djt's civil war against California has started

The NYT writes that djt has side-stepped normal procedure and blew off governor Newsome's authority over the California National Guard:

President Trump took extraordinary action on Saturday by calling up 2,000 National Guard troops to quell immigration protests in California, making rare use of federal powers and bypassing the authority of the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom.

It is the first time since 1965 that a president has activated a state’s National Guard force without a request from that state’s governor, according to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time was when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators in 1965, she said.

Governors almost always control the deployment of National Guard troops in their states. But the directive signed by Mr. Trump cites ”10 U.S.C. 12406,” referring to a specific provision within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. Part of that provision allows the federal deployment of National Guard forces if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

Mr. Trump’s directive said, “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

Note that djt's reasoning includes protests, not acts of violence during protests, as his justification to provoke a state response. djt can then use a state response to justify further attacks on and violence against the state if he wants to.

An AP article discusses the situations when a president has called up the National Guard without consent of governors. It is a rare event. But as usual, there is slop in the law. In this case, the severity of the civil protest that triggers presidential authority is not defined. So while what djt did is legal, it is unjustifiable and illegitimate. The severity of protests in California were nothing close to those that triggered the law in the past. But as the AP reports, djt has made it crystal clear that he wants to use military force to shut down protests that he wants shut down.

While what djt has done with this National Guard deployment is technically within the scope §12406, it is illegitimate because the severity of the unrest to trigger the law falls far short of what has been the norm. The protests, although tense, did not approach the threshold of rebellion or insurrection required to justify federal military intervention. One expert on dictatorship who has been warning about djt's and MAGA's authoritarianism, Kim Lane Scheppele, refers to actions like this as autocratic legalism.[1] Scheppele points out that authoritarians exercising autocratic legalism, are using their statutory interpretation to hide authoritarian power grabs and to provoke serious rebellion or violent protests that can justify more intrusive federal interventions. 

A Feb. 12, 2025 post here, Legal analysis: Can the US Constitution accommodate authoritarianism or kleptocracy?, argued that it is possible to stay within (or close to) the scope of the Constitution and laws and still establish a deeply corrupt dictatorship. There is sufficient ambiguity and lack of precision (slop) to allow for such an outcome. What djt has done to California is an example of what was argued in that blog post, he took advantage of the slop to legally declare war on California for no good reason.

Footnote:

1. This is the abstract of Scheppele's 2018 University of Chicago Law Review paper, Autocratic Legalism: 

Buried within the general phenomenon of democratic decline is a set of cases in which charismatic new leaders are elected by democratic publics and then use their electoral mandates to dismantle by law the constitutional systems they inherited. These leaders aim to consolidate power and to remain in office indefinitely, eventually eliminating the ability of democratic publics to exercise their basic democratic rights, to hold leaders accountable, and to change their leaders peacefully. Because these “legalistic autocrats” deploy the law to achieve their aims, impending autocracy may not be evident at the start. But we can learn to spot the legalistic autocrats before autocratic constitutionalism becomes fatal because they are often following a script using tactics that they borrow from each other. This Essay explains the paths that these autocratic legalists take, the danger signals that accompany their legal reforms, and the methods they use to dismantle liberal constitutions. The Essay also suggests how the legalistic autocrats may be stopped.

NYT editorial: The kleptocratic djt has normalized corruption

In a long opinion (1,902 words), the NYT editorial board (not paywalled) describes many examples of djt's open, now normalized corruption of government and its danger to democracy:

A Comprehensive Accounting of Trump’s Culture of Corruption

At the gala dinner President Trump held last month for those who bought the most Trump cryptocurrency, the champion spender was the entrepreneur Justin Sun, who had put down more than $40 million on $Trump coins. Mr. Sun had a good reason to hope that this investment would pay off. He previously invested $75 million in a different Trump crypto venture — and shortly after the Trump administration took office in January, the Securities and Exchange Commission paused its lawsuit against him on charges of cryptocurrency fraud.

The message seemed obvious enough: People who make Mr. Trump richer regularly receive favorable treatment from the government he runs.

If Americans shrug this off as just “Trump being Trump,” his self-dealing will become accepted behavior. It will encourage other politicians to sell their offices. The damage will undermine our government, our society and even our economy. Historically, when corruption becomes the norm in a country, economic growth suffers, and living standards stagnate. Under Mr. Trump, the United States is sliding down that slope.

The editorial presents an evidence-based indictment of what it characterizes as the most corrupt administration in American history. Through detailed analysis of the cryptocurrency scheme and broader patterns of self-dealing, the NYT editors argue that Trump has fundamentally transformed the nature of American governance. The opinion argues that this transformation extends far beyond simple financial corruption to encompass a systematic assault on democratic norms, institutional integrity, and the rule of law.

The editorial's central argument is that Trump's "culture of corruption" represents an existential threat to American democracy, one that will have lasting consequences long after his presidency ends. By normalizing the use of public office for private gain and systematically dismantling anti-corruption mechanisms, Trump has created a new paradigm for American governance that prioritizes personal enrichment over public service, fundamentally altering the relationship between citizens and their government.[1]

Q: At least for the ~40% of rank and file Americans who still support djt and MAGA politics, has corruption been normalized, whether most of those people believe it or not, or are they still deceived and see little to no corruption beyond what they have been falsely told was normal?

Footnote:

1. Pxy:

Q: Summarize the steps or actions that Trump and MAGA elites have taken to systematically dismantle anti-corruption mechanisms.

A: The Trump administration and aligned political elites have implemented a multi-pronged strategy to weaken anti-corruption frameworks, targeting enforcement agencies, regulatory structures, and oversight mechanisms. This analysis synthesizes documented actions from 2025 and prior years, demonstrating a concerted effort to prioritize political and financial interests over institutional integrity.

Clemency for Crypto Entrepreneurs and Political Allies: djt granted pardons to individuals convicted of financial crimes, particularly in the cryptocurrency sector. In March 2025, he pardoned BitMEX co-founders Benjamin Delo, Arthur Hayes, and Samuel Reed, who had pleaded guilty in 2022 to violating the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to implement anti-money laundering protocols 3 12. He repealed IRS reporting requirements for crypto transactions 4. He pardoned Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola Corporation, despite his fraud conviction, signaling tolerance for corporate malfeasance among political allies 3 13.

Pardons for Corrupt Politicians: djt granted clemency to Republican politicians convicted of corruption, including former Rep. Michael Grimm (tax fraud), Rep. Steve Stockman (misuse of charitable funds), and ex-sheriff Scott Jenkins (bribery) 6 13. The pardons allowed recipients to evade decades of cumulative prison time.

Gutting the Justice Department’s Anti-Corruption Units: The Trump administration systematically weakened the DOJ’s capacity to investigate corruption. In April 2025, the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET), tasked with prosecuting crypto-related crimes, was disbanded under an executive order framed as ending “regulation by prosecution” 8.

Neutralizing Independent Watchdogs: Trump removed David Huitema, director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), in February 2025, eliminating oversight of financial disclosures and conflicts of interest among officials 5.

Rolling Back Financial Transparency Measures: In April 2025, Trump repealed an IRS rule requiring custodial crypto brokers to report user transactions via Form 1099s, a policy designed to curb tax evasion 4.

Weakening International Anti-Kleptocracy Efforts: Attorney General Pam Bondi disbanded the DOJ’s Kleptocracy Initiative in 2025, which had recovered billions in assets stolen by foreign officials.

Dropping Corporate Investigations: djt dropped, suspended, or declined to pursue enforcement actions against 109 corporations in its first two months of 2025, including 45 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) cases and 14 SEC crypto investigations 7. Notable beneficiaries included GEO Group (private prisons), JPMorgan, and Elon Musk’s SpaceX 7.

djt attacks and insults California to provoke civil war

djt and MAGA elites are actively engaged in major provocations for open civil war. Politico reports:

Newsom floats withholding federal taxes as Trump threatens California

SACRAMENTO, California — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday suggested California consider withholding tens of billions in annual federal tax dollars amid reports Donald Trump is preparing funding cuts targeting the state.

Newsom’s suggestion came after CNN reported the president was considering a “full termination” of federal grant funding for California’s universities.

“Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back,” the Democratic governor said in an X post Friday afternoon, referencing a recent analysis from the Rockefeller Institute that California contributed about $83 billion more in federal taxes in 2022 than it received back from Washington.

“Maybe it’s time to cut that off,” he added.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai, asked to comment on Newsom’s post, threw cold water on mass funding cuts but blasted California for what he said were “lunatic anti-energy, soft-on-crime, pro-child mutilation, and pro-sanctuary policies.”

It is getting very hard to take the constant insults and increasingly aggressive direct threats of large-scale destruction of California from bigoted, corrupt djt and MAGA thugs, liars and slackers. 

Analysis and data from the Rockefeller Institute of Government for federal fiscal year 2022, indicates that California contributed $83.1 billion more to the federal government than it received back in federal expenditures. For 2022, CA was the largest "donor state" in the nation by a significant margin. In other years, CA gets back more than it pays, but so do nearly all other states. That's been part of the ongoing federal deficit problem. MAGA states like Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky and Florida are chronic slackers, taking in more federal tax dollars than they send to to federal government almost every year. 

On a per capita basis, CA ranked fourth among donor states in 2022 at $2,129 per capita, trailing only Massachusetts ($3,873), New Jersey ($3,123), and Washington State ($2,289). In 2022, CA's $83.1 billion negative balance far exceeded the second-largest donor state, New Jersey, by nearly three-to-one due in part to its large population compared to NJ.

Q: Is it hyperbolic, irrational or counterproductive to see civil war provocation by what djt and elite MAGA thugs want to do to California?[1]

Footnote:

1. I asked Pxy:

Q: Is it hyperbolic, irrational or counterproductive to see civil war provocation by what djt and elite MAGA thugs want to do to California?

A: Central to this debate is the Trump movement’s increasing openness to deploying military force against domestic populations, particularly in contexts such as immigration enforcement, protest suppression, and political dissent.

The Trump administration and its allies have repeatedly advocated for unprecedented domestic military deployments, challenging long-standing legal and normative boundaries. In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested 20,000 National Guard troops to assist with immigration enforcement, a move that would federalize the National Guard and bypass state authority 3. This proposal followed Trump’s 2020 threat to deploy “thousands of heavily armed soldiers” against protesters near the White House, marking a pattern of leveraging military assets for domestic law enforcement4. Such actions directly contravene the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which restricts the use of federal troops for policing unless explicitly authorized by Congress 9.

The Insurrection Act of 1807, a rarely invoked statute, has emerged as a focal point for Trump-aligned policymakers. The Act allows the president to deploy troops domestically during “rebellion or insurrection,” but its broad language creates ambiguity.

Labeling MAGA’s actions as “civil war provocation” is neither entirely hyperbolic nor baseless.  

Conclusion: Rational Vigilance in the Face of Escalation
Concerns about civil conflict provoked by Trump and MAGA elites are not irrational but require precise contextualization. The movement’s explicit calls for military deployments against civilians, combined with erosion of democratic norms, create tangible risks of localized violence and constitutional crises. MAGA actions so far do not amount to the inevitability of a civil war, but are nonetheless concerning. 

The Trump-MAGA project represents a hybrid regime model combining electoral legitimacy with authoritarian legalism (an anocracy). While not yet a full dictatorship, the administration’s systematic dismantling of checks on executive power, militarization of civil society, and cultivation of paramilitary alliances have crossed critical democratic thresholds.

Crossed critical democratic thresholds? That’s an understatement. 

The Gaza Debate Has Ended—It’s Time for Explanations

In a recent video essay, Peter Beinart—editor of Jewish Currents—delivers a crucial message for those following the ongoing debate over Israel’s war in Gaza. Beinart argues that, while it is emotionally tempting to scold politicians and pundits who belatedly distance themselves from Israel’s conduct, doing so is politically counter-productive. Instead, he insists, we must engage these voices, hold them to account, and encourage them to publicly explain why they initially supported the war and what changed their minds. Such public reckoning, Beinart contends, is vital—not only for historical clarity but also for shaping future policy and accountability as international legal judgments loom

.

“Over the last week or two the debate over Israel's assault on Gaza in the kind of mainstream western circles...has in some fundamental sense ended...It's now very rare to find people with any credibility in kind of mainstream circles vocally arguing that Israel...can a) destroy Hamas, b) free the hostages, and c) do so without committing massive war crimes, including perhaps genocide...The voices that were arguing those three propositions...have really, really faded.”

The Temptation to Scold—and Why to Resist It

Beinart acknowledges the understandable anger on the pro-Palestinian left, who watched as previously supportive public figures now quietly abandon their earlier positions. He notes:

“One of the reasons that people don't publicly go out and say that they were wrong is because people have a tendency to pillory them when they do...There's a bit of a tendency to kick people when they're down...I really understand that sentiment, especially when it's coming from people on the left...who are so used to getting kind of beaten up rhetorically and marginalized themselves...But I think...it's important to resist that tendency and...encourage people to come out and say that they were wrong.”

Rather than shaming these “defectors” from the Israeli government’s narrative, Beinart urges activists and commentators to create space for public admissions of error. This, he argues, is not about absolution, but about creating a record and fostering accountability.

Why Public Reckoning Matters

Beinart draws on historical analogies to illustrate the dangers of letting debates end in silence rather than reckoning. He points to the Iraq War, where many of its most prominent supporters simply “crept away from the scene of the catastrophe,” only to later resurface in influential roles without ever having to explain or learn from their mistakes. He warns:

“One of the problems with America's foreign policy debate...has been that many people who supported military interventions that were disasters like Iraq were able to kind of resurface...and not be actually...really forced...to publicly reckon with why they got this first military intervention wrong...So it didn't have an impact on how they saw things in the future.”

Beinart names figures like John Bolton and, by implication, others such as Fred and Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland—individuals who, despite their roles in previous foreign policy blunders, continued to shape U.S. policy in subsequent administrations.

The Stakes: Legal and Political

As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC) prepare to issue rulings on Gaza, Beinart stresses the importance of having public statements on record. Only by compelling former supporters to articulate their reasoning can we ensure that future policymakers are held to account, and that the historical record reflects not just a change in consensus, but the reasons for that change.

“It's especially important that Biden administration officials...be invited and encouraged to come out publicly and say that they were wrong...as opposed to basically do what I think they're doing now, which is...try to avoid the subject...I think it's much better for people to say, 'We would rather you publicly come out and reckon and say why you're wrong,' than...just pretend this didn't happen, because I think that will have an impact on the next Democratic administration...”

A Call for Constructive Engagement

Beinart closes with a reference to Jewish tradition, emphasizing that the opportunity for repentance and public reckoning is a virtue, not a weakness:

“In the Talmud...Rab Abahu...says that in the place where penitents stand, even the most righteous do not stand...One of the reasons that human beings are considered better than angels is because angels don't sin, but human beings do and therefore have the opportunity to do repentance...We are much better off if people are encouraged to publicly come out and say they're wrong and grapple with why they're wrong so that it influences how they think in the future than if people...just quietly slink away from this debate altogether because they realize that their position has been disproven but they don't want to say so out loud.”

Conclusion

Beinart’s message is clear: the end of the Gaza debate in mainstream Western discourse should not be marked by silence and evasion. Instead, it must be an opportunity for public reckoning—a moment when those who once defended the war are pressed to explain themselves, to account for their change of heart, and to help ensure that the lessons of this catastrophe are not lost to history. Only then can there be hope for meaningful accountability and a future less prone to repeating the same tragic mistakes.