What If They’re Right?

Two articles most Americans will never read—and perhaps should.

National guard at the nation’s capitol. Photo source: Youtube, NTD reel

Guest Commentary

By Stephen Kitar

Every week, dozens of articles cross my desk.

Most I read.

Some I skim.

A few I set aside because they’re little more than political cheerleading dressed up as journalism.

Then, every so often, I come across something that makes me stop—not because I agree with it, but because it raises questions too important to ignore.

This week, that happened twice.

One article appeared in The Daily Beast. The other in The Guardian.

Both publications lean decidedly left. Both are highly critical of President Donald Trump. Some readers will stop reading this column right there.

I hope they don’t.

Because dismissing an argument simply because you dislike the messenger is one of the greatest mistakes we can make in a democracy.

Read it.

Challenge it.

Disprove it if you can.

But don’t ignore it.

The first article, written by Janna Brancolini for The Daily Beast, carries the headline:

“Trump Plot to Keep Shock Troops on Streets for Years Is Revealed.”

The title is intentionally provocative.

The article itself makes several equally provocative claims.

According to Brancolini’s reporting, the Pentagon has confirmed plans to keep National Guard troops deployed throughout Washington, D.C., until January 2029 unless President Trump orders otherwise. What began as what the administration described as a temporary response to a crime emergency in 2025 has, according to the article, quietly evolved into what may become a permanent military presence in the nation’s capital.

The article points out that the original emergency declaration ended after roughly a month.

The troops did not.

Instead, their numbers reportedly increased to nearly 5,000 during what officials describe as a “summer surge.”

Brancolini then turns to constitutional scholars and military experts interviewed by NPR.

One warns that emergencies lasting years cease being emergencies.

Another argues that Americans should be deeply concerned anytime military personnel become a routine part of civilian policing.

The article reports that National Guard members have reportedly been sworn in as special police through the U.S. Marshals Service, issued firearms and authorized to detain individuals until law enforcement officers arrive. While they generally cannot make arrests, critics argue that their very presence begins to blur a constitutional line America has historically guarded carefully—the separation between military and civilian law enforcement.

Brancolini also reports that studies cited by NPR found little evidence the deployment significantly reduced violent crime, which had already been declining before troops arrived. The White House rejected those reports as partisan.

The article concludes by noting estimates that taxpayers could ultimately spend between $2.5 billion and $3.4 billion if the deployment continues through 2028.

Agree or disagree, that’s the argument.

Then I read the second article.

This one doesn’t merely criticize President Trump.

It attacks him with both barrels.

Guardian foreign affairs columnist Simon Tisdall titled his piece:

“Trump, Not Iran, Is the World’s Greatest Danger. He’s a One-Man Weapon of Mass Destruction.”

If the first article questions the expansion of executive authority inside America, this one questions American leadership abroad.

Tisdall argues that President Trump has stumbled into an open-ended conflict with Iran without a realistic exit strategy. He accuses the administration of acting without meaningful consultation with Congress, alienating allies, underestimating Iran’s response, and creating conditions for another “forever war” in the Middle East.

According to Tisdall, continued bombing has failed to weaken Iran politically while increasing civilian suffering, threatening international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, driving energy prices higher, destabilizing global markets and strengthening America’s geopolitical rivals.

He goes further still.

He argues that the administration’s approach to Iran mirrors what he describes as broader patterns in Gaza, Ukraine and domestic governance—a presidency increasingly comfortable exercising extraordinary powers while Congress struggles to assert its constitutional authority.

Again…

Those are his conclusions.

Not mine.

Then something struck me.

These writers don’t know one another.

Their articles appeared in different publications.

One writes about Washington.

The other writes about Tehran.

Yet both ultimately arrive at the same warning.

Power.

One worries about expanding executive authority inside the United States.

The other worries about expanding military authority overseas.

Maybe both writers are blinded by ideology.

Maybe they have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Maybe history will prove every prediction spectacularly wrong.

I sincerely hope so.

Because if even half of what they’re warning about turns out to be true, America is entering territory that should concern every citizen—Republican, Democrat and Independent alike.

History has a funny way of humbling people who dismiss uncomfortable questions.

The Founding Fathers didn’t write the Constitution because they trusted government.

They wrote it because they didn’t.

They assumed every president, regardless of party, would naturally seek more authority.

They assumed Congress would have to push back.

They assumed the American people would remain skeptical.

That skepticism isn’t disloyal.

It’s patriotic.

Whether you support Donald Trump or oppose him isn’t really the point.

The real question is far larger.

Should Americans ever become comfortable with permanent emergencies?

Should extraordinary powers become ordinary government?