This shouldn't be a partisan issue, y'all. If the government promised something to those who served, breaking it is immoral and unethical. Watching the bigoted policies of a bureaucracy rip away veterans benefits should enrage every American.

"Support Our Troops." We've seen that plastered on the backs of almost every bumper, in every front yard, on nearly all storefronts, engraved on pins, and sewn on ribbons across these fruited plains, yet somehow, these folks retreat when a solider has a different gender than what is acceptable.

LGBTQ+ service members should get the same benefits and fairness everyone else who takes the oath to protect the Constitution is afforded.

That’s how our system is supposed to work. The Constitution stood tall today — and that’s something everyone should celebrate. 🇺🇸

None of those applied here — and the judge rightly said so.
This wasn’t a partisan move. This was a constitutional one. Even a Trump-appointed judge recognized that no president, regardless of party, should have unchecked power to send in troops against U.S. citizens.

The law only allows the President to deploy the National Guard under three specific circumstances without Congressional approval:
1. An invasion or threat of invasion.
2. A rebellion against the U.S. government.
3. When the President cannot execute federal law with regular forces.

Let’s be clear on why this matters:
✅ It reinforces state sovereignty.
✅ It upholds checks and balances.
✅ It limits executive overreach.

Her 106-page decision makes it clear: the protests in Portland, while tense at times, did not meet the conditions required by U.S. Code 12406 for federal intervention.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, ruled that the President did not have the legal authority to federalize the National Guard in this situation.