By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

On June 9, 2025, President Trump posted on Truth Social:

“IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT PROTESTERS. THEY ARE INSURRECTIONISTS. THEY WILL BE HIT HARDER THAN THEY HAVE EVER BEEN HIT BEFORE.”

The statement came amid widespread protests in Los Angeles following controversial immigration raids and National Guard deployments. Trump accused protesters of spitting on troops and called for violent retaliation.

WHY IT MATTERS

This statement is unprecedented.

No modern American president has openly called for violent retaliation against his own people over a non-lethal act like spitting. Labeling protesters “insurrectionists” simply for opposing federal actions mirrors the rhetoric used in authoritarian regimes to silence dissent.

Legally, this raises serious concerns:

* The First Amendment protects the right to protest, even when it’s disruptive or confrontational.

* The Posse Comitatus Act and military use-of-force guidelines prohibit troops from using excessive force on civilians.

* Spitting, while offensive, does not legally justify physical retaliation by armed forces.

This kind of rhetoric erodes democratic norms and normalizes military violence against civilians.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Whether the National Guard follows Trump’s rhetoric or respects legal limits.

* If Congress or the courts push back on Trump’s public threats.

* How protest leaders and legal organizations respond on the ground.

* Whether this leads to further escalation or constitutional challenges.

BOTTOM LINE

This is not just about a single post. It’s about a sitting president using military force and threatening civilians with physical violence—over speech and symbolic acts.

That’s not law and order. That’s authoritarianism.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

For daily fact-checked reports, legal breakdowns, and behind-the-scenes updates from the ground in Los Angeles and beyond, follow me on Substack and Instagram.

No fluff. Just facts. And the stories that actually matter.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

In late May, White House advisor Stephen Miller reportedly instructed ICE officials to abandon traditional enforcement priorities. At a high-level meeting in Washington, D.C., Miller told agency leaders to stop focusing solely on criminals and instead target undocumented immigrants in general. He specifically named common day laborer gathering sites like Home Depot and 7-Eleven as targets.

The fallout was immediate. Days later, ICE conducted a sweep at a Home Depot in Los Angeles. That raid helped spark widespread protests throughout Southern California, leading President Trump to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops and eventually 700 active-duty U.S. Marines.

WHY IT MATTERS

This marks a historic break from established U.S. immigration enforcement norms. Under past administrations, even aggressive deportation programs prioritized individuals with criminal records. Miller’s orders, according to ICE sources, made clear that any undocumented person was fair game.

Worse, current and former officials say ICE agents are now making warrantless arrests, sometimes wearing masks or refusing to identify themselves. In at least one instance, agents surrounded a private home with rifles drawn. In another, they showed up with military vehicles to arrest a man who had posted fliers warning about ICE’s presence.

These moves have prompted outrage from free speech advocates and legal organizations.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Legal challenges to the lack of due process in arrests

* Increased military deployment and federal use of force on American streets

* Whether ICE’s new tactics will expand to other cities nationwide

* Whether this crackdown will have political or electoral consequences for Trump

BOTTOM LINE

The White House isn’t just cracking down on immigration. It’s reshaping the meaning of lawful enforcement. The public display of military might may serve more as a message than a necessity. And the real goal may not be deportation, but deterrence through fear.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Substack and Instagram for verified updates, source documents, and behind-the-scenes reporting. No fluff. Just facts. And the stories that actually matter.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

California Governor Gavin Newsom has accused President Trump of illegally deploying 2,000 additional National Guard troops to Los Angeles—bringing the total number of federally deployed personnel in the city to nearly 4,500. According to Newsom, this action was taken without the state’s request or consent, violating both federal law and constitutional norms.

In a sharply worded statement, Newsom said the deployment was a “dictatorial overreach,” accusing Trump of “manufacturing chaos” for political gain. Legal challenges have already been filed by the state of California to block what Newsom calls an unconstitutional use of military force on American soil.

WHY IT MATTERS

The legal basis for using National Guard troops hinges on either a formal request from the state or a declaration of national emergency. Newsom says neither condition applies, and that California has not authorized the federal government to assume command of its forces.

The deployment coincides with a broader national crackdown on immigration protests, with Los Angeles emerging as the epicenter. Critics fear this may be a test case for Trump’s broader plan to exert federal control over blue states through military-style enforcement.

Mayor Karen Bass and a coalition of 19 Democratic governors have joined Newsom in condemning the move, calling it a “power grab” and warning that it sets a dangerous precedent.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* The outcome of California’s legal challenge could determine whether other states can block similar federal actions.

* Civil rights organizations are watching closely for potential constitutional violations tied to troop behavior or protest suppression.

* Trump has hinted at expanding the Guard’s presence to other major cities, raising concerns that Los Angeles is just the beginning.

BOTTOM LINE

No modern U.S. president has used the National Guard in this way—without a war, a natural disaster, or a governor’s request. This appears to be a direct challenge to state authority, and a possible warning shot to political opponents ahead of a tense election cycle.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for the latest legal developments, protest updates, and exclusive reporting from California and beyond.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

l

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

What began as a localized immigration raid in Los Angeles has sparked protests in over 30 states. Following a week of ICE operations in California, President Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles without the approval of Governor Gavin Newsom. Now, demonstrations are erupting from coast to coast in protest of what civil rights groups call “an unlawful use of military power against civilians.”

Several reports suggest Marines may also be en route to Los Angeles. No official confirmation has been released, but the possibility of active-duty military deployment has raised alarm among legal scholars and protest organizers nationwide.

WHY IT MATTERS

This is not just a protest about immigration. This is about the use of military force against American citizens. The federal government has bypassed a governor, deployed troops to a major city, and escalated a domestic law enforcement issue into a military occupation.

According to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the U.S. military is not supposed to be used for domestic law enforcement without Congressional approval. Civil liberties experts are warning this is a dangerous overreach.

Trump has labeled protesters as “insurrectionists” — a term loaded with legal implications — even though the vast majority of demonstrations have been peaceful, calling for accountability and lawful conduct.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Legal challenges from California over federal overreach

* Confirmation of Marine deployments to Los Angeles

* Expansion of protests to smaller cities and rural areas

* New federal directives targeting protesters

* Continued law enforcement crackdowns or escalation

BOTTOM LINE

Los Angeles became the spark. The country is now the fire. Trump’s actions have transformed an immigration enforcement issue into a constitutional crisis. The deployment of military forces to civilian streets without state consent is an unprecedented step in modern America — one that could fundamentally alter the balance between state and federal authority, and between citizen and state.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for breaking developments, legal analysis, and community resources.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

Over 2,100 California National Guard troops have been deployed to Los Angeles to confront immigration protesters — but many arrived without beds, tents, or even food. According to a source directly involved in the operation, the deployment was ordered by President Trump and executed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth without any logistical planning or approval from Governor Gavin Newsom.

Exclusive photos obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle show soldiers sleeping on basement and loading dock floors of federal buildings. Their weapons and backpacks were scattered beside them. There were no proper sleeping arrangements, and little to no federal support for food, water, or sanitation. The source emphasized that California Guard officials were not to blame, describing the federal government’s decision-making as “a failure.”

Trump’s executive order declared that protests interfering with immigration enforcement amounted to “rebellion.” The deployment was authorized for 60 days or at Hegseth’s discretion.

WHY IT MATTERS

This deployment represents one of the most aggressive domestic uses of federalized National Guard troops in recent history — and it appears to have been carried out with no logistical foresight. When the federal government takes over state troops, it is responsible for their well-being. In this case, it failed.

The photos evoke painful memories of the 2021 incident when Guard troops were forced to sleep in freezing parking garages during Biden’s inauguration. Both Republicans and Democrats condemned the treatment of soldiers then. Today, under Trump, there is silence.

This situation highlights both the recklessness of politicizing military force and the human toll of poor planning. These troops were not just deployed — they were abandoned.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Will federal officials provide proper accommodations or continue relying on makeshift shelters?

* Will Gov. Newsom or California lawmakers take legal action to halt or reverse the deployment?

* Could this lead to more scrutiny of Trump’s increasing use of federal troops domestically?

BOTTOM LINE

No president should treat American troops as disposable pawns in a political battle. Sending soldiers into cities without basic support is not leadership — it’s negligence. These men and women swore an oath. The least we can do is honor it.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

Five hundred active-duty Marines have been mobilized under Title 10 federal authority and are now en route to Los Angeles. Their mission: to assist ICE and the National Guard in response to growing unrest and anti-deportation protests in the city.

According to both Pentagon officials and independent military sources, the troops were activated over the weekend and are being deployed now. The federal government has not publicly released their exact orders, but multiple officials confirm they are tasked with supporting federal operations in the region.

So far, the Insurrection Act has not been invoked—which means the Marines cannot detain, arrest, or enforce laws directly. However, if President Trump declares a domestic insurrection, those powers could be granted immediately.

WHY IT MATTERS

This is a rare and serious move. Under normal circumstances, active-duty military are barred from engaging in law enforcement on U.S. soil. The use of Marines in any domestic protest or immigration-related operation raises legal, constitutional, and human rights concerns.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the mobilization “unlawful” and is preparing a lawsuit to block the deployment.

The city of Los Angeles is already under immense strain, with widespread demonstrations, ICE operations, and National Guard troops deployed over the past 72 hours. Now, the addition of active-duty Marines signals the federal government is preparing for even more forceful operations.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, Marines could begin direct law enforcement operations.

* The California lawsuit may trigger emergency court action.

* Protest activity may surge as news of the Marine deployment spreads.

* The legal line between immigration enforcement and military suppression is already being blurred.

BOTTOM LINE

Marines are now part of Trump’s response to protests and immigration resistance in Los Angeles. The president has not yet crossed the legal threshold that would allow them to take law enforcement action—but that line could be crossed at any moment.

The situation is fluid. And dangerous.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow on Instagram and Substack for full video updates, legal breakdowns, and frontline reporting.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was shot with a rubber bullet by law enforcement while reporting live from the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles on June 8. The video, aired on Nine News Australia, shows mounted officers dispersing crowds with force. Tomasi was hit in the leg while standing near the Metropolitan Detention Center.

She stayed on-air, assured viewers she was okay, and has since continued covering the protests. Other journalists on the ground have reported similar encounters, including physical intimidation and non-lethal munitions fired in their vicinity.

WHY IT MATTERS

This is not just about one reporter. It’s about a growing pattern. In recent days, journalists have been caught in violent government crackdowns across the country, as federal agents and local police suppress demonstrations against Trump’s deportation orders.

Shooting at a reporter—especially on live TV—sends a message. It tells the world that press freedom is fragile, even in the United States.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Will Australia formally protest the incident at the upcoming G7 summit?

* Will LAPD or federal officials face any accountability?

* Will U.S. press freedom groups call for investigations?

* Will the DOJ investigate civil rights violations linked to federal deployments?

BOTTOM LINE

When a journalist gets hit by a rubber bullet while filming, that’s not a “mistake.” That’s a symbol of what happens when government power goes unchecked. If we don’t draw a line here, what happens next?

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for real-time updates, source links, and footage as this story unfolds.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

As federal immigration raids continue to spark unrest in Los Angeles, President Donald Trump escalated tensions overnight by calling for the immediate arrest of any protesters wearing masks.

“ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. He then doubled down, posting again: “No masks allowed. What do these people have to hide?”

The remarks came as demonstrations against ICE actions turned volatile, with reports of rocks thrown at federal agents and vandalism in parts of Paramount, California. In response, Trump has deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the area, with the military now on standby.

Trump has blamed “masked agitators” for inciting violence and claimed they represent “foreign criminals, cartel sympathizers, and radical anarchists.”

WHY IT MATTERS

Mask-wearing at protests has long been protected under the First Amendment, especially when it is done to avoid retaliation, protect identity, or reduce the risk of surveillance. While some states have narrow laws banning face coverings in specific contexts (like during criminal acts), broad arrests for simply wearing a mask at a protest could be unconstitutional.

Legal experts say Trump’s demand violates civil liberties and may set a dangerous precedent if followed by law enforcement.

Critics also warn that painting protesters as criminals en masse is a tactic historically used by authoritarian regimes to justify crackdowns on dissent. As one ACLU attorney noted: “This is not about public safety. It’s about silencing opposition.”

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Legal challenges: Civil rights groups are preparing lawsuits if mass arrests based on mask-wearing begin.

* State response: California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have condemned the federal presence as “provocatively inflammatory” and “a misuse of military force.”

* Escalation risk: National Guard presence in urban neighborhoods could inflame tensions and lead to further violence or constitutional violations.

BOTTOM LINE

President Trump’s call to arrest masked protesters marks another step in the federal government’s forceful response to anti-ICE demonstrations. While the administration frames it as a matter of law and order, legal experts and civil liberties advocates say the move is an assault on the First Amendment. The fight over masks could become the next flashpoint in the battle between protest rights and federal power.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for daily updates, source documents, and behind-the-scenes coverage.

No fluff. Just facts. And the stories that actually matter.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

WHAT HAPPENED:Donald Trump has proposed renaming Veterans Day to focus solely on World War I, calling it “Victory Day for World War I,” and adding a second Veterans Day on May 8 to celebrate the end of World War II. This marks a sharp break from the tradition of honoring all U.S. veterans, regardless of the war or conflict in which they served.

WHY IT MATTERS:Veterans Day was officially renamed in 1954 to honor all veterans, not just those from a specific war. Trump’s proposal effectively excludes veterans from Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even those who served during peacetime or in support roles. It’s a rewriting of national memory that prioritizes selective patriotism over full recognition of military service.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR:Trump’s move may resonate with older nationalist audiences, but it's drawing strong backlash from veterans groups, Gold Star families, and active-duty supporters who see it as a betrayal. Congress would need to approve any changes to federal holidays — and it’s unclear if Trump has that support.

BOTTOM LINE:Trump is politicizing military service by honoring only the parts of history that benefit his image. Veterans Day belongs to every veteran — not just the ones he finds useful.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES:Follow me on Instagram and Substack for more breaking updates.No fluff. Just facts.

Notable Facts to keep in mind when it comes to trump and veterans

* Trump dodged the draft.

* He called veterans “suckers” and “losers.”

* He tried to cut care for wounded warriors.

* He banned entire groups from serving.And now he wants to decide which vets matter?

That’s not patriotism. That’s propaganda.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

WHAT HAPPENING:

Today, President Donald Trump is preparing to sign a new executive order that would target sanctuary cities and states. According to Reuters, the order directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to create and publish a public list of local governments that do not comply with federal immigration enforcement.

This move comes as Trump reaches his 100th day back in office and intensifies his efforts to reshape U.S. immigration policy.

The order is expected to be signed later today during an event at the White House.

WHY IT MATTERS:

This is not just a paperwork move.Publicly listing cities and states could have serious consequences:

* It could expose local governments to lawsuits.

* It could pressure cities into changing their immigration policies.

* It could threaten their federal funding for law enforcement, housing, and other programs.

Critics argue this is an attempt to punish communities that refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants, while supporters say it forces "law and order" back into immigration policy.

Either way, today's order signals an aggressive new phase of Trump's second-term immigration crackdown.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR:

* Will major cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago be named?

* Will lawsuits be filed immediately after the list is published?

* How will governors and mayors respond?

* Will Congress try to intervene, or will courts get involved?

The legal battles could start almost immediately.

BOTTOM LINE:

Today’s executive order marks a major shift. Trump isn't just enforcing existing laws he’s publicly singling out cities and states that don't cooperate.The political fight over immigration is about to get even hotter and more personal.

Full story updates and live coverage are being posted to my Instagram and Substack.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES:

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for full updates and the full story.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe