In a resounding victory for law and order, a federal appeals court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald J. Trump to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, delivering a much-needed lifeline to a city long plagued by unchecked leftist violence and sanctuary-city chaos. The 2-1 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a misguided lower-court block, affirming the president’s constitutional authority to federalize troops and restore peace amid escalating attacks on federal facilities.

The decision comes just weeks after Trump invoked federal law to send 200 Oregon National Guard members to safeguard the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland’s South Waterfront district. For months, radical Antifa agitators and anti-ICE protesters—emboldened by weak-kneed local leadership—have turned the area into a battleground, hurling incendiary devices, vandalizing property, and assaulting federal officers. Trump’s bold move, announced on September 27 via social media, described Portland as “war ravaged” and “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” a characterization that, while dramatic, underscores the dire reality on the ground.

“This is a win for every American who believes in the rule of law,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in a statement following the ruling. “President Trump’s decisive action protects our brave ICE agents and ensures that no city—regardless of its radical governors or mayors—can harbor chaos at the expense of federal sovereignty. Portland’s residents deserve safety, not sanctuary for rioters.”

The legal saga began when Oregon’s Democratic Attorney General and Portland’s far-left Mayor filed suit, arguing that Trump’s deployment violated state rights under the Tenth Amendment and exaggerated the threat level. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut—a Trump appointee, ironically—initially sided with them on October 4, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) that halted the Oregon Guard’s mobilization. Undeterred, the administration pivoted, preparing to send troops from California and Texas, only for Immergut to slap down a second TRO blocking any out-of-state federalized forces.

But the Ninth Circuit panel—comprising Trump appointees Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, alongside Clinton-era Judge Susan P. Graber—saw through the obstructionism. In a sharp rebuke, Nelson and Bade wrote that the lower court had “impermissibly second-guessed the Commander in Chief’s military judgments” and failed to grant due deference to the executive branch’s assessment of unrest. They cited documented violence at the ICE facility, including months of sustained protests that overwhelmed local Portland police, as providing a “colorable” basis for invoking the Insurrection Act and related statutes allowing Guard deployment to quell “rebellion or danger of rebellion” and enforce federal laws.

“This isn’t about politics; it’s about protecting federal property and personnel from anarchists who think they can burn down America with impunity,” argued Department of Justice attorney Eric McCarthy during appellate hearings. “Portland’s own police have been unwilling or unable to respond—leaving ICE agents exposed. The president’s judgment deserves respect, not interference from activist judges.”

Graber dissented vehemently, claiming the ruling “erodes core constitutional principles” and downplaying the violence as insufficient for federal intervention. But her outlier view ignores the facts: Federal Protective Service surges have barely contained the nightly assaults, with rioters using lasers, fireworks, and barricades to evade accountability. Under Trump’s America First agenda, such tolerance for domestic terrorism ends now.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler decried the decision as “an overreach that endangers civil liberties,” vowing further appeals—perhaps even to the Supreme Court—while Oregon Governor Tina Kotek echoed calls for “de-escalation.” Yet their rhetoric rings hollow against a backdrop of rising crime and business flight from the City of Roses. Residents, many of whom voted for tougher enforcement in recent polls, have long clamored for relief from the sanctuary policies that invite this mayhem.

With procedural hurdles cleared in one to three days, boots could hit Portland pavement soon, bolstering ICE operations and signaling to other blue-city holdouts like Chicago and San Francisco that federal law trumps local virtue-signaling. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s September memo already greenlights Guard presence at protest hotspots nationwide, tying deployments to Trump’s immigration crackdown—a policy delivering record deportations and border security wins.

As one Portland business owner told The American Sentinel anonymously, “We’ve lost enough to these radicals. Thank God for a president who puts Americans first.” In overruling the lower court, the Ninth Circuit has not just approved a deployment—it’s approved sanity, restoring order to a city on the brink and reminding the nation that no amount of judicial foot-dragging can derail Trump’s mission to Make America Safe Again.

No Kings Marches Largely Ignored By Most Americans

In what organizers hyped as a nationwide uprising against President Donald Trump’s bold agenda to secure borders and restore economic sovereignty, the so-called “No Kings” protests fizzled out with minimal impact, drawing scant attention from the average American more focused on their daily lives than on progressive theatrics.

Billed as a second wave of demonstrations coordinated by the left-leaning No Kings network—a group known for its vocal opposition to Trump’s immigration reforms and budget trims—the events saw scattered gatherings in major cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Estimates from law enforcement put turnout at around 2,600 rallies, but many consisted of just a handful of activists waving signs and chanting slogans that echoed the failed resistance movements of years past.

“These protests are a testament to the disconnect between elite activists and everyday Americans,” said Sen. Tom Harlan (R-Texas), a staunch Trump ally. “While radicals march against policies that are putting America first, families across the heartland are enjoying lower taxes, secure borders, and a booming economy under President Trump’s leadership. It’s no wonder most folks tuned out.”

Indeed, despite aggressive social media campaigns and endorsements from Hollywood celebrities and progressive media outlets, the marches failed to capture the public’s imagination. Polls conducted by the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports showed that only 18% of Americans were even aware of the protests, with a whopping 72% expressing support for Trump’s recent executive orders cracking down on illegal immigration and defunding what he calls “wasteful federal programs.”

In New York City, where organizers claimed thousands would descend on Times Square, eyewitness accounts described a crowd of no more than 500, many of whom appeared to be the same recycled faces from anti-Trump rallies dating back to 2016. Police reported no major disruptions, with traffic flowing normally and local businesses unaffected. “It was more like a block party for the far left than a revolution,” quipped one NYPD officer on condition of anonymity.

Similar scenes played out elsewhere. In Los Angeles, a planned march on City Hall drew about 300 participants, overshadowed by a nearby Dodgers game that packed in over 50,000 fans. Chicago’s event, meant to highlight opposition to federal spending cuts, was drowned out by the city’s ongoing struggles with crime—a problem Trump’s administration has vowed to address through increased support for law enforcement.

Critics of the No Kings movement argue that its messaging, which portrays Trump as an authoritarian “king” overstepping his bounds, rings hollow in the face of his electoral mandate. Trump, who secured a decisive victory in 2024 on promises to “Make America Great Again—Again,” has prioritized border security and economic nationalism, policies that resonate with working-class voters weary of endless foreign entanglements and open borders.

“This isn’t about kings; it’s about common sense,” Harlan added. “Americans ignored these marches because they’re too busy thriving under policies that put our country first, not catering to globalist elites.”

As the sun set on these lackluster events, the No Kings network vowed to continue their fight, but with public indifference at an all-time high, it’s clear that the silent majority has spoken—or rather, chosen not to. In an era where real issues like inflation and national security dominate kitchen-table conversations, fringe protests like these are increasingly relegated to the sidelines of American discourse.

The American Sentinel remains committed to reporting the facts that matter to patriotic Americans. For more on President Trump’s agenda, visit our policy analysis section.

The Federal Reserve reported a loss of $77.6 billion in 2024. This loss has been attributed to various factors, including the volatile interest rate environment and the Federal Reserve’s efforts to combat inflation. The central bank’s operating loss for the first three quarters of 2024 amounted to $63.1 billion, a substantial decline from the $88.1 billion loss in the same period the previous year. This loss has raised concerns about the Federal Reserve’s financial stability and effectiveness.

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet has also seen a decline, with a combined loss of reserves and ON RRPs (Other Net Revaluation Portfolio) beginning to take a toll. The interest expense has also begun to decline, reflecting the central bank’s efforts to manage its financial position in a challenging economic environment.

The losses and declines have raised questions about the Federal Reserve’s ability to maintain its financial stability and independence. The central bank has been a key player in managing the U.S. economy, and its actions have significant implications for financial markets and the broader economic landscape. The recent challenges have highlighted the complexities and risks associated with monetary policy and the need for careful management of the central bank’s financial position.

As the Federal Reserve continues to navigate these challenges, the focus will be on restoring financial stability and ensuring that the central bank can effectively fulfill its mandate of promoting maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. The outcome of these efforts will have significant implications for the U.S. economy and the global financial system.

In February, U.S. home sales saw a significant increase, driven by easing mortgage rates and a greater number of properties available on the market. This uptick in sales aligns with President Donald Trump’s campaign promises to bolster the housing market and support homeownership.

Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes rose 4.2% in February compared to January, reaching a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.26 million units, according to the National Association of Realtors. This increase marks a positive trend, although sales fell 1.2% compared with February of the previous year, ending a string of five consecutive annual increases.

The national median sales price also saw a notable increase, rising 3.8% from the previous year to $398,400, setting an all-time high for the month of February. This price increase reflects the 20th consecutive month of annual price growth, indicating a robust demand for housing despite economic fluctuations.

The rise in home sales can be attributed to several factors, including the modest pullback in mortgage rates and an increase in the inventory of homes available for sale. The average rate on a 30-year mortgage briefly fell to a two-year low last September but climbed back to just above 7% by mid-January. However, mortgage rates have since declined, sliding to an average of 6.76% by the end of February, making home purchases more affordable for buyers.

Additionally, the inventory of unsold homes increased by 5.1% from January and by 17% from the previous year, translating to a 3.5-month supply at the current sales pace. This increase in available properties provided home shoppers with a wider selection, contributing to the rise in sales.

The easing of mortgage rates and the increased supply of homes on the market have encouraged home shoppers, leading to the strongest sales pace in a year. This trend is expected to continue as the spring homebuying season approaches, traditionally a time when more properties become available.

President Trump’s administration has been vocal about its commitment to supporting the housing market. During his campaign, Trump promised to create an environment conducive to homeownership by addressing regulatory burdens and promoting economic policies that stimulate growth. The recent increase in home sales and prices reflects the administration’s efforts to fulfill these promises, although challenges remain in ensuring affordable housing for all Americans.

As the housing market continues to evolve, the administration’s policies and the broader economic conditions will play a crucial role in shaping the future of homeownership in the U.S. The recent trends indicate a positive outlook, but sustained efforts will be necessary to maintain this momentum and address the ongoing challenges in the housing sector.

In a series of recent attacks, Tesla vehicles and dealerships across the United States have been targeted, leading to significant damage and safety concerns. These incidents have escalated tensions and raised questions about the motivations behind the attacks and the company’s response.

The attacks have been widespread, with reports of vandalism and arson in multiple cities, including Las Vegas, Seattle, and Kansas City. In Las Vegas, an individual used incendiary devices to set several Tesla vehicles on fire at a collision center, causing extensive damage. Similar incidents have occurred in other locations, where vehicles were set ablaze and, in some cases, shot at. The FBI is actively investigating these incidents, classifying them as potential acts of domestic terrorism.

The FBI’s involvement underscores the seriousness of the situation, as the attacks appear to be coordinated and aimed at intimidating Tesla and its customers. The agency is working with local law enforcement and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to investigate the incidents and bring those responsible to justice. Attorney General Pam Bondi has vowed to prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law, warning that anyone involved in these attacks will face severe consequences.

The attacks have sparked outrage and concern within the Tesla community, with many owners and supporters expressing fear and frustration. The company has been vocal in condemning the violence, and CEO Elon Musk has called the attacks “evil.” The situation has also drawn attention to the broader political climate, as some have suggested that the attacks are a response to Musk’s increasing influence in the Trump administration.

In a related development, a leaked memo from the University of Texas (UT) has revealed details of the institution’s response to recent protests on campus. The memo highlights the university’s efforts to manage the situation, including attempts to engage with student organizers and maintain open lines of communication with the community. However, the memo also acknowledges the challenges faced during the protests, which led to arrests and sparked national controversy.

The leaked memo has brought to light the complexities of managing protests on university campuses, particularly when tensions are high and emotions are running strong. The university’s response has been criticized by some students and faculty, who have called for greater transparency and accountability in handling such situations. The memo emphasizes the university’s commitment to supporting free speech while ensuring the safety and security of all members of the campus community.

As the investigations into the Tesla attacks continue and the university addresses the fallout from the protests, both situations highlight the ongoing challenges of balancing security with the rights to expression and assembly.

In a move that has sparked significant controversy and legal challenges, former President Donald Trump’s administration has recently carried out a series of deportations targeting illegal immigrants. This initiative, part of a broader plan to enforce stringent immigration policies, has raised questions about the legality and ethics of such actions.

The deportations proceeded despite a federal judge’s order temporarily barring the removals. The flights carrying the deportees were already in the air when the order was issued, highlighting the administration’s determination to execute its immigration agenda regardless of legal obstacles. This disregard for judicial oversight has raised concerns about the rule of law and the potential for miscarriages of justice.

The administration has not provided concrete evidence supporting these allegations, and many of the deported individuals had not been convicted of any crimes in the U.S. The use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, last invoked during World War II, grants the president extraordinary powers to detain or remove foreigners deemed a threat during wartime. Trump claimed that the U.S. is being invaded by Tren de Aragua (TdA), justifying the mass deportations under this archaic law.

Trump’s broader plan includes rounding up all undocumented immigrants, placing them in “tent” camps, and summarily deporting them. This plan, if fully implemented, would affect an estimated 10.9 million people, according to the Center for Migration Studies of New York. The logistical and financial burden of such an operation would be immense, with significant costs for erecting detention facilities and using military aircraft for deportations. Moreover, the plan would divert local law enforcement from their primary duties, potentially compromising public safety.

The deportation initiative has created a climate of fear within immigrant communities. Even U.S. citizens and legal residents could be inadvertently caught up in the sweeps, facing arrest and detention with limited opportunities to defend themselves. This environment of uncertainty and fear could lead to racial and ethnic profiling, further exacerbating tensions within communities.

Critics argue that Trump’s deportation plan undermines the principles of due process and fairness that are foundational to the U.S. legal system. The administration’s focus on deporting individuals who have lived in the U.S. for decades, often with family members who are citizens, raises ethical questions about the human cost of such policies. Additionally, the plan’s implementation faces practical challenges, including the limited availability of detention space and the cooperation of countries willing to accept deportees.

Regarding violence rates, the FBI’s latest report shows that violent crime fell by an estimated 3% between 2022 and 2023. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter reduced by 12%, the largest drop in the last 20 years. In 2023, the FBI recorded a rate of 363.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, down from the 2022 rate of 377.1 violent crimes per 100,000 people. This trend indicates a general decrease in violent crime rates over the past year, despite fluctuations in certain categories.

The availability of data on violence against women and girls has improved considerably in recent years, with data on the prevalence of intimate partner violence now available for at least 161 countries. This highlights the ongoing issue of domestic violence and its impact on communities.

As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how the judicial system and public opinion will shape the future of these policies. The deportations and the broader immigration plan have significant implications for both the immigrant community and the nation as a whole.