people’s lives: expanding access to healthcare, making schools stronger, reducing poverty, and protecting the freedom to live authentically. The success of progressive politics is measured in lives improved, not tears shed by political opponents.

This difference matters because it points to two fundamentally different visions for our society. One vision treats politics as a contest of domination, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it angers “the other side.” The other vision treats politics as a tool for compassion, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it improves the lives of our neighbors.

Of course, no political movement is perfect. Progressives sometimes stumble, and not every policy works out as intended. But there is an important moral distinction between trying to help people and trying to hurt them. If our politics is driven by spite, we will end up with policies that deepen division and suffering. If our politics is driven by empathy, we have at least a chance at building a society that is fairer, freer, and more humane.

The question is not whether liberals or conservatives “win.” The real question is: do we want our politics to be about cruelty—or about compassion?

OPM Ends Gender-Affirming Care in 2026

By Katherine Walter

On August 25, 2025

In LGBTQ+ rights

The recent announcement from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that gender-affirming health care will be excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs beginning in 2026 represents a profound step backward in civil rights and health equity. Under this directive, chemical and surgical interventions for gender transition will no longer be covered, though counseling for gender dysphoria must remain available. Insurance carriers are required to develop exceptions processes for individuals currently undergoing such care, yet the parameters of those processes remain undefined. Providers of gender-affirming care are also barred from being listed in plan directories, effectively discouraging access (Office of Personnel Management, 2025; Moss, 2025).

To understand the gravity of this reversal, it is necessary to recall how hard-fought the gains for transgender health care under FEHB were. In 2014, OPM lifted the longstanding blanket exclusion of gender-affirming procedures, and by 2016 carriers were instructed not to categorically deny such care. This change aligned federal benefits with emerging medical consensus that gender-affirming treatments are not elective but medically necessary. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society have long affirmed that access to hormone therapy and surgeries significantly reduces psychological distress, improves quality of life, and prevents serious health complications (Hembree et al., 2017; Coleman et al., 2022). For nearly a decade, transgender federal employees and retirees could rely on this coverage as a matter of equity and recognition of their humanity.

As a transgender woman who has been receiving gender-affirming health care for more than eleven years, this policy shift strikes me not just as a bureaucratic adjustment but as a direct threat to my life and well-being. Having undergone an orchiectomy, I rely on estradiol not simply as an affirming treatment, but as essential hormone replacement. Without it, my bones, cardiovascular health, cognition, and emotional stability would be at severe risk. Estradiol for me is no different than thyroid medication for someone with hypothyroidism—it is medically necessary, lifelong care. To see it lumped under a politically charged category of “optional” transition services is both scientifically inaccurate and deeply insulting.

What unsettles me most is the uncertainty this policy creates. OPM’s promise of an “exceptions process” offers little clarity. Will it protect those of us with medical histories spanning over a decade of consistent care? Or will it force us into endless appeals and denials, treating every prescription refill as a battle? This ambiguity is destabilizing, and I cannot help but feel that it is intentional—designed to make care harder to access and to discourage providers from stepping forward.

As a federal retiree, I gave years of service under the assumption that the benefits I earned would protect me equitably. Now, I feel as though my identity has made me a target within the very system I trusted. The estimated 14,000 transgender federal employees and retirees who will be affected are not faceless statistics; we are people who dedicated our careers to serving this country, only to be told that our health care needs are unworthy of recognition (Lambda Legal, 2025; them.us, 2025). The exclusion also signals a dangerous precedent: that essential medical care can be stripped away not because of evidence or cost, but because of politics.

This change must be understood in its broader social context. Over the past decade, transgender Americans have seen both progress and backlash. The Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 extended nondiscrimination protections in health care, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) affirmed that gender identity is protected under Title VII. Yet, simultaneously, states across the country have passed laws restricting access to gender-affirming care, particularly for youth, framing these measures as cultural wedge issues. The OPM directive extends that wave of exclusion into the federal system, embedding discrimination into the nation’s largest employer-based insurance program.

For me personally, this is not an abstract policy debate. It is about whether I will be able to continue accessing the medication that keeps me healthy and alive. It is about whether the years of progress we celebrated were only temporary reprieves. And it is about what message this sends to younger transgender people entering federal service today: that their health and dignity can be used as bargaining chips in political battles.

I cannot help but feel anxious about what the future holds, but I also feel resolved. This rollback will not go unchallenged. Advocacy groups such as Lambda Legal, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and others have already condemned it as unlawful and are preparing legal strategies (Lambda Legal, 2025). As a transgender woman and a retiree, I plan to add my voice to that chorus, because silence is what allows discrimination to endure. We have fought too hard, and for too long, to let the ground be taken out from under us without resistance.

References

Coleman, E., Radix, A. E., Bouman, W. P., Brown, G. R., de Vries, A. L. C., Deutsch, M. B., … Winter, S. (2022). Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(sup1), S1–S259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644

Hembree, W. C., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Gooren, L., Hannema, S. E., Meyer, W. J., Murad, M. H., … T’Sjoen, G. G. (2017). Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 102(11), 3869–3903. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01658

Lambda Legal. (2025, August 19). Lambda Legal condemns Trump administration’s illegal exclusion of gender-affirming care from employee health benefits. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://lambdalegal.org/newsroom

Moss, K. (2025, August 20). Coverage for gender-affirming care will be eliminated from FEHB plans in 2026. Government Executive. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.govexec.com

Office of Personnel Management. (2025). Carrier Letter 2025-01b: Chemical and surgical sex-trait modification exclusion. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://opm.gov

them.us. (2025, August 20). Trump Admin to end coverage of gender-affirming care for federal workers. them. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.them

From Liberation to Sanitation: How Corporate Pride Stripped the Parade of Its Sexual Soul

By Katherine Walter

On July 7, 2025

In LGBTQ+ rights

Participants march in the 53rd annual Chicago Pride Parade on June 30, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / AFP) (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

The Chicago Pride Parade has undergone a dramatic transformation since its early days, shifting from a jubilant, sexually expressive act of defiance into a carefully curated and often sanitized celebration. What was once a radical protest against heteronormativity and state control has become, in many ways, a corporatized festival designed for comfort rather than confrontation. I witnessed this difference firsthand. In 1996, I marched in the Chicago Pride Parade representing Northern Illinois University’s LGBTQ student group. We carried signs demanding queer liberation, chanted with raised fists, and celebrated our bodies and desires publicly, unapologetically. That experience was one of joy, solidarity, and sexual freedom—a moment when Pride was still very much about disrupting societal norms, not being absorbed into them.

Back then, Pride was deeply rooted in the spirit of the Stonewall Riots, which were themselves an uprising against police brutality and sexual repression. The early parades were messy, loud, and intentionally provocative. The presence of leather dykes, drag queens, trans sex workers, and bare-chested men wasn’t seen as a liability to be managed but as a central part of the protest. The parade was a place where queer people could publicly celebrate their sexualities, assert their right to pleasure, and reject the shame imposed by religious institutions, the state, and the medical establishment. As Gayle Rubin (1984) argues in Thinking Sex, sexuality is a frequent site of oppression, and its liberation is integral to broader social justice.

In recent decades, however, the increasing influence of corporate sponsorship and political interests has dulled the parade’s revolutionary edge. Corporate logos now dominate floats where once activists had marched. Politicians use the parade for photo opportunities rather than advocacy. In 2017, members of Black Lives Matter were briefly detained for disrupting the Chicago parade to protest police presence—an incident that underscores how the parade now often serves authority rather than challenges it (Bridges, 2017). These developments reflect a broader trend in which the politics of Pride have been defanged in order to be palatable to mainstream audiences.

As corporate sponsors and city officials pushed to make Pride “family-friendly,” explicit expressions of sexuality became increasingly discouraged. Kink communities, once a visible part of the parade, have been pressured to tone down their presence. Nude or partially clothed participants are often now treated as potential public relations liabilities rather than as rightful members of the LGBTQ spectrum. This retreat from sexual expression is not benign. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what queerness means and why visibility matters. As Sarah Schulman (2012) notes in The Gentrification of the Mind, the loss of sexual politics from queer spaces is not accidental but a consequence of neoliberal attempts to assimilate LGBTQ people into systems that continue to marginalize them.

Moreover, this sanitization undermines the very people whose liberation Pride was supposed to champion. Trans people, sex workers, people living with HIV, and those engaged in non-normative sexual practices have seen their visibility diminish just as the broader LGBTQ movement claims “inclusion.” According to Ritchie and Mogul (2007), this erasure aligns with a carceral and assimilationist approach to queer politics—one that values respectability over radicalism and marginalizes those who don’t conform. What was once a space to celebrate and politicize sex has been repackaged into a space where sexuality must be discreet, marketable, and inoffensive.

The shift is especially devastating for younger queer people, who now encounter a version of Pride that often leaves out the sexual energy that was once central to our movement. In Gay Shame, Halperin and Traub (2009) explore how the repression of queer sexuality under the guise of “progress” leads not to freedom, but to a new form of policing—this time from within the community. When Pride becomes merely a parade of sanitized slogans and rainbow logos, we lose not only our history but our future.

The LGBTQ movement was born from sexual deviance, rebellion, and refusal to conform. Sanitizing that history does not protect us—it disarms us. If we allow Pride to become sexually lifeless, we are not making it more inclusive; we are making it less honest. Pride must be reclaimed as a space where queer and trans people can express their desires and bodies with the same unapologetic defiance that launched the movement. Otherwise, it risks becoming a museum piece: brightly colored, well-funded, and utterly devoid of power.

References

Bridges, T. (2017, June 25). Activists protesting police presence at Chicago Pride Parade briefly detained. Chicago Tribune.

Halperin, D. M., & Traub, V. (Eds.). (2009). Gay shame. University of Chicago Press.

Ritchie, A. J., & Mogul, J. L. (2007). In Queer communities, police presence isn’t about safety. ColorLines. https://www.colorlines.com

Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267–319). Routledge.

Schulman, S. (2012). The gentrification of the mind: Witness to a lost imagination. University of California Press.

Unheard and Unrepresented: The TikTok Ban and America’s Youth

By Katherine Walter

On June 17, 2025

In democratic participation

Image: ChatGPT

TikTok, the wildly popular video-sharing platform with more than 150 million American users, is once again under threat of a nationwide ban unless former President Donald Trump—now in office again—extends the deadline requiring its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest. While the national security rationale remains a central talking point, the deeper issue is being overlooked: the demographic most impacted by this ban—American youth under 18—has no political representation and no say in this decision. In a democratic society, such a disconnect between governance and those governed raises serious ethical and structural concerns.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), signed into law by President Biden in April 2024, mandates ByteDance to sell TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a ban by January 19, 2025. This law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in TikTok v. Garland, reinforcing the government’s authority to act on national security grounds (Associated Press, 2025). But enforcement of the ban has been repeatedly delayed by President Trump through executive orders—ostensibly to allow for negotiations over a U.S. buyout of the platform (Allyn & Kim, 2025a).

What’s most troubling is how this entire debate—playing out in congressional hearings, courtrooms, and campaign rallies—has occurred without the inclusion or input of those most affected: young people. Teenagers make up a disproportionately large share of TikTok users, yet their opinions, interests, and creative spaces are being weighed and possibly erased by people they cannot elect, pressure, or even speak to.

Recent polling shows the sharp generational divide on this issue. According to Pew Research Center (McClain, 2023), only 18% of teens support a TikTok ban, in contrast with 38% of adults. Yet because minors cannot vote, run for office, or make financial contributions to campaigns, their overwhelming opposition to a ban goes unheard. The structure of the U.S. political system excludes them from direct participation, allowing their interests to be ignored in the name of protection.

This is not the first time youth culture has been targeted under the guise of national security or moral panic. In the 1950s, comic books were accused of corrupting children’s minds, leading to the creation of the Comics Code Authority, which gutted much of the medium’s artistic vitality (Reynolds, 1992). In the 1980s, Dungeons & Dragons was falsely linked to Satanism and suicide. Explicit music in the 1990s brought about parental advisory stickers and congressional hearings, though few long-term effects on youth behavior were ever substantiated. Time and again, American policy has leaned toward paternalistic control over genuine youth inclusion—and TikTok is only the latest chapter in this pattern.

Of course, concerns about data collection by a Chinese-owned company should not be dismissed. TikTok collects biometric identifiers, geolocation data, browsing history, and more. However, as Fung (2023) of CNN reports, there is no public evidence that this data has been shared with the Chinese government. Many social media platforms based in the U.S. collect similar or even more invasive information. If the core issue is data privacy, then comprehensive tech regulation—not selective banning—would be the more consistent and democratic solution.

Other democratic nations have pursued more measured responses. European governments have banned TikTok from official devices and demanded stricter privacy guarantees—but they have not banned it entirely from public use (Allyn, 2025). These more proportionate policies allow youth culture to continue while addressing national concerns with oversight and regulation. The U.S., on the other hand, is preparing to take the most drastic possible action: a nationwide removal of an app integral to teenage expression, identity, and even income.

TikTok is not just a platform for memes and dances. It is a digital public square for many young people. It’s where they express creativity, share political ideas, discover new music, form friendships, and build audiences. For some, it is a crucial income source through brand deals and affiliate links. Shuttering TikTok removes not just an app but an ecosystem of youth culture—without even giving that generation a seat at the table.

There are alternatives to an outright ban. The RESTRICT Act gives the Commerce Department the ability to monitor and restrict apps controlled by foreign adversaries, without defaulting to prohibition. Proposals such as requiring data localization, implementing third-party audits, or placing restrictions only on government devices would achieve better balance between security and liberty. More radically, policymakers could establish formal youth advisory boards to provide input on cultural and digital policy.

In a democratic society, representation is fundamental. And yet, American teens remain politically invisible. Their cultural spaces are scrutinized, regulated, or shut down by adults who claim to act in their best interest—but without ever asking what those interests actually are. To ban TikTok without youth input is to legislate without listening. It is a contradiction of democratic ideals.

The debate over TikTok is not simply about data or geopolitics—it is about who gets to be heard. Until young people are seen as full participants in the democratic process, decisions like these will continue to reflect not just national interests, but generational neglect. We must do better. Not only because TikTok matters—but because youth voices matter.

References

Allyn, B. (2025, April 4). Trump issues another TikTok ban extension. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/04/nx-s1-5347418/trump-tiktok-second-ban-delay

Allyn, B., & Kim, J. (2025a, January 18). Trump says he’ll likely give TikTok a 90-day extension. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/18/nx-s1-5266883/trump-tiktok-delay-ban

Allyn, B., & Kim, J. (2025b, January 19). TikTok is back online in the U.S., following Trump’s promise to pause the ban. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/19/nx-s1-5267568/tiktok-back-online

Associated Press. (2025, January 17). Supreme Court seems likely to uphold a federal law that could force TikTok to shut down on Jan. 19. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-supreme-court-national-security

Fung, B. (2023, March 21). Lawmakers say TikTok is a national security threat, but evidence remains unclear. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/tech/tiktok-security/index.html

McClain, C. (2023, December 11). A declining share of adults, and few teens, support a U.S. TikTok ban. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/11/a-declining-share-of-adults-and-few-teens-support-a-us-tiktok-ban/

Reynolds, R. (1992). Superheroes: A modern mythology. University Press of Mississippi.

Trump’s War on Dissent

By Katherine Walter

On June 8, 2025

In civil rights, Donald Trump

EDITORS NOTE: Graphic content / US Department of Homeland Security Police officers and members of the National Guard stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, MDC, in downtown Los Angeles, California on June 8, 2025. Hundreds of National Guard troops took up positions in Los Angeles on June 8 on US President Donald Trump’s orders, a rare deployment against the state governor’s wishes after sometimes violent protests against immigration enforcement raids. (Photo by Frederic J. Brown / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)

On June 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the California National Guard to Los Angeles without the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom. The move was prompted by days of civil unrest following aggressive ICE raids in predominantly Latino neighborhoods in Southern California. While the official justification cited the need to restore order, the action fits within a broader historical pattern of Trump’s antagonism toward civil protest, particularly those that question his policies or leadership. The deployment is significant not only for its legal implications but also for the insight it offers into Trump’s authoritarian inclinations and his evolving use of federal power.

The protests began on June 6, when ICE agents conducted a coordinated series of raids on businesses in Los Angeles, including several clothing wholesalers and a Home Depot, reportedly detaining 44 undocumented workers (Associated Press, 2025a). Demonstrators gathered almost immediately in response, particularly in the communities of Paramount and Compton. Local news outlets and protest organizers described the raids as racially motivated and disproportionate. Over the next two days, confrontations between protesters and law enforcement escalated. Reports from the Los Angeles Times indicated the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades by federal agents (Vanity Fair, 2025). Protesters were accused of throwing rocks and concrete chunks, and by June 7, over 100 arrests had been made (Schneid, 2025).

On the morning of June 8, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize the California National Guard, ordering the immediate deployment of approximately 2,000 troops to the Los Angeles area (Associated Press, 2025a). The initial wave of around 300 soldiers was stationed outside federal immigration facilities, including detention centers in downtown Los Angeles. Department of Homeland Security personnel, joined by local law enforcement, used smoke and crowd-control tactics to clear demonstrators from the perimeter of these buildings (Vanity Fair, 2025). More troubling still, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth placed active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton on high alert, stating that additional support would be mobilized if local resistance intensified (Wall Street Journal, 2025).

The legal basis for this intervention drew immediate scrutiny. Unlike the Insurrection Act—which has historically required consent from governors unless rebellion or national security threats are imminent—Title 10 allows the president to assume control of a state’s National Guard under more ambiguous circumstances. Trump’s use of this authority without consultation or approval from Governor Newsom represented a sharp departure from precedent (Washington Post, 2025). While prior instances of federal deployment have occurred—most notably during the civil rights era in 1965 and again during the 1992 Los Angeles riots—those actions typically involved collaboration between state and federal governments. Trump’s unilateral order broke with this tradition and raised immediate constitutional concerns.

Governor Newsom condemned the move, calling it “a political stunt masquerading as public safety” (Schneid, 2025). He emphasized that while some violence had occurred, local law enforcement had the situation under control. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass similarly criticized the decision, asserting that federal interference had inflamed tensions rather than de-escalated them (Associated Press, 2025b). Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, filed emergency injunctions in federal court, arguing that the federalization of the Guard in this context violated the Tenth Amendment and constituted an overreach of executive authority (Reuters, 2025).

Trump, meanwhile, defended his decision by invoking the language of law and order. On his Truth Social account, he referred to the demonstrators as “Radical Left agitators” and accused them of trying to undermine ICE’s lawful operations. He further announced a new federal regulation banning the use of masks at protests, which critics argued would further chill lawful dissent (The Daily Beast, 2025). In a televised address, he declared that “these protests are not about immigration—they’re about chaos, and we will not allow our cities to be taken over by mobs” (Vanity Fair, 2025). The administration’s framing of the protests as a rebellion rather than protected expression marked a dramatic escalation in tone.

This pattern is not new. During the summer of 2020, following the police murder of George Floyd, Trump threatened to deploy active-duty troops to major cities under the Insurrection Act. At the time, his Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, opposed the idea, and the deployment was ultimately shelved in favor of National Guard assistance requested by governors (Baker et al., 2020). Still, the president’s language—especially his tweet that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—signaled an aversion to protest and a readiness to treat dissent as criminality. Twitter flagged the post for glorifying violence. Although he stopped short of federalizing troops in 2020, Trump’s second term has shown a greater willingness to follow through on such threats.

What has changed between 2020 and 2025 is both the legal assertiveness and the composition of Trump’s inner circle. Pete Hegseth, a conservative media personality and military veteran, now heads the Department of Defense and has shown no hesitation in using federal power to advance Trump’s agenda (Wall Street Journal, 2025). The administration no longer faces internal resistance to military deployments within U.S. borders, and Hegseth’s public statements indicate an expansive view of executive authority over domestic security.

The deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles is troubling not only for its immediate impact but also for the precedent it sets. Legal scholars argue that the president’s invocation of Title 10 without compelling justification stretches the intent of the statute and undermines the balance of power between federal and state governments (Washington Post, 2025). By reframing peaceful protest as rebellion, the Trump administration expands the conditions under which future presidents might justify similar interventions. The deployment also serves to delegitimize public dissent and normalize military presence in response to constitutionally protected speech.

Politically, the move appears calibrated to energize Trump’s base. By portraying the protests as violent and anarchic, Trump crafts a narrative of national chaos that only he can control. This strategy, first evident in 2016 and refined in 2020, has become more explicit in his second term. Commentators have described the Los Angeles deployment as a “dress rehearsal” for federal crackdowns in other cities, particularly those governed by Democratic officials (The Daily Beast, 2025).

Civil liberties advocates warn that this could lead to an erosion of protest rights nationwide. If the federal government can override local control whenever political opposition manifests in the streets, then public assembly may become subject to partisan suppression. Already, activists report increased surveillance, aggressive policing, and prosecutions under federal statutes that were rarely used in past administrations (Reuters, 2025).

Perhaps most ominous is the symbolic weight of military deployment in a democratic society. The sight of uniformed troops in American cities sends a chilling message about the limits of dissent. It transforms the public square into a battleground and reduces the space for political disagreement. As historians have pointed out, democracy depends not only on laws and elections but also on norms of restraint and mutual respect. The willingness to call out troops against fellow citizens erodes those norms and creates a political culture of fear and coercion.

Trump’s aversion to civil protest is not merely personal—it is ideological. He views opposition as illegitimate and protest as rebellion. This worldview has shaped his policies and informed his rhetoric from the beginning of his political career. The events of June 8, 2025, are not an anomaly but the logical conclusion of a long-standing approach to governance—one that prioritizes control over compromise and sees federal power as a tool to crush dissent rather than uphold democratic rights.

As Americans reflect on this moment, the stakes are clear. The deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles raises profound questions about the future of civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the health of our democratic institutions. It challenges us to consider whether protest will remain a protected right or become a pretext for martial intervention. And it forces us to ask what kind of country we want to be: one where dissent is respected, or one where it is suppressed at the point of a gun.

References

Associated Press. (2025a, June 8). What to know about Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests. https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-trump-los-angeles-protests-2025

Associated Press. (2025b, June 8). California governor calls Trump’s move “inflammatory” as Guard arrives in L.A. https://apnews.com/article/newsom-trump-national-guard-2025

Baker, P., Shear, M. D., & Schmitt, E. (2020, June 3). Trump’s authority to send troops into states, explained. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/trump-military-authority.html

Reuters. (2025, June 7). White House aide calls Los Angeles anti-ICE protests an insurrection. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-declares-los-angeles-protests-insurrection-2025

Schneid, R. (2025, June 8). Trump sparks backlash as National Guard arrives in L.A. on his orders. TIME. https://time.com/trump-national-guard-backlash-los-angeles-2025

The Daily Beast. (2025, June 8). It’s summer in Trump’s America and fascism is in bloom. https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-has-a-bad-case-of-premature-despotism

Vanity Fair. (2025, June 8). National Guard troops arrive in Los Angeles after Trump signs orders. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/national-guard-arrive-in-los-angeles-after-trump-signs-orders

Wall Street Journal. (2025, June 8). Trump advisers once opposed using active-duty troops at protests. Not anymore. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-advisers-once-opposed-using-active-duty-troops-at-protests-not-anymore-96afb208

Washington Post. (2025, June 8). Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/08/trump-national-guard-la-protests-law