this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
499 points (99.8% liked)

politics

26026 readers
2378 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

California governor says president ‘attacking rule of law’ as Trump-appointed judge rules twice to stop national guard from any state being used in Oregon

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying any national guard units to Oregon a few hours after the California governor, Gavin Newsom, announced he would sue the president over the planned deployment of his state’s troops.

Both states sought the temporary restraining order after the president sent guard members from California to Oregon earlier in the day. On Saturday, the same judge temporarily blocked the administration from deploying Oregon’s national guard troops to Portland.

The ruling by US District Judge Karin Immergut said there was no evidence that recent protests necessitated the presence of national guard troops, no matter where they came from. Immergut asked a Trump administration lawyer during a hearing on Sunday night: “How could bringing in federalised national guard from California not be in direct contravention of the [decision] I issued yesterday?”

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 96 points 1 week ago

These law suits should also be engaged against Stephen Miller, the man running things in Trumps decline. There is no SCOTUS decision that covers him.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Trump is leaving California defenseless.

Trump doesn't care about California.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago

This also happened in China. You let the military with no local bonds attack the populace

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Water is wet. Trump only cares about Trump.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure he cares. He's constantly trying to sabotage us. He released a shitload of water from dams earlier this year, jeopardizing farmers both short, and long term.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, they blamed Biden for that too.

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Apparently many farmers are idiots.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

I prefer "simple folk." You have to sit on a tractor and go 2 MPH all day in a dirt field. I can't do it.

[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And as soon as a judge sides with California I’m sure Louisiana or Texas will volunteer their own Guard to go to Portland. Which will somehow find the right judge and be able to proceed.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago

They didn't wait for the judge.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/10/texas-national-guard-deploying-to-oregon-kotek-says.html

BUT the judge behind blocking the deployment of the Oregon National Guard has issued another TRO. So the situation is still boiling along.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/10/judge-issues-new-broader-order-barring-any-national-guard-from-being-relocating-to-oregon.html

[–] WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

What else can a law abiding governor do?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Order the troops not to go?

After all, if Trump's order is illegal then he's not actually controlling them, which means Newsom is.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not sure that would override the President, or if he can even try to do this legally.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I wonder if the federal government has the right to use the national guard over the state.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Reform the State Guards.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

The flaw of the National Guard system has been made readily apparent.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I imagine they don’t do this cause of the cost. I think the federal government pays a certain amount for the guard.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Sure, but they also don't do this because no one thought it could be necessary.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

The Good Place Committee will begin the hearing soon...

... in 400 Jeremy Bearimies

[–] specialseaweed@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm so old I remember when the right wing nutters of this country lost their absolute shit at the thought that the military was conducting exercises on US soil and concocted conspiracy after conspiracy around it. Ten years later now and they're fucking cheerleading it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theories

"A survey of registered Republicans by Public Policy Polling in May 2015,[40] found that 32% thought that "the Government is trying to take over Texas", and that half of all Tea Party supporters were concerned about an imminent Texas invasion."

"On April 28, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered the Texas State Guard to monitor the operation, writing: "During the training operation, it is important that Texans know [that] their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed", and requesting "regular updates on the progress and safety of the Operation".[37][43]

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

"We aren't propagandized. No way." - every Propagandized Person when logically challenged by their Own propagandizion with reasonable arguments.

[–] NewPerspective@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why? The supreme court gave Trump a get out of jail free card for official duties

Performing an illegal act because of orders doesnt make you immune from the charges. So states may be able to arrest members breaking the law and the federal government would have no say about it because the federal government ruled their actions illegal

[–] RedRibbonArmy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm sorry, but are the generals in the National Guard not held responsible to only follow legal orders. Who is the commanding officer that oversees the implementation of Trump's order?

EDIT: Here's a link to the California national guard leadership page with the Major Generals in charge. I think we need to start appealing to these major generals to follow the law and NOT follow illegal orders by Trump.

https://calguard.ca.gov/otag/

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The illegal orders thing is a catch 22. It's taught to everyone, but it's also taught there aren't illegal orders.

[–] Ithral@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What are you smoking? It's taught that for example an officer ordering you to buy a soda is an illegal order. Further it's taught that orders which violate treaties, and the Constitution are illegal. Don't follow them and report the order further up the chain of command is the correct answer.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

The word of the law is "manifestly unlawful" which is taken to mean unless the order is undeniably unlawful it is to be obeyed. So if a service member thinks an order might be unlawful they should obey it. If they're completely certain it's unlawful then they can disobey the order.

[–] whiwake@lemmy.cafe 7 points 1 week ago

Nothing will happen

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

He should sue The Annoying Orange for 1 BAZILLION DOLLARS.