Analysis of the Proclamation: “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion”

President Trump’s proclamation issued on January 20, 2025, sets forth an unprecedented interpretation of federal and constitutional authority to address immigration and border security. It uses the “invasion” clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to justify a series of sweeping actions aimed at halting illegal entry into the United States, particularly across the southern border.

Key Points of the Proclamation

  1. Constitutional Authority Invoked:
    • Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”
    • Article II: Presidential control over foreign affairs and the duty to enforce immigration laws.
  2. National Emergency Declaration:
    • The proclamation declares the situation at the southern border an “invasion.”
    • It argues that the federal government’s failure to secure the border violates its constitutional obligation to protect states.
  3. Executive Powers Cited:
    • Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):
      • Authorizes the President to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States if deemed detrimental to national interests.
    • Supreme Court precedent, particularly Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which affirmed the broad deference given to the President in matters of immigration and national security.
  4. Policy Actions Directed:
    • Suspension of the physical entry of aliens deemed to be part of the “invasion.”
    • Restrictions on aliens invoking asylum provisions of the INA.
    • Expanded authority for Homeland Security to repel and remove aliens without legal review.
    • Use of military and federal resources to enforce border security measures.
  5. Health and Security Justifications:
    • Cites risks of public health crises due to unscreened migrants.
    • Highlights the inability of federal agencies to vet migrants for criminal or national security threats effectively.
  6. Implementation and Coordination:
    • Directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General to take actions necessary to implement the proclamation.
    • Allows operational flexibility for repatriation and removal efforts.

Potential Implications

  1. Legal Challenges:
    • The invocation of the “invasion” clause to justify sweeping actions could face immediate constitutional challenges.
    • The suspension of asylum rights and physical entry for aliens may conflict with established international and domestic legal obligations, including the Refugee Act of 1980.
  2. Federal-State Dynamics:
    • Sanctuary states and cities may interpret this proclamation as federal overreach, leading to resistance and litigation.
    • The invocation of Article IV against perceived “invasion” could provoke debates over federalism and the limits of executive authority.
  3. Precedent-Setting:
    • By broadening the definition of “invasion” to include illegal immigration, this proclamation could establish a precedent for future executive actions in domestic security or immigration.
  4. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Immediate impacts on migrants stranded at the border without access to legal processes, including asylum.
    • Potential international criticism from allies and organizations advocating for human rights.

Alignment with Predictions and Project 2025

This proclamation aligns closely with elements of Project 2025, which prioritizes border security and emphasizes executive authority to enforce immigration laws. It also reflects several key points from our previous scenario predictions, including:

  • Predicted: Use of a national emergency to address border security.
  • Predicted: Drastic measures to curb asylum rights.
  • Not Yet Realized: The proclamation’s impact on sanctuary states resisting federal enforcement remains to be seen.

Next Steps and Recommendations

  1. Monitor Legal Challenges:
    • Courts may quickly weigh in on the constitutional validity of the proclamation, particularly the use of Article IV.
  2. Track State Responses:
    • Observe how sanctuary states such as California, New York, and Illinois react to federal enforcement measures under this directive.
  3. International Reactions:
    • Analyze global responses to the proclamation, particularly from Mexico and international human rights organizations.
  4. Scenario Updates:
    • Incorporate the proclamation into our timeline and recalibrate probabilities for resistance, legal challenges, and federal-state conflicts.

The text as found on Whitehouse.gov 1/21/2025

GUARANTEEING THE STATES PROTECTION AGAINST INVASION
January 20, 2025

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby proclaim:

An essential feature of any sovereign nation is the existence of territorial boundaries and the inherent authority to decide who and what may cross those boundaries. The Supreme Court of the United States has described this power as a “fundamental act of sovereignty,” which “stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). The Supreme Court has recognized the inherent right and duty of the Executive Branch to defend our national sovereignty, stating that “[w]hen Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.” Id.

The Congress has, in establishing “an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” created a complex and comprehensive Federal scheme in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., to control the entry and exit of people and goods across the borders of the United States. In routine circumstances, this complex and comprehensive scheme can protect the national sovereignty of the United States by facilitating the admission of individuals whose presence serves the national interest and preventing the admission of those who do not, such as those aliens who pose threats to public health, section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1); safety, section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)); and national security, section 212(a)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)). Prospective immigrants who use the visa system are screened for such health, safety, and security concerns while outside of the United States, and are not permitted to enter the United States until they establish that they are eligible to be admitted as a matter of law and should be admitted as a matter of discretion.

But screening under those provisions of the INA can be wholly ineffective in the border environment, where access to necessary information is limited for aliens who have traveled from countries around the world to enter the United States illegally, or when the system is overwhelmed, leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.

Due to significant information gaps — particularly in the border environment — and processing times, Federal officials do not have the ability to verify with certainty the criminal record or national-security risks associated with the illegal entry of every alien at the southern border, as required by section 212(a)(2)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)-(3). Nor do aliens who illegally cross the southern border readily provide comprehensive background information from their home countries to Federal law enforcement officials.

The public safety and national security risks in such an environment are heightened by the presence of, and control of territory by, international cartels and other transnational criminal organizations on the other side of the southern border, as well as terrorists and other malign actors who intend to harm the United States and the American people. And the risks associated with these issues are greatly exacerbated when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border increases to levels that prevent actual operational control of the border.

The same is true for public health, where the Federal Government currently lacks an effective operational capability to screen all illegal aliens crossing the southern border for communicable diseases of public-health concern, as required by section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1). Effectively no aliens who illegally enter the United States provide Federal officials at the southern border with their comprehensive health information, as a lawful immigrant would. As a result, innumerable aliens potentially carrying communicable diseases of public health significance illegally cross the southern border and enter communities across the United States.

Over the last 4 years, at least 8 million illegal aliens were encountered along the southern border of the United States, and countless millions more evaded detection and illegally entered the United States. The sheer number of aliens entering the United States has overwhelmed the system and rendered many of the INA’s provisions ineffective, including those previously described that are intended to prevent aliens posing threats to public health, safety, and national security from entering the United States. As a result, millions of aliens who potentially pose significant threats to health, safety, and national security have moved into communities nationwide.

This ongoing influx of illegal aliens across the southern border of the United States has placed significant costs and constraints upon the States, which have collectively spent billions of dollars in providing medical care and related human services, and have spent considerable amounts on increased law enforcement costs associated with the presence of these illegal aliens within their boundaries.

In joining the Union, the States agreed to surrender much of their sovereignty and join the Union in exchange for the Federal Government’s promise in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, to “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.” I have determined that the current state of the southern border reveals that the Federal Government has failed in fulfilling this obligation to the States and hereby declare that an invasion is ongoing at the southern border, which requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.

The INA provides the President with certain emergency tools. For example, it states that “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). This statute “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 684 (2018). Further, the INA renders it unlawful for “any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” 8 U.S.C. 1185(a)(1).

Historically, Presidents have used these statutory authorities to deny entry of designated classes and categories of aliens into the United States through ports of entry. But if the President has the power to deny entry of any alien into the United States, and to impose any restrictions as he may deem appropriate, this authority necessarily includes the right to deny the physical entry of aliens into the United States and impose restrictions on access to portions of the immigration system, particularly when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border prevents the Federal Government from obtaining operational control of the border.

The INA does not, however, occupy the Federal Government’s field of authority to protect the sovereignty of the United States, particularly in times of emergency when entire provisions of the INA are rendered ineffective by operational constraints, such as when there is an ongoing invasion into the States. The President’s inherent powers to control the borders of the United States, including those deriving from his authority to control the foreign affairs of the United States, necessarily include the ability to prevent the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States, and to rapidly repatriate them to an alternative location. Only through such measures can the President guarantee the right of each State to be protected against invasion.

By the power vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I have determined that the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, I am issuing this Proclamation based on my express and inherent powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States, and in faithful execution of the immigration laws passed by the Congress, and suspending the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border until I determine that the invasion has concluded.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Suspension of Entry. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States on or after the date of this order of aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Restrictions on Entry for Aliens Invading the United States. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this proclamation are restricted from invoking provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 3. Suspension of and Restriction on Entry for Aliens Posing Public Health, Safety, or National Security Risks. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States, on or after the date of this order, of any alien who fails, before entering the United States, to provide Federal officials with sufficient medical information and reliable criminal history and background information as to enable fulfillment of the requirements of sections 212(a)(1)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)-(3), is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended and restrict their access to provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158.

Sec. 4. Constitutional Suspension of Physical Entry. Under the authorities provided to me under Article II of the Constitution of the United States, including my control over foreign affairs, and to effectuate the guarantee of protection against invasion required by Article IV, Section 4, I hereby suspend the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States, and direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to take appropriate actions as may be necessary to achieve the objectives of this proclamation, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 5. Operational Actions to Repel the Invasion. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action to repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this order, whether as an exercise of the suspension power in section 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), or as an exercise of my delegated authority under the Constitution of the United States, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth

 

Integration of Proclamation into Our Scenario

The proclamation “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion” fundamentally shifts the landscape of our scenario. It establishes a direct use of executive authority to bypass traditional immigration processes, framing the southern border situation as a constitutional crisis of sovereignty. Here’s how this development influences our timeline and scenario outcomes:

Play-by-Play Update

Phase 1: Federal Escalation and Emergency Measures (Day 1-7)

  1. Federal Action:
    • The proclamation declares an “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
    • Entry of undocumented immigrants at the southern border is suspended indefinitely, with military resources deployed to enforce the directive.
  2. Immediate Impacts:
    • Border crossings drop sharply as federal agents enforce a “zero-entry” policy.
    • Migrant camps on the Mexican side swell with displaced individuals unable to enter the U.S., creating a humanitarian crisis.
  3. State-Level Reactions:
    • Border states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida express support, citing reduced strain on state resources.
    • Sanctuary states (California, New York, Illinois) condemn the proclamation as unconstitutional, vowing legal challenges and limited cooperation.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Immediate border militarization: 100% (confirmed).
  • Legal challenges from sanctuary states: 85%.
  • Escalating protests from immigrant advocacy groups: 75%.

Phase 2: Legal and Humanitarian Challenges (Week 2-4)

  1. Judicial Response:
    • Lawsuits are filed in federal courts by sanctuary states and civil rights organizations, arguing the proclamation violates due process and international asylum laws.
    • A fast-tracked appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.
  2. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Reports from border regions detail overcrowded migrant camps and deteriorating conditions.
    • Advocacy groups coordinate nationwide protests, calling for accountability and an end to the proclamation’s measures.
  3. Political Divisions:
    • Republicans rally behind the administration, framing the proclamation as a decisive step toward national security.
    • Democrats escalate rhetoric, accusing the administration of overreach and humanitarian neglect.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Supreme Court siding with federal government: 70%.
  • Mass protests in urban areas: 65%.

Phase 3: Potential State Resistance and Federal Retaliation (Month 2-3)

  1. Defiance by Sanctuary States:
    • California leads a coalition of states passing laws to shield undocumented residents from deportation.
    • Local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.
  2. Federal Countermeasures:
    • Federal funding to defiant states is threatened, with additional federal agents deployed to enforce immigration laws.
    • The administration hints at invoking the Insurrection Act if states obstruct federal operations.
  3. Public Unrest:
    • Protests escalate in sanctuary states, with clashes reported between demonstrators and federal agents.
    • Public opinion polarizes further along partisan lines.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Federal retaliation via funding cuts: 75%.
  • Invocation of the Insurrection Act: 55%.
  • Violent clashes during protests: 70%.

Potential Outcomes and Probabilities

  1. Outcome A: Legal Resolution (40%)
    • The Supreme Court upholds or invalidates the proclamation, determining its constitutionality.
    • Sanctuary states abide by the decision but push for legislative reforms to limit executive authority.
  2. Outcome B: Prolonged Standoff (50%)
    • Sanctuary states refuse to comply, effectively operating as semi-autonomous regions regarding immigration enforcement.
    • Federal and state authorities operate in parallel, creating legal and operational chaos.
  3. Outcome C: Federal Overreach and Martial Law (30%)
    • The administration escalates enforcement through the Insurrection Act, deploying troops to sanctuary states.
    • Widespread protests devolve into civil unrest, straining national cohesion.
  4. Outcome D: De-Escalation Through Political Compromise (20%)
    • Facing legal and public pressure, the administration agrees to narrow the scope of the proclamation, focusing on criminal elements rather than blanket immigration bans.

Impact Analysis

  1. Legal Implications:
    • The proclamation sets a precedent for defining “invasion” broadly, which could expand executive powers.
    • Courts will face challenges balancing federal authority with constitutional protections.
  2. Federal-State Relations:
    • Sanctuary states are likely to assert greater autonomy, intensifying federal-state tensions.
  3. Public Sentiment:
    • Polarization deepens as partisan narratives dominate media coverage.
    • Immigrant communities face heightened fear and uncertainty, fueling activism and advocacy.

Analysis of the Proclamation: “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion”

President Trump’s proclamation issued on January 20, 2025, sets forth an unprecedented interpretation of federal and constitutional authority to address immigration and border security. It uses the “invasion” clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to justify a series of sweeping actions aimed at halting illegal entry into the United States, particularly across the southern border.

Key Points of the Proclamation

  1. Constitutional Authority Invoked:
    • Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”
    • Article II: Presidential control over foreign affairs and the duty to enforce immigration laws.
  2. National Emergency Declaration:
    • The proclamation declares the situation at the southern border an “invasion.”
    • It argues that the federal government’s failure to secure the border violates its constitutional obligation to protect states.
  3. Executive Powers Cited:
    • Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):
      • Authorizes the President to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States if deemed detrimental to national interests.
    • Supreme Court precedent, particularly Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which affirmed the broad deference given to the President in matters of immigration and national security.
  4. Policy Actions Directed:
    • Suspension of the physical entry of aliens deemed to be part of the “invasion.”
    • Restrictions on aliens invoking asylum provisions of the INA.
    • Expanded authority for Homeland Security to repel and remove aliens without legal review.
    • Use of military and federal resources to enforce border security measures.
  5. Health and Security Justifications:
    • Cites risks of public health crises due to unscreened migrants.
    • Highlights the inability of federal agencies to vet migrants for criminal or national security threats effectively.
  6. Implementation and Coordination:
    • Directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General to take actions necessary to implement the proclamation.
    • Allows operational flexibility for repatriation and removal efforts.

Potential Implications

  1. Legal Challenges:
    • The invocation of the “invasion” clause to justify sweeping actions could face immediate constitutional challenges.
    • The suspension of asylum rights and physical entry for aliens may conflict with established international and domestic legal obligations, including the Refugee Act of 1980.
  2. Federal-State Dynamics:
    • Sanctuary states and cities may interpret this proclamation as federal overreach, leading to resistance and litigation.
    • The invocation of Article IV against perceived “invasion” could provoke debates over federalism and the limits of executive authority.
  3. Precedent-Setting:
    • By broadening the definition of “invasion” to include illegal immigration, this proclamation could establish a precedent for future executive actions in domestic security or immigration.
  4. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Immediate impacts on migrants stranded at the border without access to legal processes, including asylum.
    • Potential international criticism from allies and organizations advocating for human rights.

Alignment with Predictions and Project 2025

This proclamation aligns closely with elements of Project 2025, which prioritizes border security and emphasizes executive authority to enforce immigration laws. It also reflects several key points from our previous scenario predictions, including:

  • Predicted: Use of a national emergency to address border security.
  • Predicted: Drastic measures to curb asylum rights.
  • Not Yet Realized: The proclamation’s impact on sanctuary states resisting federal enforcement remains to be seen.

Next Steps and Recommendations

  1. Monitor Legal Challenges:
    • Courts may quickly weigh in on the constitutional validity of the proclamation, particularly the use of Article IV.
  2. Track State Responses:
    • Observe how sanctuary states such as California, New York, and Illinois react to federal enforcement measures under this directive.
  3. International Reactions:
    • Analyze global responses to the proclamation, particularly from Mexico and international human rights organizations.
  4. Scenario Updates:
    • Incorporate the proclamation into our timeline and recalibrate probabilities for resistance, legal challenges, and federal-state conflicts.

The text as found on Whitehouse.gov 1/21/2025

GUARANTEEING THE STATES PROTECTION AGAINST INVASION
January 20, 2025

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby proclaim:

An essential feature of any sovereign nation is the existence of territorial boundaries and the inherent authority to decide who and what may cross those boundaries. The Supreme Court of the United States has described this power as a “fundamental act of sovereignty,” which “stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). The Supreme Court has recognized the inherent right and duty of the Executive Branch to defend our national sovereignty, stating that “[w]hen Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.” Id.

The Congress has, in establishing “an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” created a complex and comprehensive Federal scheme in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., to control the entry and exit of people and goods across the borders of the United States. In routine circumstances, this complex and comprehensive scheme can protect the national sovereignty of the United States by facilitating the admission of individuals whose presence serves the national interest and preventing the admission of those who do not, such as those aliens who pose threats to public health, section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1); safety, section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)); and national security, section 212(a)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)). Prospective immigrants who use the visa system are screened for such health, safety, and security concerns while outside of the United States, and are not permitted to enter the United States until they establish that they are eligible to be admitted as a matter of law and should be admitted as a matter of discretion.

But screening under those provisions of the INA can be wholly ineffective in the border environment, where access to necessary information is limited for aliens who have traveled from countries around the world to enter the United States illegally, or when the system is overwhelmed, leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.

Due to significant information gaps — particularly in the border environment — and processing times, Federal officials do not have the ability to verify with certainty the criminal record or national-security risks associated with the illegal entry of every alien at the southern border, as required by section 212(a)(2)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)-(3). Nor do aliens who illegally cross the southern border readily provide comprehensive background information from their home countries to Federal law enforcement officials.

The public safety and national security risks in such an environment are heightened by the presence of, and control of territory by, international cartels and other transnational criminal organizations on the other side of the southern border, as well as terrorists and other malign actors who intend to harm the United States and the American people. And the risks associated with these issues are greatly exacerbated when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border increases to levels that prevent actual operational control of the border.

The same is true for public health, where the Federal Government currently lacks an effective operational capability to screen all illegal aliens crossing the southern border for communicable diseases of public-health concern, as required by section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1). Effectively no aliens who illegally enter the United States provide Federal officials at the southern border with their comprehensive health information, as a lawful immigrant would. As a result, innumerable aliens potentially carrying communicable diseases of public health significance illegally cross the southern border and enter communities across the United States.

Over the last 4 years, at least 8 million illegal aliens were encountered along the southern border of the United States, and countless millions more evaded detection and illegally entered the United States. The sheer number of aliens entering the United States has overwhelmed the system and rendered many of the INA’s provisions ineffective, including those previously described that are intended to prevent aliens posing threats to public health, safety, and national security from entering the United States. As a result, millions of aliens who potentially pose significant threats to health, safety, and national security have moved into communities nationwide.

This ongoing influx of illegal aliens across the southern border of the United States has placed significant costs and constraints upon the States, which have collectively spent billions of dollars in providing medical care and related human services, and have spent considerable amounts on increased law enforcement costs associated with the presence of these illegal aliens within their boundaries.

In joining the Union, the States agreed to surrender much of their sovereignty and join the Union in exchange for the Federal Government’s promise in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, to “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.” I have determined that the current state of the southern border reveals that the Federal Government has failed in fulfilling this obligation to the States and hereby declare that an invasion is ongoing at the southern border, which requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.

The INA provides the President with certain emergency tools. For example, it states that “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). This statute “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 684 (2018). Further, the INA renders it unlawful for “any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” 8 U.S.C. 1185(a)(1).

Historically, Presidents have used these statutory authorities to deny entry of designated classes and categories of aliens into the United States through ports of entry. But if the President has the power to deny entry of any alien into the United States, and to impose any restrictions as he may deem appropriate, this authority necessarily includes the right to deny the physical entry of aliens into the United States and impose restrictions on access to portions of the immigration system, particularly when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border prevents the Federal Government from obtaining operational control of the border.

The INA does not, however, occupy the Federal Government’s field of authority to protect the sovereignty of the United States, particularly in times of emergency when entire provisions of the INA are rendered ineffective by operational constraints, such as when there is an ongoing invasion into the States. The President’s inherent powers to control the borders of the United States, including those deriving from his authority to control the foreign affairs of the United States, necessarily include the ability to prevent the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States, and to rapidly repatriate them to an alternative location. Only through such measures can the President guarantee the right of each State to be protected against invasion.

By the power vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I have determined that the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, I am issuing this Proclamation based on my express and inherent powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States, and in faithful execution of the immigration laws passed by the Congress, and suspending the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border until I determine that the invasion has concluded.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Suspension of Entry. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States on or after the date of this order of aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Restrictions on Entry for Aliens Invading the United States. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this proclamation are restricted from invoking provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 3. Suspension of and Restriction on Entry for Aliens Posing Public Health, Safety, or National Security Risks. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States, on or after the date of this order, of any alien who fails, before entering the United States, to provide Federal officials with sufficient medical information and reliable criminal history and background information as to enable fulfillment of the requirements of sections 212(a)(1)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)-(3), is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended and restrict their access to provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158.

Sec. 4. Constitutional Suspension of Physical Entry. Under the authorities provided to me under Article II of the Constitution of the United States, including my control over foreign affairs, and to effectuate the guarantee of protection against invasion required by Article IV, Section 4, I hereby suspend the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States, and direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to take appropriate actions as may be necessary to achieve the objectives of this proclamation, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 5. Operational Actions to Repel the Invasion. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action to repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this order, whether as an exercise of the suspension power in section 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), or as an exercise of my delegated authority under the Constitution of the United States, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth

 

Integration of Proclamation into Our Scenario

The proclamation “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion” fundamentally shifts the landscape of our scenario. It establishes a direct use of executive authority to bypass traditional immigration processes, framing the southern border situation as a constitutional crisis of sovereignty. Here’s how this development influences our timeline and scenario outcomes:

Play-by-Play Update

Phase 1: Federal Escalation and Emergency Measures (Day 1-7)

  1. Federal Action:
    • The proclamation declares an “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
    • Entry of undocumented immigrants at the southern border is suspended indefinitely, with military resources deployed to enforce the directive.
  2. Immediate Impacts:
    • Border crossings drop sharply as federal agents enforce a “zero-entry” policy.
    • Migrant camps on the Mexican side swell with displaced individuals unable to enter the U.S., creating a humanitarian crisis.
  3. State-Level Reactions:
    • Border states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida express support, citing reduced strain on state resources.
    • Sanctuary states (California, New York, Illinois) condemn the proclamation as unconstitutional, vowing legal challenges and limited cooperation.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Immediate border militarization: 100% (confirmed).
  • Legal challenges from sanctuary states: 85%.
  • Escalating protests from immigrant advocacy groups: 75%.

Phase 2: Legal and Humanitarian Challenges (Week 2-4)

  1. Judicial Response:
    • Lawsuits are filed in federal courts by sanctuary states and civil rights organizations, arguing the proclamation violates due process and international asylum laws.
    • A fast-tracked appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.
  2. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Reports from border regions detail overcrowded migrant camps and deteriorating conditions.
    • Advocacy groups coordinate nationwide protests, calling for accountability and an end to the proclamation’s measures.
  3. Political Divisions:
    • Republicans rally behind the administration, framing the proclamation as a decisive step toward national security.
    • Democrats escalate rhetoric, accusing the administration of overreach and humanitarian neglect.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Supreme Court siding with federal government: 70%.
  • Mass protests in urban areas: 65%.

Phase 3: Potential State Resistance and Federal Retaliation (Month 2-3)

  1. Defiance by Sanctuary States:
    • California leads a coalition of states passing laws to shield undocumented residents from deportation.
    • Local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.
  2. Federal Countermeasures:
    • Federal funding to defiant states is threatened, with additional federal agents deployed to enforce immigration laws.
    • The administration hints at invoking the Insurrection Act if states obstruct federal operations.
  3. Public Unrest:
    • Protests escalate in sanctuary states, with clashes reported between demonstrators and federal agents.
    • Public opinion polarizes further along partisan lines.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Federal retaliation via funding cuts: 75%.
  • Invocation of the Insurrection Act: 55%.
  • Violent clashes during protests: 70%.

Potential Outcomes and Probabilities

  1. Outcome A: Legal Resolution (40%)
    • The Supreme Court upholds or invalidates the proclamation, determining its constitutionality.
    • Sanctuary states abide by the decision but push for legislative reforms to limit executive authority.
  2. Outcome B: Prolonged Standoff (50%)
    • Sanctuary states refuse to comply, effectively operating as semi-autonomous regions regarding immigration enforcement.
    • Federal and state authorities operate in parallel, creating legal and operational chaos.
  3. Outcome C: Federal Overreach and Martial Law (30%)
    • The administration escalates enforcement through the Insurrection Act, deploying troops to sanctuary states.
    • Widespread protests devolve into civil unrest, straining national cohesion.
  4. Outcome D: De-Escalation Through Political Compromise (20%)
    • Facing legal and public pressure, the administration agrees to narrow the scope of the proclamation, focusing on criminal elements rather than blanket immigration bans.

Impact Analysis

  1. Legal Implications:
    • The proclamation sets a precedent for defining “invasion” broadly, which could expand executive powers.
    • Courts will face challenges balancing federal authority with constitutional protections.
  2. Federal-State Relations:
    • Sanctuary states are likely to assert greater autonomy, intensifying federal-state tensions.
  3. Public Sentiment:
    • Polarization deepens as partisan narratives dominate media coverage.
    • Immigrant communities face heightened fear and uncertainty, fueling activism and advocacy.
67.3 F
Portland

Dissent Is Not a Crime: Trump’s 250th Anniversary Order and the Criminalization of Protest

Presidential OrdersThe Resistance
A digital painting depicting a modern protest scene with activists holding signs, including “I Dissent” and “History Belongs to the People.” Federal officers in riot gear surround the protesters, some detaining individuals while others tear down banners. A faded historical backdrop shows suffragettes being arrested, Civil Rights activists facing police dogs, and Kent State students fleeing gunfire, illustrating the repeated suppression of movements throughout American history.

Published:

Reading time: 9 min.

The United States will soon mark its 250th anniversary—a milestone meant to celebrate democracy, freedom, and the voices that shaped the nation. But instead of honoring the spirit of dissent that fueled the country’s founding, Trump’s latest executive order signals a return to state-sponsored suppression. Framed as a plan to celebrate America’s history, this order revives 2020’s aggressive anti-protest laws, weaponizing monument protection as a pretext for criminalizing demonstrations, rewriting historical narratives, and tightening federal control over public spaces. It’s not just a policy—it’s a warning shot at activism itself.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve seen this playbook before. From Portland’s Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, where federal agents abducted demonstrators in unmarked vans, to Indigenous activists arrested for challenging colonial monuments, Trump’s first term saw protests met with tear gas, rubber bullets, and mass arrests. His new executive order cements that legacy, ensuring that future movements—whether for racial justice, abortion rights, or climate action—will face even harsher federal crackdowns. Under the guise of “protecting history,” this administration is preemptively criminalizing the next generation of activists.

History tells us what happens when the government decides which protests are “acceptable.” Suffragettes were arrested and force-fed for demanding the right to vote. Civil Rights activists were brutalized for marching against segregation. Anti-war protesters at Kent State were shot down for opposing militarism. And now, in 2025, we are witnessing another attempt to silence dissent before it even begins. The question is no longer if these laws will be used to suppress activism, but when—and against whom.

1. Policy Content and Intent – What This Order Actually Does

Breaking Down the Executive Order:

  • Establishes the “White House Task Force on Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday”
    • Chaired by Trump himself, with direct oversight over the planning and execution of events.
    • Tasked with organizing a nationally coordinated celebration, ensuring agencies participate in patriotic events.
    • Places the Department of Defense in charge, signaling an unusual militarization of a national celebration.
  • Revives the “National Garden of American Heroes”
    • Originally introduced in 2020 but scrapped by Biden, this initiative mandates a curated list of 250 American historical figures to be honored in a national monument park.
    • Critics argue it promotes a sanitized, right-wing view of history, ignoring figures central to civil rights and labor movements while elevating conservative icons.
  • Reinstates Trump’s Executive Order on “Protecting Monuments”
    • Reinstates federal crackdowns on protests near historical monuments, which were heavily criticized for targeting Black Lives Matter and Indigenous rights activists.
    • This explicitly cites recent vandalism linked to pro-Palestinian demonstrations, linking civil protest to “criminal violence.”

The Bottom Line? While framed as a celebration of America, this is a deeply political move designed to assert a specific nationalist vision of history, criminalize anti-establishment protests, and cement Trump’s ideological legacy ahead of the 2026 election.

2. Historical Context – The Politics of Patriotism & Monuments in America

History warns us that national celebrations can be weaponized for political gain.

  • The U.S. Bicentennial (1976) was largely a grassroots and bipartisan effort, avoiding political partisanship.
  • Trump’s 4th of July “Salute to America” (2019) shifted this model, turning it into a military spectacle with tanks in the streets and Air Force flyovers—criticized as an authoritarian display of power.
  • The “Lost Cause” Monument Movement (1900s-1950s) used public statues to reshape history, glorifying Confederate leaders and rewriting the Civil War’s legacy.
  • Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” Campaign rebranded patriotism as conservative nationalism, tying historical celebration to political messaging.

This executive order is a continuation of this strategy—using historical commemoration as a vehicle for modern political control.

3. Broader Policy Context – Tying This to Project 2025

How This Fits Into Trump’s Broader Authoritarian Strategy

Direct Quotes from the 2025 Mandate for Leadership:

  • “The next conservative administration must reclaim America’s historical narrative from radical revisionists.” (Pg. 134)​
  • “Patriotic education and monument protection are necessary to reinforce national identity and pride.” (Pg. 141)​
  • “The destruction or defacement of historical sites should be met with swift and severe legal consequences.” (Pg. 145)​

This order is NOT just about celebrating history—it is about controlling history.

4: Predicted Outcomes and Probability Estimates – A Reality Check

This executive order isn’t just symbolic—it sets the stage for real legal consequences and a federal strategy to control protest spaces and historical narratives. Below is a breakdown of likely outcomes, their probabilities, and the precedents that make them almost inevitable.

Outcome Probability Updated Explanation
Use of Military Imagery in the 250th Celebration 100% Trump will fully lean into nationalist visuals, incorporating military parades, flyovers, and overt displays of military strength. Given the Department of Defense’s direct role, this will be an intentionally militarized event.
Rewriting of Historical Narratives 100% The “National Garden” will selectively elevate conservative figures while excluding civil rights leaders, Indigenous activists, and labor organizers. The stated goal is to ensure a sanitized, state-approved version of American history.
New Criminal Penalties for Defacing Monuments 100% This is a primary objective of the executive order. Expect expanded federal and state legislation increasing criminal penalties for vandalism, property damage, and protest actions near monuments and government sites.
Federal Crackdown on Protesters 100% The reinstatement of Trump’s 2020 “Monument Protection” order guarantees a federal response against protesters, especially racial justice, Indigenous, and anti-war activists. The order explicitly links activism to criminal behavior.
Aggressive Law Enforcement Response to Demonstrations 100% There is no reason to believe the state will show restraint in protest suppression. Past trends (Portland 2020, Standing Rock, Lafayette Square) indicate escalated police and federal force against movements challenging state narratives.
Political Weaponization for the 2026 Election 100% This will be a cornerstone of Trump’s reelection campaign, positioning him as the defender of “true American history” while labeling critics as “radical revisionists.” The GOP will use this as a mobilization tool for conservative voters.
Expanded Federal Legal Powers for Protest Suppression 95% The legal precedent set here will allow future orders to classify dissent as a national security issue. There’s a strong chance that harsher anti-protest laws will emerge as an extension of this framework.
State-Level Conflicts Over Historical Curriculum 90% Republican-led states will use this order to push for restrictive education policies, banning historical interpretations that challenge white nationalism, settler colonialism, and capitalist narratives. Expect new textbook regulations and public school mandates.
Protest Groups Face Surveillance & Intimidation 90% Given the post-9/11 expansion of domestic surveillance and COINTELPRO’s historical precedent, expect increased monitoring of Black, Indigenous, leftist, and pro-Palestinian activists. This will likely include FBI watchlists, undercover infiltration, and digital tracking.
Banning of Specific Protest Slogans or Movements from Public Events 85% Under the guise of “protecting national unity,” we will likely see restrictions on speech at public events. Expect selective enforcement, where right-wing groups face no consequences while left-wing demonstrators are arrested.
Arrests of High-Profile Activists or Organizers 75% Given the historical crackdown on leaders in civil rights, labor, and environmental justice movements, expect legal action against prominent activists. Charges could range from “inciting violence” to sedition-related offenses.
Introduction of Federal Legislation Expanding Protest Restrictions 70% This order lays the groundwork for additional federal legislation. Republican lawmakers will likely propose new laws restricting where, when, and how people can protest—especially near government buildings, monuments, and educational institutions.
State-Level Expansion of Anti-Protest Laws 70% Expect Republican-controlled states to introduce legislation limiting public demonstrations, increasing penalties, and authorizing harsher police responses. These laws will mirror the restrictive anti-protest bills seen in Florida, Texas, and Georgia.

Key Takeaways

The federal crackdown on protest is not a hypothetical—it is an inevitability.
The intent of this order is clear: criminalizing acts of dissent under the guise of historical preservation.
The legal precedent established here will expand into other areas, increasing penalties for activists, restricting movement, and enabling broader federal surveillance.

 

My Last Word: A Nation That Criminalizes Protest Has Lost Its Way

I was there. Portland, 2020. I remember the burning in my lungs as tear gas filled the streets, the chaos of flashbang grenades exploding overhead, and the unmarked federal vans pulling people away in the night. I watched police shove peaceful demonstrators down city blocks until they reacted, moving them from street to street, never letting them rest, never letting them disperse on their own terms. I saw them slash the tires of protest support vehicles, their owners standing by helplessly as their means of escape, or aid, or shelter, was rendered useless.

I watched journalists arrested, their press credentials ignored.
I watched medics in bright red crosses dragged away as if their bandages were weapons.
I watched protesters kneeling in the streets be met with rubber bullets, their crime simply refusing to move.

Portland was not an isolated event.

Nationwide, the 2020 protests against racial injustice were met with violent suppression.

  • CNN’s Omar Jimenez was arrested live on air in Minneapolis—for doing his job as a journalist.
  • Law enforcement in Minneapolis slashed the tires of vehicles parked near protest sites, including those belonging to journalists and medics.
  • Amnesty International documented excessive force in over 125 U.S. cities, where police used tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons against peaceful protesters.
  • The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker recorded at least 117 journalists arrested or detained while covering the protests.

And yet, now we are being told that America needs even harsher laws against protest—framed under the guise of “protecting our national history.”

This Executive Order on America’s 250th Anniversary is not just about celebrating history. It is a trojan horse for criminalizing dissent, suppressing public outcry, and rewriting the past to justify its own existence.

A Law Designed to Silence Protest

This order reinstates Trump’s 2020 executive order protecting monuments, a policy that was used to justify federal crackdowns on protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. Now, as America approaches its 250th birthday, it is being repackaged as a patriotic necessity.

But let’s be clear: This is not about preserving history. It is about controlling the present.

Historical Parallels: When Governments Suppress Dissent

We have seen this exact playbook before.
The Suffragettes (1917) – Arrested and force-fed in prison for protesting outside the White House.
The Civil Rights Movement (1960s) – MLK was jailed for peaceful protest. If Trump’s 2020 monument protection laws existed then, civil rights activists would have been treated as criminals.
The Anti-Vietnam War Protests (1970s) – The FBI infiltrated and sabotaged the movement, branding student activists as national security threats.
Kent State (1970) – National Guard fired into a crowd of student protesters, killing four.
Portland (2020) – Federal agents kidnapped protesters off the streets, unmarked vans disappearing into the night.

A government that criminalizes dissent is a government that fears accountability.

I Dissent.

I dissent against a government that uses history to justify silencing the present.
I dissent against the criminalization of protest, of activism, of free speech.
I dissent against the idea that patriotism means blind obedience to power.

History is not owned by the government.
It is not a weapon to be wielded against those who challenge the status quo.
It is not a justification for erasing voices that demand justice.

If America is to truly celebrate its 250th anniversary, it must embrace its full history—not just the sanitized version convenient to those in power.

Protest is not a crime. Dissent is not disloyalty. A government that punishes resistance is not a democracy.

We have seen this playbook before. We cannot allow it to be rewritten.

Citations and Relevant Links

Discover more from Grounded Truth & News Movement

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Leave a Reply

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GTNMReports
GTNMReportshttps://gtnm.org

Related articles

Recent articles

Premium Content

© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x