Trump gets RUDE AWAKENING as MILITARY GENERALS TURN ON HIM

A General Stands Guard: The Constitutional Crisis over Troops in Portland

In a political climate increasingly defined by executive overreach, a moment of profound, and all too rare, constitutional courage has emerged from the ranks of the military itself. Brigadier General Alan Growald, Commander of the Oregon National Guard, has taken the extraordinary step of vocally pushing back against the President’s deployment of troops to Portland—a move framed by the White House as “restoring order,” but widely seen as “authoritarian 101.”

General Growald’s defiance underscores a critical legal and moral line: the duty of the military to protect citizens, not to be a political enforcement arm of a regime.

The General’s Line in the Sand

During testimony, and in a letter to his troops, General Growald deliberately sought to differentiate the Oregon National Guard from the federal agents being deployed:

Citizens First: He reminded his troops that they are “citizens first” and that their oath is to “defend America” and “protect Oregonians.”
The “Home Team”: Growald made an emotional plea to the committee to communicate to their colleagues that “our soldiers are the home team” and their job is to protect and serve the people of Oregon.
Mission Statement: He explicitly stated his “desire” and “advice” to the Title 10 commander that the troops’ mission would be to “be protecting any protesters at the ICE facility,” not suppressing them.

Growald’s primary concern is that citizens “will not see a distinction” between the National Guard and the federal agents (ICE, Federal Protective Service) who have been heavily criticized for their aggressive, unconstitutional tactics. His actions are a defense of his soldiers’ oath and the civil liberties of their neighbors.

Trump’s “Four-Point Plan” and the Insurrection Act

Democrats and critics are warning that the deployment of troops and federal agents is not an attempt to maintain peace, but a calculated strategy to manufacture a crisis that justifies an ultimate authoritarian power grab: the invocation of the Insurrection Act.

Step One: Deploy ICE into “Blue Cities”: Masked and armed ICE agents are accused of “wreaking havoc,” violating due process, using racial profiling, and provoking demonstrations.
Step Two: Exaggerate the Protests: The President has repeatedly described Portland as a “war ravaged city burning to the ground,” a claim debunked by Portland’s own Police Chief, who noted that the disturbances are confined to “one city block” and “do not rise to the level of attention that they are receiving.”
Step Three: Deploy National Guard Troops: Deploying troops from red states like Texas into blue states like Oregon against the will of Democratic Governors is meant to “enrage an already outraged public” and “stoke actual violence.”
Step Four: Invoke the Insurrection Act: The ultimate goal is to establish a pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act, which empowers the President to use the U.S. military to suppress “civil disorder, insurrection, or armed rebellion.” This is seen as the final step to “unleash troops against his perceived political enemies” ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The Posse Comitatus Act explicitly forbids the use of the military for domestic law enforcement—a law that the administration is clearly skirting or attempting to bypass by invoking the Insurrection Act for political ends.

Courts and Public Opinion Push Back

The Administration’s authoritarian maneuver has been met with immediate and broad opposition:

Judicial Resistance: Even Trump-appointed federal judges are opposing the deployment. A federal judge had already blocked the President’s plan to federalize the Oregon Guard, stating the administration had “failed to demonstrate a lawful justification for deploying troops against civilians.”
Bipartisan Public Opposition: This is “not a split nation” on the issue of tanks on the streets.

A YouGov survey found 58% of Americans oppose deploying the U.S. military against protestors, with opposition climbing to 63% among independents.
Even one in four Republicans believe the move “goes too far.”
A Quinnipiac poll found 61% of voters think using active-duty troops inside the country is “unconstitutional,” and nearly 70% believe it would make civil unrest worse, not better.

Political Fallout: The idea has not projected strength; it has had the opposite effect. Polling shows the President’s approval rating has dropped further since floating the military idea, including double-digit drops among independents and veterans.

As Oregon’s Attorney General rightly observed, “This is not a third world country.” The public and principled military leaders are demanding that the rule of law and the sanctity of American civil liberties be upheld against a blatant attempt at an authoritarian power grab. Protesters are urged to remain peaceful and record what they see, denying the Administration the violent confrontations they seek as pretext for their plan.