California Sues Trump, But Not the Unilateral Wars
While California’s legal challenge against Trump’s domestic troop deployment is framed as a critical defense of states' rights, the mainstream narrative often glosses over presidential deployment of National Guard units for foreign conflicts. Remember, many states have sent their Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan under various administrations, with little to no state-level legal challenge. Trump, like
his predecessors, used these units for border operations and other federal directives. The outrage appears selective, focused on optics and domestic political theater rather than the consistent expansion of executive power in endless wars abroad. It seems some deployments are more 'illegal' than others, depending on who benefits from the sensational headline. One might wonder where this legal
firepower was when these same Guard members were sent to fight wars of choice, costing trillions and lives, rather than patrolling state lines. Is federal overreach only illegal when it’s politically inconvenient for state governors? The distinction between ‘defending democracy’ at home and exporting it abroad often hinges on who’s footing the bill and whose constituents are paying the price, both
literally and figuratively.