Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t

Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t

America Is at an Impasse. What’s the Breakthrough?

America Is at an Impasse. What’s the Breakthrough?

Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Believes in Iranian Regime Change — Experts Contradict Him

Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Believes in Iranian Regime Change — Experts Contradict Him

​Passengers are evacuated by small boat.

The Story Behind the Hantavirus Outbreak and Why It Matters

Claim: President deployed National Guard to Minn. over objections of state leaders. Fact check: False

Minnesota National Guard

Members of the Minnesota National Guard surround the statet Capitol on May 31.

Scott Olson/Getty Images
Silvia Martelli
By Silvia MartelliJul 06, 2020
Silvia Martelli
Silvia Martelli, Medill School is a contributor for The Fulcrum, a nonpartisan publication dedicated to strengthening democracy by fostering informed civic engagement and elevating diverse perspectives.
See More Writings by author
"Minnesota's Democrat governor [Tim Walz] failed to urgently deploy the National Guard — it took President Trump for that to eventually happen; his suggestion — and the ultimate descendance into chaos there in Minneapolis." — White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, June 29

President Trump and his team repeated multiple times that he was responsible for deploying the National Guard to deal with rioting in Minnesota. The first time Trump took credit for the deployment was during an interview with Nexstar on June 17.

"I brought it out five days after they started. They wouldn't use the National Guard. I brought the National Guard to — I told them, I said, 'You got to get the National Guard.' We got them in," he told Nexstar. "Everything stopped in Minneapolis. It was really an amazing thing, actually, to see, and they had no problems after we called out the Guard."

Two days later, Trump tweeted: "Forced Democrat run Minnesota to bring in the National Guard & end rioting & looting after seeing the destruction & crime in Minneapolis."

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany made a similar claim during her official briefing on June 29.

But it was actually Minnesota's Democratic governor, Tim Walz, and not Trump, who deployed the Minnesota National Guard. Walz, who served in the Army National Guard for 24 years, first activated the Guard on May 28, more than seven hours before Trump publicly threatened to do it himself. According to his office, he was not acting under the president's advice, but rather under requests from officials in Minneapolis and St. Paul — cities also run by Democrats. Furthermore, the Guard was deployed two days after the riots had started, rather than the five claimed by Trump.


Latest news

A woman with an empty wallet spent on shopping. Bankrupted woman sitting with her shopping bags
Economy

Trump Says Americans’ Pain ‘Doesn’t Matter’ as $1.7B Aids His Allies

Supreme Court
Rule of Law

The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Decision Will Fuel the “Disuniting” of the United States and the Unraveling of American Democracy

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly
Governance & Legislation

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.
Electoral Reforms

In 2026, Midwest Voters Can Remedy 225 Years of Polarization

Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026