Militarized Streets, Foreign Hands, and Protected Killers (Part 5/10)
Three warnings from 1776 that read like today’s headlines
The Declaration warned us what happens when soldiers patrol the streets, foreign powers influence the law, and the violent are rewarded with mock trials for their loyalty.
The Declaration of Independence listed specific abuses to justify revolution. Among them were warnings about foreign influence, the presence of troops among civilians, and the protection of those who commit violence in service of the government’s agenda. In this fifth part of the series, we examine how Trump’s administration has echoed these same patterns by inviting foreign interference, deploying armed forces into cities without consent, and pardoning those who used violence aligned with his political goals.
If you missed earlier installments:
The Abuses That Sparked Revolution (Part 1)
How Trump Dissolves Opposition Without Dissolving Congress (Part 2)
We Traded a Crown for Red Hat (Part 3)
13. “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.”
Then: This grievance refers to the King working with Parliament to impose laws on the colonies (like the Coercive Acts) on the American colonies. These laws came from a foreign government (Parliament) that the colonists had no voice in, effectively placing them under foreign rule without representation.
Now: In modern terms, this would mean a president inviting foreign influence or authority into U.S. affairs in ways that conflict with U.S. law. Normally, U.S. presidents are expected to uphold domestic law over foreign interests.
Trump: Trump repeatedly sought foreign involvement in U.S. political and legal matters for his own benefit. The most obvious example was during the 2016 campaign, when he publicly said, “Russia, if you’re listening,” asking for help finding Hillary Clinton’s emails. That same day, Russian intelligence hackers did attempt to breach Clinton’s servers.
Later on, when the U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, Trump openly rejected their findings and sided with Putin instead. At a 2018 summit in Helsinki, Trump said, “I don't see any reason why it would be [Russia],” calling Putin’s denial “extremely strong and powerful.” Though he later tried to walk it back after backlash, it was clear that Trump was willing to trust a foreign leader over his own intelligence agencies.
More specifically, Trump's first impeachment involved his effort to get Ukraine to assist his 2020 campaign. During a call in July 2019, he requested Ukraine's president to "do us a favor" and initiate investigations into Joe Biden. He even publicly urged China to “start an investigation” into the Bidens. At the same time, Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid that Congress had already approved. His Acting Chief of Staff even admitted the aid was linked to those investigations, although he later backtracked. This “quid pro quo” attempted to use a foreign government for personal political gain. It was an attempt to bend U.S. foreign policy to serve the president rather than the law. That is, it subjected the policy to the will of a foreign leader rather than U.S. legal authority.
The grievance also refers to “Acts of pretended Legislation” from foreign entities. While Trump did not directly impose foreign laws, he often delayed or resisted U.S. laws that conflicted with foreign interests. For example, despite bipartisan sanctions against Russia, Trump delayed implementation and criticized them. He also vetoed a law to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, effectively allowing Saudi interests to override a U.S. congressional decision (see Grievance 1). Trump also praised authoritarian leaders like the president of the Philippines for his violent drug war and China’s Xi Jinping for holding power indefinitely. This demonstrates comfort with governance models far from U.S. constitutional values.
In 2025, Trump’s foreign dealings have continued to prioritize relationships with authoritarian leaders over democratic allies. His administration’s talks with Saudi Arabia about a civilian nuclear program raised fears about nuclear proliferation and sidestepping U.S. legal oversight. He has also pulled the U.S. out of global organizations like the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization (See Grievance 1). While framed as efforts to reclaim national sovereignty, these actions can isolate the U.S. and create vacuums that foreign powers may exploit, effectively subjecting U.S. American interests to foreign jurisdictions and "pretended legislation."
Perhaps most troubling, Trump proposed that the U.S. take control of Gaza by forcibly moving the Palestinian population and redeveloping the area. This is a violation of international law and an abuse of executive power. If carried out without congressional approval, it could shift U.S. policy to align with foreign goals rather than U.S. law.
Trump consistently worked with or appealed to foreign governments for personal or political benefit. While U.S. constitutional law was never formally replaced or overruled by a foreign power, Trump’s actions echoed this grievance of “combining with others” to invite foreign influence and override legal norms. It clearly reflects the spirit of this original accusation against King George III.
14. “For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.”
Then: This grievance referred to the British forcing colonists to house and live alongside British soldiers, which was an abuse so serious it later led to the creation of the 3rd Amendment to prohibit the quartering of troops in private homes without consent.
Now: There has been no literal quartering of soldiers in private homes under Trump, which remains illegal. But if we broaden the meaning of “quartering” to include placing armed forces in civilian communities without consent, modern parallels emerge.
Trump: Trump’s deployment of federal agents to Portland in 2020 (see Grievance 10) fits this broader view. For weeks, armed federal agents patrolled Portland’s streets and used force and crowd-control weapons nightly. Residents and local leaders described them as an occupying force. These agents were not invited by the state or city and were seen as worsening, not easing, tensions. Though not housed in private homes, they were “among” the people in a way that echoed the experience of colonists living under the daily presence of British soldiers.
Similarly, for the June 2020 protests, Trump deployed over 5,000 National Guard soldiers to Washington, D.C. Soldiers were stationed in overtly symbolic locations like the Lincoln Memorial and ‘quartered’ in city armories. Though D.C. is not a state and has limited authority over its own defense forces, Mayor Muriel Bowser publicly demanded their departure. The presence of the military staking out city sidewalks and landmarks raised fears of creeping martial law. Retired military officers warned that mixing civilian and military functions was dangerous.
In Trump's second term, his administration asked the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to explore invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to increase the role of the military in border patrol and mass deportations. This would allow the president to send U.S. armed forces into communities in a manner that effectively goes around local control.
More recently, in May 2025, federal ICE agents, supported by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, carried out large-scale traffic stops in majority-Hispanic neighborhoods in Nashville. Though technically law enforcement rather than military, these heavily armed, sustained operations took place without the clear consent of local leaders, and the visual impact resembled the presence of quartered troops patrolling a community.
In June 2025, Trump again deployed National Guard troops, this time to Los Angeles, following protests against new deportation policies. California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned this as “dictatorial” and said it occurred without the state’s consent. The deployment sidestepped standard federal-state coordination, and although no martial law was declared, the use of armed troops stationed in a major city against the will of its leadership closely resembled the kind of forced military presence the colonists had once experienced.
It is important to note that no private homes or businesses were forcibly occupied by troops during Trump’s presidency. These actions remained within legal boundaries as troops were placed on federal property or public streets, not in private dwellings. Therefore, the comparison to the literal quartering of British soldiers is not exact.
However, many U.S. Americans in cities like Portland, D.C., Nashville, and Los Angeles felt (and feel) as though they were under military occupation as they faced armed federal forces operating without local approval. In that sense, Trump’s domestic deployments echo the spirit of this grievance, due to the unwanted imposition of armed forces into civilian life without consent. The Third Amendment may not have been violated, but the experience for many mirrored the colonial resentment of troops being “among us.”
15. “For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.”
Then: This grievance accused the King of shielding British soldiers from justice after they killed colonists, by giving them fake or biased trials that ensured no real punishment. It pointed to a system where violence against colonists went unpunished.
Now: Today, this would look like a government using its power to shield state agents or allies from accountability, especially in cases involving violence or killings. It includes things like pardoning them or ensuring they never face a real trial.
Trump: Trump repeatedly used his power to protect individuals accused of unlawful killings or violent abuses, especially when they acted in ways that aligned with his agenda. The clearest example is his interference in military justice (See Grievance 12). For example, In 2019, Trump pardoned Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, who had been convicted of second-degree murder for ordering his troops to fire on unarmed Afghan civilians. He also reversed the demotion of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was convicted of posing with a corpse after facing more serious murder charges. These actions shocked many in the military community. One former Navy prosecutor said it “sent the message that the laws of war don’t matter.” In effect, Trump erased the consequences of deadly actions, which is an echo of the "mock trials" that colonists condemned under British rule.
Trump also protected U.S. law enforcement and border agents involved in serious, violent incidents. For example, he pardoned Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were convicted of shooting an unarmed man and covering it up. Trump framed them as heroes unfairly punished. His rhetoric frequently encouraged the use of force by police, telling officers, for example, to “not be too nice” when handling suspects to suggest that harsh or violent treatment was acceptable.
During the 2020 protests, Trump defended or excused violence from law enforcement and armed counter-protesters. After U.S. Marshals shot and killed a self-identified Antifa activist in Washington State, Trump praised the Marshals and said, “There has to be retribution.” In other cases, such as the white vigilante who shot protesters in Kenosha, Trump expressed sympathy for the shooter. These weren’t legal trials, but Trump’s clear favoritism sent a message that certain kinds of violence would be excused or even applauded.
Also in 2020, Trump pardoned four Blackwater contractors who had been convicted of killing 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians. The U.N. condemned the act as an “affront to justice.” While these men had received fair trials and were serving prison sentences, Trump wiped those away, further reinforcing the pattern that, if someone committed violence aligned with his interests, punishment could be undone.
This approach extended beyond murder cases. For instance, Trump commuted the sentence of Roger Stone, a long time ally who was convicted of lying to protect Trump during the Mueller investigation. Though Stone’s crimes weren’t violent, the pattern was the same in that Trump intervened to spare punishment for someone who served him.
On January 20, 2025, Trump’s first day back in office, he issued a mass pardon of over 1,500 people involved in the January 6th Capitol attack. This included full pardons for prominent extremists like Enrique Tarrio (Proud Boys) and Stewart Rhodes (Oath Keepers), both convicted of seditious conspiracy. He also commuted the sentences of 14 others, allowing for their immediate release. These were deliberate protections of people who had carried out violence in the name of Trump’s political movement.
Finally, in May 2025, Trump issued another wave of pardons, including individuals with no apparent connection to justice reform, such as a former gang leader, a reality-TV star, a convicted councilwoman, and others linked to conservative ‘activism.’ These choices reinforced the idea that pardons were being used not to correct injustice, but to reward political loyalty.
Throughout his time in office, Trump has used pardons to protect those who committed violence, especially when that violence aligned with his goals. Whether it was soldiers convicted of war crimes, police and border agents who took aim at immigrants, or extremists involved in a deadly insurrection, Trump repeatedly ensured they avoided full punishment. In the colonial era, this would have been called a “mock trial,” or a legal process that appears fair on the surface but is executed in a way that prevents accountability. While modern trials were held, Trump’s sweeping use of clemency echoed the same abuse of shielding the violent from justice, when they acted on behalf of the state or the leader.
Foreign Control, Armed Streets, and Loyalty Above Law
The grievances explored here included foreign interference in national affairs, the deployment of troops among civilians, and the shielding of violent loyalists, which were once signs of a distant monarchy’s overreach. Today, they echo through the actions of a president operating within the U.S. system, yet increasingly outside its norms. As we examine the parallels between 1776 and 2025, the warnings of the Declaration feel more and more like prophecy.
To follow the rest of this series, subscribe and stay tuned for Part 6, where we’ll examine how cutting off trade, imposing taxes without consent, and denying the right to a trial by jury are re-emerging in modern form.
Image used with full commercial rights by the author.