In reaction to President Trump’s ordering of Oregon National Guard into Portland, MSNBC’s Morning Joe questioned the usefulness and legality of the strategy Monday morning. This came after a deployment in Los Angeles, a pending deployment in Memphis, and yet-to-occur deployment in Chicago. There was also an undertone of suspicion that the National Guard would use weapons against innocent Americans.
Host Joe Scarborough kicked things off with his characteristic negativity, suggesting that the peace-keeping efforts has undermined the troops’ mission-effectiveness:
SCARBOROUGH: What does it do to the morale of the National Guard? […] What does it do to the readiness of our armed forces when you have these National Guard members, and in L.A., Marines, used as political props and picking up trash in Washington parks?
HERTLING: We’re already seeing the indications of that, Joe, with re-enlistment rates. As a commander, one of the things you look to do is try and persuade your soldiers to stay with the team, to re-enlist, to stay with us. We've seen the units that have been deployed to Los Angeles, and indicators of the ones that have been deployed to Washington, already saying, “This is not what I signed up for. This is crazy. I'm not, you know, a lawn maintenance team spreading mulch and raking up leaves.”
According to Defense Department Retention Numbers from June, July and August, “All Services reached at least 100% of their goals across all zones” for the fiscal year. Even MSNBC’s own reporting admitted, “None of this reporting suggests that we’re on the brink of seeing mass resignations or protests among National Guard troops or ICE officers.”
Some disgruntled soldiers and federal agents were to be expected. But so far, Trump had used his authority over troops to support and enforce deportation efforts in major cities, where many illegal immigrants went for sanctuary protection. Unless Trump actually ordered troops to start mass-arresting or assaulting regular, everyday American citizens for no real reason, it’s hard to see why service members would give up the job.
Retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling oddly quipped, “I think we will see the same thing in Oregon, because the Oregon National Guard is a very unique organization. They come from a unique state.”
For the record, there was nothing particularly “unique” about Oregon’s National Guard compared to the rest across the country. No shade.
Hertling further warned, “And when they are federalized by the President […] they're going to be asked to do some things through their commanders that they know could potentially be illegal.”
According to the official memorandum, the Oregon National Guard was given the same directions as the California National Guard: “…to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other U.S. Government personnel who are performing Federal functions […] and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur...”
Doesn’t sound very illegal.
After the tumultuous summer, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer found the Trump administration in violation of federal law. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius detailed the case:
And he said that the understanding of what the Posse Comitatus Act means was so clear, that representatives of NORTHCOM, which was the force providing the military — providing overall command and control, had PowerPoint slides saying, “You're not allowed to do this, and this.” These were aspects of law enforcement, you can't do crowd control, you can't set up roadblocks, you go down this list on the PowerPoint. And then they were told that there was a special Constitutional exception which had been ordered, nobody said by whom, from Washington, that meant that some of these categories of law enforcement activities, seemingly clearly prohibited by an 1878 law, were in this case to be allowed.
The implication was that the Trump administration essentially made up an excuse to use federal forces in the way they did.
Breyer wrote in his decision:
If the President wants to avoid the Act’s restrictions, he must invoke a valid exception—like the Insurrection Act, along with its requisite showing that state and local law enforcement are unable or unwilling to act.
Did the judge even see what was going on in L.A.? Protestors were literally damaging government property and interfering with ICE operations, far beyond the local authorities’ willing or actual response capacity.
Regardless of how the dispute between executive and judicial authorities played out, it was obvious liberal politicians want to prohibit Trump from carrying out his campaign promise and Constitutional obligation to deport illegal aliens.
MSNBC’s very own Al Sharpton lamely asked aloud:
And you have to ask, “For what reason?” […] I mean, how — what is the strategy behind this, if the people there that you're supposed to be protecting are saying, “We don't need that protection, there's no problem, we can handle this”? It seems like some kind of political roadmap that the President is following in his own head, rather than responding to a need, and doing it in a way the military is not supposed to be used in the first place.
It’s almost as if the President was sending troops where lawlessness abounds and protestors were most likely to interfere with ICE operations.
A better question would be, if this were truly the overbearing abuse of power the left would like you to believe, why would Trump only deploy a measly three percent of the state’s National Guard? It’s a fraction of what was sent out into L.A. this past summer, and those troops have since been disbanded.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" read:
MSNBC’s Morning Joe
September 29, 2025
6:33:50 a.m. Eastern
(…)
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Right. And another layer to this is the military. The state of Oregon and its largest city, Portland, are suing to block President Trump from deploying the National Guard troops there. The lawsuit follows Trump's announcement on social media over the weekend ordering the Defense Department to send troops to the city to use, quote, “Full Force, if necessary” to combat protests, he says, were interfering with immigration enforcement.State officials say the Pentagon followed through on Trump's order Sunday morning, calling up 200 troops of the state's 6,500 member National Guard contingent. According to the lawsuit, protests outside the ICE facility have been small in recent weeks and demonstrations have not, quote, “necessitated any arrests since mid-June.” Meanwhile, federal immigration agents were spotted patrolling downtown Chicago over the weekend as the White House ramps up its immigration crackdown there.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know, let's bring around retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling and President of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's PoliticsNation, Reverend Al Sharpton.
General, let me start with you. You know, when we were on the Armed Services Committee, we were always concerned about readiness. We were always concerned about the morale of troops. We were always concerned — about were they ready to be deployed, whether it was to Europe, whether it was to Asia, wherever the next great threat was — the Middle East. And we always worried about readiness, and we always worried about them getting off mission. Which is so bizarre, because what do you hear from people in the MAGA base? Oh, you know, they they're so worried about DEI that they've lost their mission. Now we have National Guard troops picking up trash in Washington D.C.
I'm just — just straight, straight question. I want a straight answer, I know I'll get one from you. What does it do to the morale of the National Guard? What does it do to the readiness of the National Guard? What does it do to the readiness of our armed forces when you have these National Guard members, and in L.A., Marines, used as political props and picking up trash in Washington parks?
LT. GEN MARK HERTLING (RET.): We’re already seeing the indications of that, Joe, with re-enlistment rates. As a commander, one of the things you look to do is try and persuade your soldiers to stay with the team, to re-enlist, to stay with us. We've seen the units that have been deployed to Los Angeles, and indicators of the ones that have been deployed to Washington, already saying, “This is not what I signed up for. This is crazy. I'm not, you know, a lawn maintenance team spreading mulch and raking up leaves.”
I think we will see the same thing in Oregon, because the Oregon National Guard is a very unique organization. They come from a unique state. And remember, the people that are being mobilized come from within the state. This is these are the Governor's forces. This is the Governor's National Guard. And when they are federalized by the President, which is what happened to the 200 or so that have been federalized — probably the military policemen and women from that state's National Guard, but I don't know, that's conjecture — they're going to be asked to do some things through their commanders that they know could potentially be illegal.
When I saw the Truth Social post that said use full force, my hairs on every part of my body stood up, because using full force as a going-in rules of engagement is contrary both to legality and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as the morality of these forces.
JONATHAN LEMIRE: Yeah, David Ignatius, that can't be underscored enough. And let's remember here, the President, yes, he has unique authority over Washington, D.C. and deployed federal officers in the National Guard there. You know, Memphis — it's a red state Governor, so the Governor welcomed them in, said that would be okay.
This is different. This is different. The Governor of Oregon doesn't want this. The Mayor of Portland doesn't want this. And it is sending American troops, getting — desensitizing American citizens to seeing the sight of American soldiers on their streets and, as General Hertling said, potentially with really dangerous consequences.
DAVID IGNATIUS: So, Jonathan, this is what is not supposed to happen in America, the use of our military against our own citizens for what essentially amount to law enforcement purposes. We have police forces, other agencies that do that. And we have an 1878 statute, the Posse Comitatus Act, that makes clear that law enforcement functions are not appropriate or legal for the military. That was overridden, according to a U.S. District Court judge in California when National Guard was federalized there and U.S. Marines were added to the force. And they were specifically —
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, David?
IGNATIUS: - told — Yes, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: I want you to underline this fact. This law, the Posse Comitatus Act, it's unambiguous. Now, there are some things, and I've said this —
[Crosstalk]
IGNATIUS: It is not ambiguous.
SCARBOROUGH: - to Democrats that are — For Democrats who are saying, “Oh, he's doing this, he's doing that,” I go, yeah. You know, they said they were going to try to push the boundaries of Article II powers. There are ambiguities, and this is a Supreme Court that will say, “We're going to give the President more powers.” Because there are a lot of people on that Court that have long believed that.
In this specific case, talk about how unambiguous this law is. And even the Supreme Court, even the people that want to help Trump the most on the Supreme Court, can't find a way there, here, unless they want to completely violate the Constitution.
IGNATIUS: So, Joe, the simplest way to state this is to describe what the District Court judge, Judge Breyer, said in his opinion. His opinion was scathing to an extent I've rarely seen. And he said that the understanding of what the Posse Comitatus Act means was so clear, that representatives of NORTHCOM, which was the force providing the military — providing overall command and control, had PowerPoint slides saying, “You're not allowed to do this, and this.” These were aspects of law enforcement, you can't do crowd control, you can't set up roadblocks, you go down this list on the PowerPoint.
And then they were told that there was a special Constitutional exception which had been ordered, nobody said by whom, from Washington, that meant that some of these categories of law enforcement activities, seemingly clearly prohibited by an 1878 law, were in this case to be allowed. It's a shocking judicial opinion, and it applies equally to what's happening now in Oregon.
Essentially, they are overriding, not simply tradition, but specific laws that are intended to make sure that our military is never used directly against our people. And that's the point that we've come to. And I'm sure every person associated with the military, like General Hertling, is shocked to see this happen.
LEMIRE: And, Reverend Sharpton, we should note it's the National Guard being deployed here in Portland, a city that President Trump has railed about for years. We also know high on his list, Chicago. And this weekend we saw dozens, if not more, of masked ICE agents working in the loop.
REV. AL SHARPTON: When we look at this, though, it is very frightening to many people, because they seem to be chosen without any rhyme or reason, because the local officials are not asking for them. There seems to be a pushback from a lot of the citizens. We see in Illinois people that were saying they were abused in peaceful protest. And you have to ask, “For what reason?” Then you also remember the President said, “We're going into Chicago.” He has not done that. “We're going into Memphis.”
I mean, how — what is the strategy behind this, if the people there that you're supposed to be protecting are saying, “We don't need that protection, there's no problem, we can handle this”? It seems like some kind of political roadmap that the President is following in his own head, rather than responding to a need, and doing it in a way the military is not supposed to be used in the first place.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, if you're using federal agents, and you're using additional ICE agents, let's say going to Chicago, that's — the President has the Constitutional authority to do that, whether he should or not. When you start moving into the National Guard, and then military troops — you know, military troops especially — not allowed for crime control. Just not allowed. So, again, there's a bit of a sliding scale there. And we will see, after Los Angeles, whether the White House cares to violate the law so openly and blatantly again.
(…)
