Author name: chadadmin

Articles / Government / White House Trump’s executive order to protect the U.S. flag hits at heart of culture When is free expression a call to incite violence? The executive order puts limits on a 1989 Supreme Court ruling protecting flag burning as free speech, potentially setting the stage for legal arguments over First Amendment rights and a possible redo in the nation’s highest court. By: Following multiple cultural movements across the country that resulted in flag stomping and burning, President Trump signed an executive order on Monday protecting America’s most iconic and recognizable symbol: the American flag. “Our great American flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America, and of American freedom, identity and strength,” the order states. Trump has a demonstrable affection for Old Glory. He has been photographed many times hugging the American flag, even kissing it, dating back to his first campaign. In June, he purchased and installed two large American flags on the White House property, one each on the south and north lawns.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton spoke to Just The News about the order: “He loves this country. He’s built his businesses here. His family’s done really well in this country. He knows the stakes that we’re in, protecting this country, and so, we’ve had men and women die for, you know, centuries to protect that flag and that freedom that flag represents. And I think you can see, you can see it when he talks about it. He believes in that.”  Context is everything The executive order instructs the Attorney General to aggressively pursue legal action against flag burning when it “incites violence or violates laws, such as disturbing the peace,” and imposes one-year of imprisonment without early release and permitting visa cancellation or deportation for foreign nationals who deface the flag under certain circumstances. Flag burnings have increased during major protests in the last decade. In August 2024, pro-Palestinian protesters burned an American flag outside the Democratic National Convention. In June 2020, in Portland, Oregon, demonstrators burned a U.S. flag after toppling a George Washington statue, and defaced flags with graffiti tied to racial justice during the George Floyd riots. In 2024, in Washington, D.C., pro-Palestine activists burned flags to protest U.S. policy in the Israel-Hamas conflict.  The Supreme Court ruled in 1989 in a 5-4 decision, that flag burning is protected as free-speech under the First Amendment in the landmark case Texas v. Johnson and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court case United States v. Eichman in 1990.  However, interpreting flag-burning as free speech continues to be called into question. The executive order does not make the act of burning the flag illegal in itself. A person could burn a U.S. flag in their own backyard and not run afoul of the law. But the circumstances in which flag-burning occurs — namely, incitement to violence — is the likely turning point for challenges to implementing the law. Clear and present danger A 1949 Supreme Court case, Terminello v. Chicago is particularly instructive. There, Arthur Terminiello, an anti-communist speaker, gave a speech in Chicago that offended various racial and political groups, including a hostile crowd that had gathered outside the auditorium to protest. The crowd reacted by throwing bottles and rocks, leading to riots, and Chicago police arrested Terminello because his speech allegedly incited unrest. The Supreme Court reversed his criminal conviction, holding that speech can only be restricted when it incites a “clear and present danger of immediate violence or substantial disorder,” not simply when it provokes controversy or anger. Where that line is drawn is not easily ascertainable.  Paxton believes that the Supreme Court did not get it right in Texas v. Johnson. “The reality is, the Supreme Court can change their mind.” History bears out Paxton’s point.  The court’s long history is dotted with rulings that would shock the conscience today, but were eventually reversed. In 1927’s Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced sterilization law, allowing the state to sterilize individuals deemed “unfit” to reproduce. Perhaps the most notorious example of the Supreme Court “getting it wrong” was Dred Scott v. Sandford, where, in 1857, the court ruled that slaves were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could expect no protection from the federal government or the courts, and that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal territory. That ruling was legislatively overturned with the enactment of the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Citing the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade as an example, Paxton said, “I think public sentiment was so involved in changing the minds of some of these justices. We have a completely different court that may have a different opinion on at least the scope of when you can burn a flag. Maybe there are some limitations, like if you’re inciting violence. All I’m saying is there have been plenty of cases they haven’t gotten right the first time that they have been undone in the future.” Although pundits on both sides of the aisle may generate noise about the order, it may in fact never reach the Supreme Court. Executive Orders, unlike laws passed by Congress, can be undone by a future president with the mere stroke of a pen. Given the length of time such cases take to wend through the legal system, a decisive argument may very well be moot. TOP STORIES Trump's executive order to protect the U.S. flag hits at heart of culture Cities across America would benefit from Trump's D.C.-style takeover Trump to make upgrades to White House, the first of this century Trump 2.0 White House hones messaging to challenge false stories, engage pop culture Critical Condition: America faces a supply chain crisis for basic drugs, and Trump wants to fix it LATEST EPISODES ‘SCOTUS didn’t get it right the first time,’ Texas AG Paxton backs Trump on flag burning executive order $7 Million Seized, No Charges Filed: A Shocking Story of One Family’s Fight Against Amazon & abuse by FBI, DOJ Amanda Head breaks down the latest headlines with Just The News reporters, Ben Whedon

Articles / Government / White House Cities across America would benefit from Trump’s D.C.-style takeover The Home Rule Act makes it possible for the use of federal troops to save D.C. It remains to be seen whether and how the Posse Comitatus laws can be managed to rescue other cities. By: When President Donald Trump announced on Monday a federal takeover of Washington and its D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, he did so after a wave of crime, particularly youth crime, that had plagued the city sporadically for decades. D.C. is not an isolated case, however. Dozens of Democrat-led cities across the country are experiencing the same epidemic of crime, and Trump hinted that other cities may undergo the same makeover to clean up their streets, reduce crime, and bring those formerly thriving metropolises to their shining glory. Trump told the press on Monday, “We’re not going to lose our cities over this. This will go further.” The federal takeover starts with D.C. but Trump said New York City could be next, followed by Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore and Oakland. Oakland ranks as the second-most dangerous city in the U.S. and Baltimore ranks fourth. While Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago did not currently make the list, pockets of those cities are far more dangerous than those currently ranked, such as the south side of Chicago. South Los Angeles, in municipalities like Inglewood and Compton, is notorious for gang-related crime. Posse Comitatus a legal barrier? Democrats decried the move and cited recent data that ostensibly showed a slight dip in crime. However, a D.C. Metro police commander, Michael Pullman, was suspended just months ago in May after being arrested for allegedly manipulating crime statistics. The suspension follows an internal investigation prompted by discrepancies in reported crime data. Nonetheless, 18 U.S. Code § 1385, known as the “Posse Comitatus Act” may be difficult to overcome. That law makes it illegal to use any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the law. Unlike the nation’s capital under the Home Rule Act, Trump lacks the unique federal authority over state jurisdictions that he has in D.C., unless specific legal exceptions like the Insurrection Act allow it. The Congressional Research Service has listed several of these legal exceptions. In 1996, Congress added authority for military assistance, including the provision of personnel and equipment, for the enforcement of laws prohibiting chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. In 2015, Congress added authority for military assistance to the Department of Justice in the case of situations involving bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems, and infrastructure facilities, including the use of ordinance disposal units. This authority, however, does not permit the military to make arrests, directly participate in searches or seizures, or collect intelligence for law enforcement purposes. Congress could pass legislation, such as an amendment to the Posse Comitatus Act or invoke the Insurrection Act, to explicitly authorize the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement in cities beyond D.C., thereby enabling Trump’s federalization plans. MS-13 and the Sinaloa Cartel were designated as “terrorist” organizations under the Trump administration’s first day of his second term in January 2025, and may give some leeway to fighting violent crime. The National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics reported in 2015 that 46% of prisoners in federal prison were there for drug-related crimes. Chicago Trump has one of his premier real estate properties in downtown Chicago, Trump International Hotel and Tower. Situated right off an artery of Lake Michigan, Trump has spoken often about the extreme levels of crime plaguing the city that have persisted since the days of Al Capone and “Bugs” Moran. In 2023, Chicago recorded 617 homicides, 23% higher than the 500 homicides in 2019. The homicide rate was roughly 23.3 per 100,000 residents, the second highest among major U.S. cities. A federal law-enforcement intervention in Chicago would likely see a robust influx of federal agents targeting violent crime and gang networks, partnering closely with local authorities. Agencies such as the FBI, DEA and ATF might set up operational hubs in high-risk areas like Englewood or Garfield Park, focusing on curbing the illegal gun trade and drug trafficking. While the Department of Justice would oversee coordination with the Chicago Police Department to share intelligence, potential friction over control could emerge. Los Angeles The City of Angels endures similar crime issues. Los Angeles reported 328 homicides in 2023, a rate of roughly 8.6 per 100,000 residents. This year-to-date, 158 homicides have occurred. To cure Los Angeles, a federal law-enforcement operation would likely concentrate on dismantling gang operations, human trafficking rings, and drug smuggling networks across the city’s over 500 square miles. Federal agents from agencies like Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Marshals could establish task forces in areas such as South Los Angeles or the San Gabriel Valley, targeting entrenched criminal activity that most frequently involves sub-gangs of transnational criminal organizations like MS-13 and the Sinaloa Cartel. Collaboration with the Los Angeles Police Department and county sheriff’s office would be essential to navigate the city’s diverse communities and jurisdictional complexities. Engaging residents and building trust would likely require significant time and dedication due to Los Angeles’ experience with civil unrest, like the recent ICE raids and the infamous LA Riots in 1992. New York A federal law-enforcement surge in New York City would likely focus on countering terrorism, organized crime, and cyberthreats, reflecting the city’s role as a global economic powerhouse. However, recent crime numbers have damaged the city’s reputation as a tourist hub, with 386 homicides in 2023 and 188 in 2025 thus far. Agencies like the FBI, Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security might deploy to boroughs such as Manhattan or Brooklyn, working to disrupt financial crimes or international smuggling networks. While partnering with the NYPD to leverage the city’s advanced surveillance systems, federal operations could face resistance from local leaders protective of their autonomy. Community outreach in diverse areas like Queens or the Bronx could ease those concerns, but an historical distrust of law