Trump 'authorizing Full Force, if necessary' as military deploys to another US city

[David64]

I just posted verified facts of ICE violence and most Americans are anti-ICE. 

These are the facts that are verified.

Very strong truth (not surprising you deny all facts, though)

No. You posted facts that fit your narrative.

Here's a quick AI search.

No, most Americans are not anti-ICE, though views are sharply divided along partisan lines and public opinion has shifted over time. A 2025 Gallup poll indicates a majority of Americans disapprove of how ICE enforces immigration laws, while another poll shows most Americans oppose abolishing the agency. However, a large majority of Democrats express unfavorable views of ICE. 
Public Opinion on ICE

• Partisan Divide: 
  Views on ICE are significantly influenced by political affiliation. While a high percentage of Republicans hold favorable views of the agency, views among Democrats are largely negative. 
  
• Support for Abolition: 
  While some Democrats advocate for abolishing ICE, polls indicate that only a quarter of Democrats and a smaller percentage of the general public support this stance. 
  

[midicon]

Well I'm Scottish and we all have our opinions. I think the left and liberals have  been destroying all that has been great about America.
It's the same here but unfortunately we don't have a Trump.

BLM, Antifa and co should have been rounded up and jailed long ago. Now it's the fight to deport illegal immigrants. We don't even have that. We have nothing except out of control immigration and a non stop issue with a growing Muslim population.

We don't have a left and right here. All we have is a Starmer and no one to replace him.

[DBCowboy]

Isn't there a law there for self-defense?

Yes, and federal authorities are using that.

Criminals aren't protected under the laws of self defense.

[Vermilion]

He made an observation that it's the foreigners who are siding with ANTIFA and it's the Americans who are stating that they are violent.   I don't think he said that foreigners can't have an opinion.   His observation was correct.  That's the way it's splitting here at DI.

Their victim mentality truly knows no borders.

[UltraBudgie]

So, do you not think that what the Leader of The Free World does isn't any of said Free World's business?

Come now, if there's anything that both Britain and the United States understand, it's that a sovereign nation should not be subject to foreign interference.

[Kurokage]

When it comes to discussing American topics you ARE a foreigner.
It's not a dirty word.

I'd have to disagree, you can't be foreigner on a site on the web with a multitude of nationalities as members. It's used by people trying to deflect the argument using that as a identifier to belittle an opinion.

I see a few members resort to that as an attack, just as a few jump to calling Nazi.

[FlyersFan]

I am fairly confident that a large portion of the DI community are preppers to a degree. 

Used to be.
Now we are too old and sick.
Pharmaceuticals would run out in a couple of months.
Then we'd be dead, or wish we were dead, anyways.

[Kurokage]

Well that was a good try, but you are wrong.....completely wrong.

Thanks for your well written and informative retort.   

[putnam6]

If Antifa would chill thier shit, there would be no National Guard in Portland, you can't cause the chaos and bitch when somebody tries to stop it.


 

Yes, President Trump can send troops to protect ICE and federal buildings in Portland under certain legal authorities, but there are significant constraints and considerations involved. Here's a detailed analysis based on the information available:
Legal Authorities and Constraints

1. Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385):
   • This act generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. However, there are exceptions and interpretations that allow for military involvement in certain circumstances, such as protecting federal property and functions.
     
2. 10 U.S.C. § 284:
   • This section allows the military to provide support for domestic law enforcement in operations such as drug interdiction and counter-terrorism, which can include surveillance, intelligence gathering, and equipment provision. This could potentially extend to protecting federal buildings if framed as part of a broader security operation.
     
3. 18 U.S.C. § 831:
   • This statute permits the Attorney General to request military assistance in cases involving threats with nuclear materials, provided it does not adversely affect military preparedness. While this is specific to nuclear threats, it illustrates the type of exceptional circumstances where military involvement might be justified.
     
4. Inherent Constitutional Authority:
   • The President has claimed inherent constitutional authority to use troops to protect federal personnel, property, and functions. This authority has been debated, but it has been used in past administrations to justify military deployment for such purposes.
     
5. Insurrection Act:
   • This act allows the President to deploy the military domestically to suppress insurrections or domestic violence that hinders the execution of federal law. If the situation in Portland is deemed to meet these criteria, this could be a legal basis for deployment.
     

Recent Context and Actions

• 2020 Deployments: During the George Floyd protests, federal law enforcement, including BORTAC (Border Patrol Tactical Unit) and U.S. Marshals, were deployed to Portland to protect federal property. This was part of a broader response to protect federal buildings amid unrest.
  
• Trump's Memo on Anarchist Jurisdictions: In September 2020, Trump issued a memo calling for a review of federal funding to cities like Portland, labeled as "anarchist jurisdictions," which could be seen as a precursor to considering military deployment if the situation escalated.
  

Current Situation

• Given the incident involving Ice Cube's bus being mistakenly targeted, and the broader context of Antifa activities in Portland, if the situation escalates to the point where federal buildings or ICE facilities are under significant threat, President Trump could potentially invoke these authorities.
  
• However, any such deployment would likely face legal challenges, public scrutiny, and require careful justification to avoid violating the Posse Comitatus Act or other legal constraints.
  

Conclusion
President Trump can send troops to protect ICE and federal buildings in Portland under specific legal authorities, particularly if the situation is framed as protecting federal property and functions or suppressing domestic violence that hinders federal law execution. However, this would need to be carefully justified and could face legal and political opposition. The decision would depend on the severity of the threat and the legal interpretation of the circumstances.

[FlyersFan]

I'd have to disagree, you can't be foreigner on a site on the web with a multitude of nationalities as members.

No.   I mean that if a discussion is going on about a particular country, and there are people from that country in the discussion, then their opinion is what matters TO THEM.  Others can have opinions, but they are rather irrelevant to the people of that country.

Take King Charles.   I think he's an entitled twit.   But I'm not going to go to a forum full of Englishmen and tell them that their King, who used to have fantasies about being a tampon inside his adultering mistress, is a twit.   My opinion TO THEM is irrelevant.   So I wouldn't bother.

Most Americans don't care what foreigners think about America.   The only time that an American will quote a foreigner is if that foreigner agrees with them.   If that foreigner disagrees, then the American will ignore the person or tell them to bugger off.   That's just the attitude.   And I'm sure that people in other countries feel the same way about Americans giving their opinion of their country.   I've seen it here ... just watch an American say that London is a mess ... certain English posters get their heckles up.