SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us department of defense
Trump Deploying National Guard to Memphis Called 'Cruel Intimidation Tactic'
“When military troops police civilians, we have an intolerable threat to individual liberty and the foundational values of this country,” said the head of the ACLU's National Security Project.
Sep 16, 2025
Leaders at the ACLU on Tuesday joined other rights advocates and elected Democrats in condemning US President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard to Memphis with a Monday order he signed beside Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee.
“When military troops police civilians, we have an intolerable threat to individual liberty and the foundational values of this country,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, in a statement.
“President Trump may want to normalize armed forces in our cities, but no matter what uniform they wear, federal agents and military troops are bound by the Constitution and have to respect our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and due process," Shamsi continued. "State and local leaders must stay strong and take all lawful measures to protect residents against this cruel intimidation tactic.”
While Lee expressed his gratitude to Trump for the order, some other elected officials in Tennessee have spoken out since Trump previewed his plans for Memphis on "Fox & Friends" last Friday.
The Associated Press reported on local opposition Monday:
“I did not ask for the National Guard, and I don’t think it’s the way to drive down crime,” Memphis Mayor Paul Young told a news conference Friday while acknowledging the city remained high on too many “bad lists.”
Young has also said that now the decision is made, he wants to ensure he can help influence the Guard’s role. He mentioned possibilities such as traffic control for big events, monitoring cameras for police and undertaking beautification projects.
At a news conference Monday, some local Democrats urged officials to consider options to oppose the deployment. Tami Sawyer, Shelby County General Sessions Court Clerk, said the city or county could sue.
State Rep. Justin Pearson (D-86), whose district includes parts of the city, declared, “We need poverty eradication, not military occupation!”
Denouncing Trump's targeting of Memphis on MSNBC, Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) said that "having the National Guard here is unnecessary and it is a stunt. It's just a Trump show, to show his power and his force."
"I think this may be the first representation of his changing the Department of Defense to the Department of War, because he likes to put the National Guard at his direction, as his being the great warrior, into cities and going to war," he added.
According to a White House fact sheet, Trump's memorandum tasks Secretary of War Pete Hegseth with requesting Lee "make Tennessee National Guard units available to support public safety and law enforcement operations in Memphis," and further directs Hegseth to "coordinate with state governors to mobilize National Guard personnel from those states to support this effort."
The order also "establishes a Memphis Safe Task Force tasked with ending street and violent crime in Memphis to the greatest possible extent, including by coordinating closely with state and local officials in Tennessee, Memphis, and neighboring jurisdictions to share information, develop joint priorities, and maximize resources to make Memphis safe and restore public order."
🪡Governor Bill Lee, Senator Marsha Blackburn, Rep. David Kustoff, and Sen. Brent Taylor have chosen fear-mongering and authoritarianism over real solutions. They voted to gut healthcare and food security from Memphians. Sending troops will not fix the failures they created.
— Indivisible Memphis (@indivisiblememphis.bsky.social) September 14, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Trump has already deployed the National Guard to Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, California, and threatened to do so in Chicago, Illinois, where his deadly "Operation Midway Blitz" targeting immigrants is already underway.
"Expanding military involvement into US civilian law enforcement is dangerous and unwarranted," Tanya Greene, US program director at Human Rights Watch, said Tuesday. "The Trump administration's continued deployment of military forces in cities with populations primarily comprised of people of color, like Memphis, risks exacerbating violence against immigrants, unhoused people, and poor people in general."
"While communities desperately need food, affordable housing, and healthcare," she added, "hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being squandered on these deployments."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Passes NDAA to Push Military Spending Approved This Year Beyond $1 Trillion
Highlighting how the Pentagon is "replete with waste and fraud," one critic called it "a disgraceful and unconscionable misuse of taxpayer money."
Sep 10, 2025
Nearly all Republicans and 17 Democrats in the US House of Representatives voted Wednesday evening for a military bill that would push the figure for defense spending approved this year beyond $1 trillion.
The final vote for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2026 was 231-196, with just four Republicans opposing the bill, which will still need to be reconciled with the Senate's version.
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, highlighted after the vote that the House's NDAA authorizes about $883 billion for defense spending—including over $848 billion for the Pentagon, which has never passed an audit—on top of the $150 billion in the GOP budget reconciliation package that President Donald Trump signed in July.
"Throwing a trillion dollars at the Pentagon—an agency replete with waste and fraud—at the same time the Republican Congress and the Trump regime are slashing spending on healthcare, education, housing, food assistance, and foreign aid is a disgraceful and unconscionable misuse of taxpayer money," Weissman said, referring to other provisions in the earlier package.
"On top of the age-old dangerous and wasteful spending, the bill pours billions into new boondoggles like Trump's 'Golden Dome' space interceptor vanity project and supercharges the dangerous development of killer robots for the battlefield," he noted. "Making it still worse is the administration's in-your-face, authoritarian misuse of Pentagon dollars—from the deployment of the National Guard on the streets of Washington, DC, to the illegal and murderous attack on a Venezuelan boat."
Weissman added that "the bill includes some modest, positive requirements to report waste, fraud, and price gouging to Congress and establishes financial penalties if the Pentagon fails its audit. But these small measures do not begin to offset the damage done by the dangerous and wasteful overall package."
House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who voted against the NDAA's final passage, told Politico that "we didn't get any of the amendments and the debates that we wanted; not a single solitary one."
"Meanwhile, all manner of different issues that are pure culture war partisan issues were allowed in," he continued. "I fear that many of those are going to pass."
In a statement after the vote, the Congressional Equality Caucus condemned "six Republican-sponsored anti-LGBTQI+ amendments," including bans on medically necessary healthcare for transgender service members and dependents.
"The National Defense Authorization Act has traditionally received strong bipartisan support, yet for the second Congress in a row House Republicans have tainted a bill aimed at improving the lives of servicemembers with poison-pill riders that threaten our troops' rights, their families' stability, and our efforts to retain top talent," said the caucus chair, Rep. Mark Takano (D-Cailf.).
"Republicans' sacrifice of a strong bipartisan vote for a politicized NDAA to appease the Trump administration and a small slice of their base cannot undo the sacrifice of the transgender service members, cadets, or military dependents that will be hurt by this bill," he added. "Congress should be fighting for those who fight for us—but it's clear the GOP has other priorities. I will keep fighting to prevent the harmful provisions in this bill from becoming law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Infinitely More Honest': Trump DOD Rebrand Revives 'Department of War' Moniker
Many anti-war figures actually welcomed the news, with one professor calling the Department of Defense name "a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression."
Sep 05, 2025
In his latest attempt to project an image of strength for an empire in a state of decline, US President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to rename the Department of Defense the Department of War, a move that would ultimately require congressional authorization.
"I think it's a much more appropriate name, especially in light of where the world is right now," Trump explained during a signing ceremony for the move.
When floating the name change idea last month, Trump said that "I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that."
Indeed, on Friday Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill meant to coincide with Trump's decree. The Department of War name dates back to the 18th century but hasn't been used since the National Security Act of 1947, which created the National Military Establishment (NME)—a name that was changed to Department of Defense because the acronym NME sounded too much like the word "enemy."
"The United States military is not a purely defensive force," Scott said in a statement. "We are the most lethal fighting force on the face of the planet—ready to defeat any enemy when called upon. Restoring the name to Department of War reflects our true purpose: to dominate wars, not merely respond after being provoked."
The move faces considerable opposition from lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy combat pilot who, in a dig at Trump, quipped that "only someone who avoided the draft would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War," and Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ), who argued that "Americans want to prevent wars, not tout them."
However, others noted that "War Department" is a moniker befitting a nation that has attacked, invaded, or occupied others in all but a handful of the Defense Department's 78-year history, and which has a global military footprint of hundreds of overseas bases.
well, it’s truth in advertising and it’s honest, which is rare for Trump
[image or embed]
— David Sirota (@davidsirota.com) September 4, 2025 at 4:54 PM
Many "non-interventionists and foreign policy realists" concur that the name change "is just more honest," as Jack Hunter wrote for Responsible Statecraft.
Pointing to this week's deadly US strike on an alleged drug-running boat in the Caribbean and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's threat of more such attacks to come, former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth said Friday on social media that if Trump "keeps sending US forces to blow up alleged (but unproven) drug traffickers, he should call it the Department of Summary Executions."
Keeping with that theme, photojournalist Joshua Collins said on social media that "I actually think calling it 'the Department of War' is infinitely more honest. Because that's exactly what it does."
"Maybe while they're at it though, they can rename ICE 'the Department of kidnappings, extortion, forced disappearances, and human trafficking," Collins added, referring to Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement anti-immigrant blitz.
Jason Hickel, a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona's Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, said on social media that "this is wonderful news."
"The US 'Department of Defense' has never been primarily about defense; it is a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression," he wrote. "At least now there is no pretending otherwise."
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, wrote: "I'm glad Trump is changing the name of the Defense Department to the War Dept because it has never been about defense. And calling it the 'Department-to-make-the-merchants-of-death-rich' is kind of long."
Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) remarked: "Department of War? More like Department of Distraction... Epstein."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Friday that no matter what the president calls the Pentagon, "Trump is really good at renaming things, but bad at keeping Americans safe and prosperous."
"He ran as the supposed anti-war candidate but has proven to be just the opposite," Duss noted. "This stunt underscores that Trump is more interested in belligerent chest thumping than genuine peacemaking—with dangerous consequences for American security, global standing, and the safety of our armed services."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular