Banana Republic of Donald J. Trump

By Cliff Potts, Editor-in-Chief
WPS News

Donald J. Trump’s second term has removed any remaining ambiguity about how he understands presidential power. Again and again, he has tested whether the United States can be governed the way fragile states are governed: by force, spectacle, and the intimidation of political opponents. Nowhere is that impulse clearer than in his repeated efforts to use the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement.

These are not isolated incidents or rhetorical flourishes. They form a pattern. Trump signals a crisis. Media outlets amplify confusion. Federal power is asserted. And then, crucially, the courts intervene. Each time, the result has been the same: the attempt fails, not because of presidential restraint, but because the judicial system is still operating.

Turning Soldiers Into Police

Trump has repeatedly argued that American cities—almost always Democratic-led—are effectively out of control and therefore justify extraordinary federal action. Under this framing, National Guard units and even active-duty military forces are presented as necessary tools to restore “law and order.”

The problem is that the facts have not supported the claims. In case after case, courts have found no rebellion, no insurrection, and no breakdown of civilian law enforcement that would justify military involvement. Crime statistics, protest records, and testimony from state and local officials consistently contradicted the administration’s narrative. What Trump labeled emergencies were, in legal terms, ordinary governance challenges.

This matters because the U.S. military is not designed, trained, or legally authorized to function as a domestic police force. That line is not a technicality. It is a core constitutional safeguard.

The Banana Republic Model

Political scientists use the term “banana republic” to describe systems where leaders bypass institutions and rely on force or threat of force to maintain control. Courts are weakened. Local authority is overridden. Soldiers are deployed not to fight external enemies, but to signal power at home.

Trump’s approach tracks disturbingly close to that model. His attempts to federalize National Guard units without state consent, deploy troops into cities that did not request assistance, and frame political opposition as a security threat all mirror tactics used by authoritarian governments elsewhere.

What separates the United States from those systems—so far—is institutional resistance.

Courts as the Deterrent

In 2025 alone, judges across multiple jurisdictions blocked or curtailed Trump’s domestic military deployments. Federal courts in California, Oregon, and Illinois rejected claims that conditions justified invoking emergency powers. State courts, including in Tennessee, ruled that governors could not deploy Guard units for law enforcement without legally defined emergencies or local consent. The Supreme Court declined to rescue Trump’s most aggressive efforts, leaving lower-court injunctions in place.

The rulings differed in scope, but the reasoning was consistent: presidential power has limits, and the military cannot be turned inward simply because a president says so.

Several of these decisions came from judges appointed by Republicans, including Trump himself. That detail matters. This has not been a partisan rebellion by the judiciary. It has been an institutional defense of constitutional boundaries.

Why Border Deployments Get Misrepresented

Border deployments have been repeatedly mischaracterized as proof that militarization is already underway domestically. In reality, these deployments have been limited to logistical and support roles, not law enforcement. The misrepresentation is intentional. It conditions the public to accept the presence of troops inside U.S. borders and reframes legal limits as obstacles rather than protections.

Confusion serves power. Clarity threatens it.

The Line Still Holds—for Now

Trump’s strategy has not succeeded. The military has not become a domestic police force. Governors and mayors have not lost their constitutional authority. Courts have repeatedly enforced the law.

But this should not inspire complacency. Democratic systems do not collapse in a single moment. They erode through repeated tests, each one probing for weakness. The fact that the courts remain a sufficient deterrent today does not guarantee they will be tomorrow.

The Banana Republic of Donald J. Trump has not fully materialized—not because it was never attempted, but because the law has, so far, held the line.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

APA Citations

Associated Press. (2025). Supreme Court blocks Trump National Guard deployment in Chicago area. AP News.

CalMatters. (2025). Federal judge rules Trump violated law by sending National Guard to Los Angeles.

Democracy Docket. (2025). Tennessee judge blocks National Guard deployment to Memphis.

Reuters. (2025). Courts reject Trump efforts to deploy troops for domestic law enforcement.

The Guardian. (2025). U.S. Supreme Court halts Trump bid to deploy National Guard in Chicago.