Donald Trump first deployed the National Guard into Washington, D.C. on August 11, 2025, under the legal authority of section 740 of the Home Rule Act. The act allows the President to legally take control of the local police force, the DC Metropolitan police. Critics say the move could blur the lines between civilian law enforcement and military involvement. The act states that Congress must have had prior warning 48 hours beforehand, and when initially enforced, it can only last for 30 days before congressional approval for extension, but the act can only be invoked in cases of emergency. The emergency reason given by President Trump is “total lawlessness,” and he pledges to make the city “crime-free.” He has deployed around 800 National Guard troops so far to the capital and is set to take direct control of the city’s police. Trump, during a White House conference, explained, “Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals,” and he seems to be quite steadfast about his stance on the issue. This is coming as public perception proves to be quite firm, yet divided, on his tactics. According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 56 percent of voters oppose the move, while only 41 percent approve. Most of the disapproval comes from Democrats and Independents, as 98 percent of Republicans approve, while 98 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of Independents disapprove. It is also important to note that Trump has previously deployed the National Guard into another state, California, in June during the No Kings Protests, even against the wishes of the state governor, Gavin Newsom. Because of this, Judge Charles R. Breyer has recently ruled the deployment of the National Guard into Los Angeles illegal, even going as far as to warn against Trump possibly creating “a national police force with the President as its chief.”
https://itoldya420.getarchive.net/media/us-soldiers-and-airmen-of-the-national-guard-salute-bda3a4
Furthermore, controversial redistricting in the middle of the decade has become an even more nuanced and contentious issue. The key factor that is pushing these efforts is the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, as more districts favoring one party will win more seats for that side. The whole country is in a free-for-all as dozens of states lead efforts and race against the clock to redraw districts before the crucial 2026 deadline. The main states in play currently are Missouri, Utah, California, and most infamously, Texas.
Texas, having gerrymandered the state to be almost fully red, has been accused of engaging in racially charged redistricting in a lawsuit, according to CBS. Many activists are wary of the move. CEO of NAACP, Derek Johnson, said in a statement, “It’s quite obvious that Texas’s effort to redistrict mid-decade, before next year’s midterm elections, is racially motivated. The state’s intent here is to reduce the members of Congress who represent Black communities, and that, in and of itself, is unconstitutional.” The Department of Justice has been concerned with the legality of the redistricting, warning that it may be racially motivated and break precedent too far.
Similarly, people have raised flags because of the nature of the timing, since the push for such stark redistricting comes as a result of a direct request from Donald Trump. Trump has gone on saying Republicans are “entitled to” five more seats in Texas. In Utah, a judge has recently ordered Republicans to draw a new redistricting map and only gave them until September 24 to get it done. The expected outcome is a dilution of political power for state Democrats centered in Salt Lake City. New boundaries would centralize the city into a single district, potentially giving Democrats more influence in the state politics. California has retaliated against Texas, with movements of its own spearheaded by Senator Gavin Newsom. While campaigns in the state have started running, redistricting in California requires voter approval, and Newsom’s ads are set to run soon. Missouri has also joined the movement as its Governor Mike Kehoe has called on state legislatures to convene on September 3rd.
(Courtesy of Princeton Gerrymander Project) https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/
These recent and unprecedented changes have shown signs of long-term consequences going forward. Both redistricting and federal occupation serve not only as ways to gain more purely partisan power, but also to create more tension across already fragile federal processes. It seems with recent redistricting, what critics describe as ‘leaders choosing their voters, not the other way around,’ and militarized occupation only serve to provoke a larger outcry from citizens. In a poll from YouGov, most voters oppose gerrymandering, with 69 percent saying it should be illegal.
In conclusion, with certain events happening throughout the administration, it can be a frightening time for many Americans, but it is extremely important to keep their eyes set on the future and respond accordingly. Perhaps there should be greater redistricting standards nationwide, and some advocates argue that the public should play a larger, more active role in opposing military involvement in local governance. News coverage can feel overwhelming, but staying informed is essential because in times of unrest, democracy depends on engaged citizens.
