U.S. News
ACA Premiums Are Rising — But Not Because of Expiring Subsidies
As we move into the 2026 plan year for health insurance under Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), many headlines suggest that the expiration of the enhanced subsidies from the Joe Biden era is the main reason premiums are going up. However, a recent study by the Paragon Health Institute finds that the subsidy rollback accounts for only a small fraction of the premium increase, Breitbart News reports.. What the Data Shows Specifically, Paragon looked at benchmark premium filings and found that the average premium for a representative 50-year-old enrollee earning 200 percent of the federal poverty level is projected to rise from about $8,326 in 2025 to $9,991 in 2026. Of that roughly $1,665 increase, only $333—about 4 percent—is attributed to the expiring pandemic credits. The other $1,332—around 16 percent—of the increase stems from other factors. In short, the narrative that premiums are soaring because the Biden-era enhanced credits are being pulled back does not align with these filings. (RELATED NEWS: Health Insurance Open Enrollment: What to Know Before Jan 15) So What Is Driving the Increase? While the subsidy change plays a modest role, insurers and analysts identify several underlying factors pushing premiums higher: Rising medical utilization and inflation. Health-care services are becoming more expensive, and people are using more services. Drug and specialty therapy costs. The cost of new treatments such as GLP-1 drugs for weight-loss and diabetes, biologics, and gene therapies is accelerating. Consolidation in health-care markets. Fewer providers and insurers mean less competition, which can raise costs. Work-force shortages and inflation-driven overhead. Higher labor costs and inflation are adding pressure throughout the system. Structural design issues in the ACA individual market. Structural flaws that have plagued Obamacare since 2014 still weigh on premiums. Thus, the premium spike reflects a complex mix of underlying cost pressures rather than simply the loss of one subsidy program. Why the Subsidy Expiration Still Matters — But Not As Much It’s important to clarify what the subsidy change does do. At the height of the pandemic-era credits, many enrollees paid very low or even zero premiums because the federal government covered a high share of costs. Under those enhanced credits, taxpayers were covering up to 93 percent of the typical enrollee’s premium. Even after the enhanced subsidies expire, the federal government will still cover more than 80 percent of the typical enrollee’s premium via the regular subsidy structure. However, because the underlying premiums are already rising based on the cost drivers listed above, the loss of the extra subsidy simply strips away a cushion rather than triggering the whole premium rise. This nuance is what analysts highlight: the premium jump is not primarily about the subsidy phase-out; it’s about the underlying cost spiral. Still, for many consumers, the expiration of the enhanced credits may feel significant — especially if the premium rise is layered on top of subsidy reduction. What This Means for Consumers For individuals shopping in the ACA marketplace, here are some key take-aways: Expect higher premiums next year. Although the enhancement phase-out is a small part of the puzzle, the cost pressures mean significant rate hikes are likely. Subsidies will still exist. Most enrollees will continue to receive federal help, even without the enhanced pandemic credits. That means their out-of-pocket premium may increase less than the headline rate hike. But premiums alone don’t tell the whole story. Even if federal assistance limits what you pay, rising costs will impact the system broadly — including deductibles, provider costs, and service prices. (MORE NEWS: Broadband Overhaul: Trump Fixes Biden’s Failed $42.5B Plan) Shopping matters. With premium increases coming, comparing plans, considering metal levels (bronze, silver, gold), and checking subsidy eligibility will be more important than ever. Looking Ahead: Policy Implications From a policy perspective, the findings raise some important questions: If the premium rises are mostly driven by structural cost pressures, then extending the enhanced credits may not be sufficient to rein in rate hikes. It may offer short-term relief for consumers’ out-of-pocket costs, but it does not fix the root causes of rising premiums. Addressing healthcare cost inflation, market consolidation, drug pricing, and utilization may be a more durable strategy to stabilize premiums. The narrative around the subsidy expiration needs nuance. Policymakers and the public may assume that losing the enhanced credits triggers the entire premium surge. The data suggests otherwise. Misdiagnosis of the problem can lead to less effective solutions. Final Take While many are attributing the upcoming surge in Obamacare premiums to the end of the Biden-era enhanced subsidies, the data tells a different story. The expiration of those credits contributes only a small part of the total increase. The bulk of the premium rise stems from longstanding cost pressures: medical inflation, expensive drugs, consolidation, and other systemic factors. For consumers, this means higher premiums are on the way — but subsidies will remain, and many will still be protected from the full rate increase. For policymakers, the challenge is clear: reducing premiums sustainably requires tackling the root drivers of cost, not just extending temporary subsidy enhancements. As the 2026 plan year approaches, both shoppers and lawmakers would benefit from understanding this complexity. The premium spike is real. But the story behind it is deeper than a single subsidy change. Cut through the noise. Drown out the spin. Deliver the truth. At The Modern Memo, we’re not here to soften the blow — we’re here to land it. The media plays defense for the powerful. We don’t. If you’re done with censorship, half-truths, and gaslighting headlines, pass this on. Expose the stories they bury. This isn’t just news — it’s a fight for reality. And it doesn’t work without you.
Tulane Disputes Claims Escaped Monkeys Were Infected
A transport truck carrying lab monkeys overturned on Interstate 59 near Heidelberg, Mississippi, on Tuesday afternoon. The crash occurred around mile marker 117 and caused several of the monkeys to escape. According to the Jasper County Sheriff’s Department, the accident prompted an immediate emergency response involving local and state agencies. Initial Fears Sparked Public Concern After the crash, the sheriff’s department released a statement warning that the monkeys might be “aggressive to humans” and possibly infected with COVID-19 and sexually transmitted infections. Those claims quickly circulated online and caused widespread alarm throughout the area. (MORE NEWS: Portland Police Go Easy on Antifa…Again) Tulane Disputes Infection Claims Officials from Tulane National Biomedical Research Center quickly disputed those statements. The university clarified that the primates were not infected and that the animals involved did not belong to Tulane. The institution emphasized that the primates were never exposed to any infectious agents and posed no public health risk. A spokesperson for Tulane confirmed the university was not consulted regarding the destruction of the monkeys. The assistant vice president of news and media relations shared the following statement with ABC 33/40: “Non-human primates at the Tulane National Biomedical Research Center are provided to other research organizations to advance scientific discovery. The primates in question belong to another entity, and they have not been exposed to any infectious agent. The non-human primates were NOT being transported by Tulane, but we are actively collaborating with local authorities and will send a team of animal care experts to assist as needed.” Confusion and Conflicting Reports The conflicting messages between the sheriff’s department and Tulane caused confusion among residents and raised questions about the handling of the animals. Local authorities initially warned that the primates could carry diseases, while Tulane’s statement firmly denied any infection risk. The university’s clarification helped ease fears but also highlighted the need for consistent communication between agencies during emergencies. Emergency Response and Containment Law enforcement officers, wildlife officials, and animal control teams worked through the day to locate and secure the escaped monkeys. Most of the animals were captured or destroyed shortly after the crash. Officials confirmed that all but one of the escaped monkeys were destroyed following containment efforts. The search continues for the single monkey that remains unaccounted for. Questions About the Monkeys’ Destruction Tulane’s acknowledgment that they were not consulted about the destruction of the animals raised further questions about how the response was handled. Animal welfare advocates have also expressed concern about the decision to euthanize the monkeys before confirming their health status. Tulane has since offered support to assist with recovery and animal care protocols to ensure humane treatment moving forward. (MORE NEWS: Biotech Breakthrough Could End the Need for Liver Transplants) Public Safety and Communication Challenges The Mississippi highway crash underscores how misinformation can quickly spread during a developing emergency. Early claims of infection created panic before confirmation from medical experts. Tulane’s response helped clarify the situation, but the initial confusion illustrates the importance of verifying facts before issuing health warnings to the public. Broader Implications Accidents involving research animals highlight ongoing concerns about the transport and safety of non-human primates. Even though the animals were not infected, the incident calls attention to how such events are managed. Clear coordination between law enforcement, research institutions, and animal welfare organizations is essential to ensure both public safety and ethical treatment of animals. Looking Forward Only one rhesus monkey remains missing near the crash site, and Tulane continues to assist authorities. The incident has prompted broader reflection on how research animals are handled and transported. This is not the first time a truck carrying lab primates has crashed, and each event exposes gaps in safety procedures and accountability. Beyond logistics, the crash raises moral questions about the humane treatment of animals used in research. These primates, capable of complex emotions and pain, often endure harsh conditions in the name of science. Confirmed reports of inhumane NIH-funded experiments have deepened public concern, fueling calls for reform and oversight in how these animals are treated both in labs and during transit. The situation also brings scientific necessity into question. With the rise of advanced technologies — including biotechnology, AI-driven modeling, and human-cell testing — researchers now have powerful alternatives to animal experimentation. As science continues to evolve, so must its ethics. The Mississippi crash stands as a reminder that progress should not come at the cost of compassion. It challenges institutions, policymakers, and the public to ask whether it’s time to move beyond these barbaric practices and to examine whether such experimentation truly aligns with responsible science. Expose the Spin. Shatter the Narrative. Speak the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t cover politics to play referee — we swing a machete through the spin, the double-speak, and the partisan theater. While the media protects the powerful and buries the backlash, we dig it up and drag it into the light. If you’re tired of rigged narratives, selective outrage, and leaders who serve themselves, not you — then share this. Expose the corruption. Challenge the agenda. Because if we don’t fight for the truth, no one will. And that fight starts with you.
Portland Police Go Easy on Antifa…Again
Late on a Saturday evening, chaos erupted outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland. A large group of masked Antifa dressed in black clashed with conservative activists — one of whom wore a “Make America Great Again” flag. Federal agents fired rubber bullets and used smoke grenades in an attempt to break up the confrontations. The violence left several injured and reignited questions over the role of police in controlling unrest. Threat at the Gate What began as a demonstration quickly spiraled out of control. Witnesses described a chaotic scene as both sides hurled objects and shouted across barriers. Federal agents stationed at the ICE facility responded with crowd control measures to prevent the building from being overrun. Despite the heavy presence of law enforcement, the violence continued for hours, according to Breitbart News. Escalation in the Early Hours As the night progressed, tensions only intensified. Antifa threw fireworks and smoke bombs, and the masked group surged toward the facility’s entrance. ICE agents, facing a volatile crowd, deployed forceful deterrents to keep violent offenders back. Meanwhile, local police stood by and observed. No arrests were made during or after the melee. The Portland Police Bureau later stated that officers did not observe any crimes that required immediate action. (MORE NEWS: Rebuttal to Hakeem Jeffries: When Your Own Words Go Too Far) Why No Arrests? The lack of arrests triggered widespread criticism. City residents, reporters, and peaceful protestors questioned how a large-scale brawl could occur without a single person being detained. Police officials defended their response, explaining that their priority was to maintain safety and avoid escalating tensions. However, others accused the department of turning a blind eye to politically motivated violence. Video footage circulated online showing masked rioters standing behind city officers as federal agents tried to regain control of the scene. Funding, Structure, and Allegations The clashes appeared to be part of a larger, organized movement rather than a spontaneous protest. Investigators have pointed to potential funding and coordination among activist groups, including Antifa. Reports claim that several well-known advocacy networks and donors have supported these riots, possibly channeling funds through nonprofit organizations. Federal officials have also said that foreign contributors could be involved, adding another layer of complexity to the unrest. The Department of Justice has stated that it is actively investigating how these groups organize and sustain their operations. 🚨 Make no mistake: Antifa is a radical terrorist organization that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the U.S. Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law. Under the Trump Administration, Antifa’s days are over. MUST WATCH. ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/2M6qvzTQ29 — The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 9, 2025 The Federal Government Responds As the unrest continues, federal authorities have taken a closer interest in Portland’s recurring clashes. Officials are seeking to lift a restraining order that currently prevents the president from sending the National Guard into the city. The goal is to restore order around the ICE facility and reestablish peace in nearby neighborhoods that have endured months of nightly conflict. The request has drawn national attention, reigniting debate about the balance between federal and local control in crisis situations. Local Consequences and Public Reaction The ongoing turmoil has taken a toll on Portland residents. Fireworks and explosions echo through nearby neighborhoods, keeping families awake and anxious. Small business owners worry about property damage and dwindling foot traffic. Many locals feel caught between two extremes: violent Antifa on one side and an increasingly passive police response on the other. Critics argue that the Portland Police Bureau’s decision not to intervene sends a troubling message about public safety and accountability. At the same time, civil liberties advocates caution that increasing police or military presence could worsen tensions and threaten constitutional rights. The debate underscores the difficult balance between maintaining order and protecting free expression. Implications Going Forward The events outside the Portland ICE facility highlight a fine line between protest and riot. While peaceful activism is protected by law, the use of explosives, masks, and aggression pushes those boundaries. Without enforcement, future confrontations could become even more dangerous. (MORE NEWS: Trump’s East Wing Demolition and Ballroom Plan Explained) The potential funding and coordination behind these actions also raise questions about transparency and influence. If outside organizations or foreign donors are financing domestic unrest, lawmakers and investigators will likely pursue deeper inquiries. This could shape new laws on protest funding, national security, and law enforcement strategy. Finally, the division between local and federal agencies remains a critical issue. While federal officers took active measures to secure the facility, city police chose restraint. Determining when and how each level of authority should act remains an unresolved challenge, one that could shape the city’s policies for years to come. What to Watch Next Observers are watching several key developments. Federal investigators may soon reveal evidence about how protest groups coordinate and fund their activities. Portland’s police leadership might face public pressure to clarify its policies on nonintervention. Courts could also decide whether to lift restrictions on deploying the National Guard. Each decision will affect how Portland, and possibly other cities, respond to future unrest. Final Word The clash outside the Portland ICE facility reflects deeper divisions in American society. It raises questions about law enforcement’s responsibilities, the influence of political movements, and the fragile balance between civil rights and security. The absence of arrests after hours of Antifa-led violence has become a symbol of broader frustration — both with unrest in the streets and inaction by authorities. As Portland braces for what comes next, the outcome could redefine how the nation handles protest, policing, and public order. Cut through the noise. Drown out the spin. Deliver the truth. At The Modern Memo, we’re not here to soften the blow — we’re here to land it. The media plays defense for the powerful. We don’t. If you’re done with censorship, half-truths, and gaslighting headlines, pass this on. Expose the stories they bury. This isn’t just news — it’s a fight…
Trump’s East Wing Demolition and Ballroom Plan Explained
A Major Change at the White House President Donald Trump has begun tearing down the East Wing of the White House to make room for a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom. The project has already started, and demolition crews are clearing parts of the historic structure. The move has raised questions about preservation laws, federal permits, and who actually has the authority to approve such a major project. No Permit Required for the Project The White House sits on federal property managed directly by the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Because of that, the President can authorize construction or demolition without going through outside agencies. Unlike most federal buildings, the White House is not managed by the General Services Administration or the District of Columbia’s permit office. The President’s office acts as both property owner and regulator because he is the head of the Executive Branch of government. That means the work can move forward without outside permits or reviews. Why the National Park Service Isn’t Involved Many assume the National Park Service (NPS) oversees all White House changes because it manages nearby landmarks such as Lafayette Square and the Ellipse. However, NPS only becomes involved when federal funds are used. (MORE NEWS: FBI Probes Hunting Stand Near Trump’s Air Force One Area) In this case, the ballroom construction is privately funded, removing the NPS from the process entirely, although the President has been consulting with them since the beginning, per their statement. The President and private donors are covering the cost, so no federal money is being spent. That distinction keeps the project outside the reach of most preservation and environmental-review laws. Exemptions Under the National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) normally protects historic properties by requiring federal agencies to review projects that could affect the National Register of Historic Places. But here’s the key detail: the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Supreme Court, and all their related buildings and grounds are exempt from that review process. Congress carved out these constitutional buildings decades ago, leaving them free from the NHPA’s Section 106 requirements. So while the White House is one of America’s most iconic historic sites, it’s legally exempt from the standard preservation process that governs most federal properties. The Role of the NCPC Even though no permit is required, one agency still plays a small part — the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). This body oversees federal development in Washington, D.C. The NCPC must review and approve new construction, but it does not oversee demolition. NCPC Chair Will Scharf said about the project: “It is in fact the case that this commission does not have jurisdiction — and it has long denied that it has jurisdiction — over demolition and site preparation work for federal buildings on federal property. What we deal with is essentially construction — vertical build.” That means Trump’s team can legally demolish the East Wing before submitting final designs for the new ballroom. Once the building plans are complete, they will be reviewed by the NCPC. Most commissioners were appointed by Trump, so approval is expected to move quickly. What the New Ballroom Will Look Like The proposed ballroom is expected to be the largest indoor space ever built within the White House complex. According to the White House Statement, “theme and architectural heritage will be almost identical” to the White House itself. Concept renderings show a grand event hall with marble floors, gold trim, and chandeliers imported from Italy. (MORE NEWS: John Bolton Pleads Not Guilty to Classified Documents Charges) Officials say the space will be used for state dinners, receptions, and formal events. The President describes it as a “modernization,” not an expansion. A Long History of White House Changes The East Wing demolition is only the latest in a long line of White House transformations. Over more than a century, presidents have shaped and reshaped the building to fit their needs. Theodore Roosevelt oversaw the construction of the West Wing in 1902, separating the family residence from the offices. William Howard Taft added the first Oval Office in 1909, modeled after the Blue Room’s graceful oval shape. Calvin Coolidge renovated the third floor and replaced the roof with a new steel-framed attic story in 1927. Franklin D. Roosevelt built the East Wing in 1942 and installed an indoor swimming pool in 1933 to treat his polio. Harry S. Truman completely gutted and rebuilt the White House interior between 1948 and 1952 because it was structurally unsound. He also installed the first bowling alley in 1947, a small two-lane setup in the basement. Richard Nixon added another bowling alley in 1969 under the North Portico, creating the one still used today. Gerald Ford built an outdoor swimming pool on the South Grounds in 1975 for family use. Barack Obama converted the tennis court into a full basketball court in 2009. Also, made $376 million in renovations on the taxpayer’s dime. Each administration has left a visible mark on the property, blending function, symbolism, and personal style. A CNN report from 2010: $376 million White House renovation during the Obama Administration. Where was the Democrat outrage then? pic.twitter.com/MvLVDFcTru — Christian Collins (@CollinsforTX) October 22, 2025 What Happens Next Demolition is expected to continue through winter, with construction on the new ballroom starting soon after. The full project could take up to three years. Tours of the East Wing are suspended, and sections of the South Grounds are closed to staff and the public. Meanwhile, daily operations continue inside the main residence and West Wing. Officials insist that safety standards are being met and that the new structure will complement the White House’s classic style. Final Thoughts The East Wing demolition marks an exciting new chapter for the White House. The addition of a state-of-the-art ballroom will enhance the Executive Residence’s ability to host world leaders, dignitaries, and major diplomatic events with unmatched elegance. Designed to reflect the building’s historic character while embracing modern functionality, the new space…
FBI Probes Hunting Stand Near Trump’s Air Force One Area
In a Fox News exclusive, investigators revealed a suspicious elevated hunting stand near Trump’s Air Force One exit zone. It had a direct line of sight to the area at Palm Beach International Airport. Secret Service agents found the structure while conducting advance security preparations for Trump’s arrival. Following the discovery, the FBI took over the investigation and began collecting evidence on site. Discovery and Immediate Response The Secret Service discovered the elevated stand on Thursday, just before Trump was scheduled to arrive in West Palm Beach. According to law enforcement sources, the structure appeared to have been in place for several months before it was detected. No individuals were found nearby, and officials confirmed there was no impact on the President’s movements or flight operations that day. Once agents secured the site, the FBI deployed specialized units to collect forensic evidence. Investigators used cell-phone analytics tools to look for digital traces that might link the site to anyone in the area. The FBI and Secret Service are now working closely with Palm Beach County law enforcement to investigate. Location Raises Serious Security Questions The hunting stand was positioned to overlook the Air Force One landing and exit area. That zone is highly restricted with multiple layers of protection. Its placement raised immediate concerns about intent and potential threats. Officials told Fox News that the structure’s height and location would have provided an unobstructed vantage point toward the President’s arrival area. The fact that it had been there undetected for months adds to the seriousness of the situation. This discovery follows an earlier Palm Beach County incident in which Ryan Routh was convicted of attempting to assassinate President Trump from a nearby golf course. That event has made federal and local security teams especially cautious about any structure that could serve as a surveillance or attack platform. (RELATED NEWS: Ryan Routh Attempts To Stab Himself After Guilty Verdict For Trump Assassination Plot) FBI and Secret Service Coordination According to Fox, FBI Director Kash Patel stated that investigators have not yet linked the stand to any individual. The bureau is currently analyzing fingerprints, construction materials, and cell-tower data to find possible leads. The Secret Service, while not sharing operational specifics, emphasized that this incident highlights the value of their layered security system. The agency conducts constant sweeps around the airport and surrounding zones, but this find shows how easily an unnoticed structure could threaten an otherwise secure perimeter. No evidence so far indicates that the stand was used to target Trump or anyone else. However, authorities stress that its strategic location cannot be ignored. Why This Matters This investigation matters because it exposes a potential weakness in presidential security around Palm Beach International Airport, one of Trump’s frequent travel destinations. The structure’s presence within a direct sight line to Air Force One’s operations area challenges assumptions about perimeter control and situational awareness. It also demonstrates how routine sweeps may miss older or disguised installations, especially on private property near airport grounds. The fact that the stand went undetected for so long raises questions about coordination between federal agencies, airport security, and local landowners. Finally, the discovery comes during a time of heightened political tension, which makes any perceived threat toward a president particularly sensitive. The FBI’s quick takeover of the case underscores how seriously federal authorities are treating the matter. (MORE NEWS: John Bolton Pleads Not Guilty to Classified Documents Charges) What Comes Next Identification of the builder or owner – Forensic work and cell-data mapping could soon reveal who constructed the stand. Motive determination – Investigators must determine whether the structure served as a legitimate hunting platform, an observation post, or something more sinister. Security upgrades – The Secret Service may adjust perimeter protocols, possibly expanding patrols and aerial monitoring. Legal outcomes – If a suspect is identified, federal prosecutors will decide whether to pursue charges related to threats or security breaches. Each of these steps will help officials assess how the stand was built, why it was overlooked, and what risks it might have posed to presidential security operations. Broader Implications Beyond this single case, the discovery has broader implications for aviation and VIP security nationwide. Airports with mixed civilian and high-security traffic must maintain strict oversight of surrounding land. Structures like tree stands, observation towers, or even tall scaffolding could potentially provide unauthorized visibility into restricted zones. This situation also illustrates the value of interagency communication. The rapid coordination between the FBI, Secret Service, and local law enforcement prevented what could have been a serious breach. Moving forward, officials may adopt new technology or more frequent aerial sweeps to detect similar threats before they become critical. Final Word The FBI’s investigation into the hunting stand near Trump’s Air Force One exit zone highlights ongoing challenges in securing presidential travel areas. While no suspects have been identified, the find has already prompted a review of safety measures around Palm Beach International Airport. Federal agents are now focused on tracing who built the structure and how it went unnoticed for months. Their findings could lead to new rules for surveillance, airfield monitoring, and coordination between local and federal authorities. Rather than signaling a single security lapse, this case serves as a warning about vulnerabilities that can exist even in highly protected zones. The results of the investigation will likely shape how security teams nationwide prevent similar risks in the future. Expose the Spin. Shatter the Narrative. Speak the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t cover politics to play referee — we swing a machete through the spin, the double-speak, and the partisan theater. While the media protects the powerful and buries the backlash, we dig it up and drag it into the light. If you’re tired of rigged narratives, selective outrage, and leaders who serve themselves, not you — then share this. Expose the corruption. Challenge the agenda. Because if we don’t fight for the truth, no one will. And that fight starts with you.
John Bolton Pleads Not Guilty to Classified Documents Charges
A federal grand jury has indicted former National Security Advisor John Bolton on 18 counts tied to improper handling of classified materials, per the U.S. Department of Justice. The charges include eight counts of transmitting national defense information and 10 counts of retaining national defense information. From about April 2018 through August 2025, the indictment claims Bolton shared more than a thousand pages of classified documents—some marked TOP SECRET/SCI—with two unauthorized individuals. In addition, the papers were allegedly stored in his Maryland home in violation of federal law. FBI Director Kash Patel said, “The FBI’s investigation revealed that John Bolton allegedly transmitted top secret information using personal online accounts and retained said documents in his house in direct violation of federal law. The case was based on meticulous work from dedicated career professionals at the FBI who followed the facts without fear or favor. Weaponization of justice will not be tolerated, and this FBI will stop at nothing to bring to justice anyone who threatens our national security.” (MORE NEWS: China’s Rare Earth Clampdown Threatens U.S. Tech, Defense) He turned himself in to federal authorities today and pleaded not guilty after being indicted in the classified information probe. Alleged Mishandling: Transmission and Retention According to the Department of Justice: “Bolton illegally transmitted NDI by using personal email and messaging application accounts to send sensitive documents classified as high as Top Secret. These documents revealed intelligence about future attacks, foreign adversaries, and foreign-policy relations. “ Beyond the transmissions, the indictment charges Bolton with retaining classified documents. The DOJ Press Release reads: “Bolton illegally retained NDI documents within his home. These documents included intelligence on an adversary’s leaders as well as information revealing sources and collections used to obtain statements on a foreign adversary.” FBI Raid and Seizures In August 2025, FBI agents raided John Bolton’s home under a search warrant tied to a long-running investigation into classified document handling. Items Seized The FBI removed multiple devices and materials, including: Two iPhones (one red, one black) Three computers (a Dell XPS laptop, a Dell Precision Tower, another Dell model) One Seagate hard drive Two SanDisk 64 GB USB drives A white binder labeled “Statements and Reflections to Allied Strikes…” Four boxes of printed daily activities Typed folders labeled Trump I-IV These items are central to the government’s case that Bolton stored and processed classified data improperly. Legal Context Judge’s Warning in the 2020 Memoir Case The 2025 indictment revives concerns from his 2020 legal battle over Bolton’s “tell-all” book, The Room Where It Happened, about his service in the first Trump administration. In United States v. Bolton (Case No. 1:20-cv-1580-RCL), the government alleged he violated book prepublication review protocols by publishing without security clearance, risking classified information exposure. Seeking to block further distribution, including the audiobook, the government requested an injunction. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth denied this, citing the digital age’s irreversible information spread. He stated: “If nothing else, the government argues, an injunction today would at least prevent any further spread of the book… In the Internet age, even a handful of copies in circulation could irrevocably destroy confidentiality… The damage is done. There is no restoring the status quo.” Lamberth warned: “Defendant Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States. He has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability.” Although no injunction was issued, Bolton’s royalties were placed in a constructive trust. 2021 Biden DOJ Probe Dropped In 2021, a Biden-era DOJ probe into Bolton’s retention of classified documents was dropped for political reasons, and prosecutors concluded the memoir contained no classified information. 2025 Indictment and Trump DOJ Response The 2025 charges, alleging Bolton shared over a thousand pages of TOP SECRET/SCI documents and improperly stored them at his Maryland home, echo these earlier concerns. Attorney General Pamela Bondi emphasized, “There is one tier of justice for all Americans. Anyone who abuses a position of power and jeopardizes our national security will be held accountable. No one is above the law.” Why This Case Matters This indictment raises important issues about how top officials should treat classified information—and whose oversight they face. It also ties into broader debates over document handling policies, accountability for former officials, and national security. In particular: The case tests whether a former high-ranking official can be held criminally liable for retaining or disseminating classified intelligence after leaving government. It underscores tensions between public commentary, such as memoirs and speeches, and legal boundaries around classified materials. It spotlights the challenge of safeguarding intelligence while preserving certain free speech rights for former officials. Moreover, the case could influence future decisions about how strictly courts and prosecutors enforce laws on classified materials—especially for people who once held government security clearances. (MORE NEWS: Shock at the Vatican: Muslim Prayer Room Approved Inside Historic Library) The Takeaway The indictment of John Bolton marks one of the most consequential national security cases in recent history. Federal prosecutors allege that a former top U.S. official—trusted with the nation’s most sensitive intelligence—knowingly shared and stored highly classified information outside secure channels. The charges and FBI’s detailed findings suggest an extensive pattern of misconduct that could carry serious legal consequences if proven. This case also serves as a reminder that no individual, regardless of past position or political influence, is immune from accountability. As Bolton faces the legal process, the broader question remains: how should America safeguard its secrets while balancing transparency, free speech, and justice? The outcome of this case will likely shape how future administrations handle classified information and the standards to which their senior officials are held. Expose the Spin. Shatter the Narrative. Speak the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t cover politics to play referee — we swing a machete through the spin, the double-speak, and the partisan theater. While the media protects the powerful and buries the backlash, we dig it up and drag it into the light. If you’re tired of rigged narratives, selective outrage,…
Erika Kirk Honors Charlie’s Legacy at the White House
At the White House Rose Garden on Tuesday, President Donald Trump presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to honor the late Charlie Kirk. The award, accepted by his wife, Erika Kirk, came on what would have been Charlie’s 32nd birthday. The moment was filled with emotion as Erika delivered a moving tribute, celebrating her husband’s passion for liberty, his deep faith, and his lifelong mission to serve others. President Trump had kind words to say about Erika before presenting the medal: .@POTUS: “I’m honored to be joined by a woman who has endured unspeakable hardship with unbelievable strength, and that’s Charlie’s widow, @MrsErikaKirk… Erika, your love and courage have been an inspiration to all of us, and we will always be here for you…” pic.twitter.com/3Vk0twmqOt — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 14, 2025 A Day of Deep Meaning Erika began her speech by thanking President Trump, the First Lady, and Vice President, along with Turning Point USA staff and chapters, calling them “the heartbeat of this future and of this movement.” She urged everyone to continue Charlie’s mission to preserve and protect freedom. She explained that the Medal of Freedom represents the core of America’s founding ideals. Erika said the honor reminds us that the national interest of the United States has always been freedom. She tied that meaning to Charlie’s own life, describing him not just as a believer in liberty but as a man who lived to defend it. (OUR TRIBUTE: Charlie Kirk: A Patriot Remembered, A Legacy Unbroken) Freedom as a Calling Erika Kirk spoke passionately about her husband’s convictions. She remembered one of his favorite sayings—freedom is both a right and a responsibility. Charlie often told her that freedom is “the ability to do what is right without fear.” She reflected on how even his name, Charles, means “free man,” and said he embodied that meaning from start to finish. She recalled their first conversations about politics, philosophy, and theology. From the start, she saw “the fire in his soul,” a passion to protect something sacred. Charlie’s belief in freedom, she said, was not abstract—it was rooted in his faith. He believed freedom had to be grounded in God and truth. “Without God, freedom becomes chaos,” he used to say. Erika explained that Charlie knew true liberty could not exist without moral foundation, and that he saw captivity, not law, as the true enemy of freedom. Mrs. Erika Kirk Accepts Charlie’s Presidential Medal of Freedom on His 32nd Birthday:https://t.co/Ne9CyhO6yF pic.twitter.com/d4sDLFv1hY — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 15, 2025 Everyday Life, Big Meaning Erika also shared tender memories of Charlie’s everyday life. She described how he loved simple moments—quiet walks, reading books, and drinking decaf coffee on Saturdays while unplugging from technology. He kept his Sabbath sacred and valued rest and reflection. She recalled his birthday ritual of eating mint chocolate-chip ice cream, but only on July 4th and his birthday. One year, his wish was to see the Oregon Ducks play Ohio State—and they won. Smiling through tears, Erika said, “Mr. President, you have given him the best birthday gift he could ever have.” She revealed that in his final moments, Charlie wore a shirt with one word—“freedom.” That single word, she said, perfectly summed up his life’s mission. A Life of Purpose and Faith Erika Kirk reflected on Charlie’s courage and conviction. She shared that he never feared losing friends for speaking the truth. His confidence came from faith, not public approval. Charlie lived boldly, fought for truth when it was unpopular. He stood for God even when it was costly. He prayed for his enemies and showed them love when it was inconvenient. Erika explained that her husband ran his race with endurance and now wears “the crown of a righteous martyr.” She reminded the audience that this moment should be more than recognition—it should be a commissioning. Erika urged everyone to live freely, resist fear, and stand courageously in truth. To her, Charlie’s medal is not just an honor; it’s a responsibility for all who believe in liberty. (MORE NEWS: Trump’s Vision: A New DC Monument for America’s 250th) A Family’s Farewell and Promise Before ending her speech, Erika Kirk shared touching words from their young daughter, Gigi. “Happy birthday, daddy. I want to give you a stuffed animal. I want you to eat a cupcake with ice cream. I love you.” Their son, she added, has decided to “be the man of the house” at just sixteen months old. Erika said their children miss their father deeply, but they will grow up knowing who he was and what he stood for. She closed with a powerful declaration: “To live free is the greatest gift, but to die free is the greatest victory. Happy birthday, Charlie. Happy freedom day.” Her words brought both tears and inspiration to everyone present. The Takeaway Erika Kirk’s speech was a defining moment of love, courage, and conviction. Charlie’s life was a living testimony of faith and freedom. His courage, clarity, and moral strength inspired countless Americans to believe that truth and liberty are worth fighting for. President Trump’s decision to honor Charlie with the Medal of Freedom affirmed what many already knew: no one is more deserving of this recognition. Charlie dedicated his life to preserving the ideals that make America strong—faith, freedom, and responsibility. Charlie Kirk was assassinated in the prime of his life for speaking the truth, living his faith, & relentlessly fighting for America. That is why today President Trump posthumously awarded Charlie Kirk our nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/Bqd1hr9byX — The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 15, 2025 Through her emotional words, Erika called on others to follow his example. She urged Americans to cherish their freedoms, stand firm in their beliefs, and live with the same conviction Charlie carried every day. His legacy will continue to light the path for generations to come—a reminder that freedom is not guaranteed, but it is always worth defending. Cut through the…
Trump’s Vision: A New DC Monument for America’s 250th
President Donald Trump is proposing a massive triumphal arch in Washington, D.C., as part of his vision to mark America’s 250th birthday in 2026. The monument would sit near the Lincoln Memorial and permanently reshape one of the capital’s most iconic sightlines. He argues the structure would embody national pride, legacy, and unity. This arch is part of Trump’s broader effort to impose a lasting architectural legacy in the nation’s capital. His administration has already pushed classical design principles for federal buildings, and this proposal is arguably the boldest expression of that aesthetic and symbolic agenda. Design and Location: Victorious Vision The design draws heavily from classical and neoclassical traditions. It channels the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, the Washington Square Arch in New York, and Roman triumphal arches that historically celebrated victories. The intent: to communicate grandeur, strength, and continuity. Architect Nicolas Leo Charbonneau prepared a rendering featuring stylized eagles, wreaths, and a gilded winged angel holding a scepter. The angelic motif adds a mythic dimension, elevating the arch beyond a mere structure into symbolic narrative. (MORE NEWS: Trump Orders Military Pay Amid Government Shutdown) A proposal for a triumphal arch in DC for #America250, in the traffic circle in front of Arlington National Cemetery. America needs a triumphal arch! pic.twitter.com/JjwSZsOE9z — Nicolas Leo Charbonneau (@nic_charbonneau) September 4, 2025 The favored site is Memorial Circle, the green traffic circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. In proposed versions, the arch would surpass the Lincoln Memorial’s 99-foot height, giving it commanding presence. The site is underutilized and that the arch would unite important historic axes in Washington while completing the monumental landscape. Trump viewed a model of the proposed layout in the Oval Office last week: On Trump’s desk in the Oval Office today was a plan for a triumphal arch on the other side of the river from the Lincoln Memorial pic.twitter.com/PyulIhlmHE — Danny Kemp (@dannyctkemp) October 9, 2025 Political Philosophy and Monumental Messaging The arch reflects this administration’s belief that federal architecture should represent tradition, permanence, and national identity. They emphasize the importance of classical design, noting that it conveys meaning, dignity, and pride in American heritage. They encourage traditional styles for new federal projects to promote beauty, balance, and timeless appeal. The triumphal arch embodies that vision. It would stand as a powerful symbol of unity and strength, showcasing the country’s enduring ideals through classical artistry. Washington, D.C., unlike many world capitals, has never had a grand arch to honor the nation’s achievements. This project would fill that gap and serve as a proud focal point for America’s 250th anniversary—a steadfast reminder of faith, freedom, and national purpose. Engineering, Funding, and Bureaucratic Hurdles The administration has not published a formal cost estimate or construction timeline, leaving many questions unanswered. (MORE NEWS: Melania Trump Helps Reunite Ukrainian Children Amid War) Integrating the arch into existing traffic flow poses additional challenges. Memorial Circle is a heavily used traffic hub, and planners must ensure the monument doesn’t disrupt access, visibility, or the integrity of adjacent landmarks. Some debate centers on whether a temporary or permanent arch is more prudent. Early reports considered a temporary structure tied to the 2026 celebrations; others now suggest a permanent installation is under serious consideration. Part of a Larger Semiquincentennial Agenda The triumphal arch is only one element in Trump’s “America 250” initiative. The broader plan includes a Great American State Fair, the Patriot Games (a national youth sports competition), and the revival of the National Garden of American Heroes. The administration aims to fill the semiquincentennial year with festivals, ceremonies, and symbolic projects. Earlier, President Trump led a grand military parade in Washington to honor the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary. The event showcased American strength, unity, and appreciation for the men and women who serve the nation. It also reflected the pride and pageantry that will define America’s 250th birthday celebrations in 2026. The proposed monument builds on that same spirit of patriotism. It represents a lasting tribute to the country’s history, its heroes, and its bright future. Designed to stand for generations, the monument would serve as a proud symbol of national unity and achievement—a centerpiece for celebrating America’s founding ideals and lasting strength. Final Thoughts: A Monument to America’s Strength and Spirit President Trump’s triumphal arch vision stands as a proud tribute to America’s 250th birthday and its enduring legacy. The project reflects a vision of unity, strength, and faith in the nation’s future. If built, the arch would become a lasting symbol of the country’s achievements and a celebration of the values that have guided it for two and a half centuries. The Semiquincentennial celebration—“America 250”—offers a rare opportunity to honor the country’s founding ideals with dignity and pride. The proposed arch embodies those ideals in stone, representing courage, freedom, and perseverance. It would join the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, and other national landmarks as a reminder of America’s journey and the greatness of its people. As the nation prepares for this historic milestone, the triumphal arch promises to inspire generations to look forward with hope while remembering the strength and sacrifice that built the United States. Standing tall in the capital, it would serve as a powerful emblem of unity—celebrating not only America’s past but the unyielding promise of its future. Cut Through the Noise. Slice Through the Lies. Share the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t tiptoe around the narrative—we swing a machete through it. The mainstream won’t say it, so we will. If you’re tired of spin, censorship, and sugar-coated headlines, help us rip the cover off stories that matter. Share this article. Wake people up. Give a voice to the truth the powerful want buried. This fight isn’t just ours—it’s yours. Join us in exposing what they won’t tell you. America needs bold truth-tellers, and that means you.
Letitia James Indicted: Virginia Grand Jury Charges NY AG
A federal grand jury in Virginia has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on serious charges of mortgage fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. The indictment accuses her of submitting false information on loan applications and property records to secure better mortgage terms. The case has drawn national attention because of her high-profile role and her past legal battles against President Donald Trump. (RELATED NEWS: Trump Scores Legal Victory, $500M Fraud Penalty Overturned) Federal Statement on the Indictment ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Lindsey Halligan, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, announced that a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging New York State Attorney General Letitia James with Bank Fraud under 18 U.S.C. Section 1344 and False Statements to a Financial Institution under 18 U.S.C. Section 1014. “No one is above the law. The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust,” said U.S. Attorney Halligan. “The facts and the law in this case are clear, and we will continue following them to ensure that justice is served.” If convicted, Letitia James faces penalties including up to 30 years in prison per count, fines of up to one million dollars per count, and forfeiture of any related assets. Actual sentences for federal crimes are often less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any final sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. Prosecutors emphasized that an indictment is merely an accusation and that the defendant remains presumed innocent until proven guilty. Statement from Letitia James In a post on X, Letitia James called the indictment “nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system.” She said, “We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights.” This is nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system. I am not fearful — I am fearless. We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights. pic.twitter.com/X9U0EsHuGM — NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) October 9, 2025 Allegations Against Letitia James Federal prosecutors claim that James made multiple false statements in property documents. They allege that she declared a home in Virginia as her primary residence when she primarily lived in New York. They also claim she misrepresented details of a multi-unit Brooklyn property, stating it had five units instead of four. Another part of the indictment accuses her of falsely listing her father as her spouse on a loan application. Prosecutors say these misrepresentations helped her qualify for lower interest rates and better financial terms. They believe she intentionally misled lenders for personal benefit. In contrast, James and her legal team argue that any errors were unintentional. They say she corrected them once discovered and that there was no intent to deceive. Her defense emphasizes that the alleged mistakes were routine clerical issues, not criminal acts. Political Context and Timing The indictment against Letitia James follows years of controversy over how she used her position as New York’s attorney general. Critics say she turned her office into a political weapon instead of enforcing the law fairly. They argue she targeted former President Donald Trump for political reasons, not because of solid evidence. Her civil fraud case against Trump relied on weak claims and lacked proof of intentional wrongdoing. Many experts called the ruling against Trump politically driven and legally unsound. Federal investigators began reviewing James’s own financial records after questions arose about her mortgage filings. Prosecutors built their case on hard records—loan applications, signatures, and clear inconsistencies in her disclosures. Their findings allegedly show a pattern of deception that violates federal law. Investigators insist the case has nothing to do with politics. They say they followed the facts and the evidence led directly to James. The charges focus on her own conduct, not her political affiliations. Unlike her public pursuit of Trump, which many saw as grandstanding, this case is rooted in paperwork and provable actions. The grand jury reviewed the evidence and decided the violations were too serious to ignore. Legal experts agree this is not a political fight—it is a matter of law and integrity. The indictment shows that even powerful officials must follow the same rules as everyone else. Legal Stakes and Next Steps Letitia James is scheduled to appear in court in Norfolk, Virginia, later this month. During her first hearing, she will formally respond to the charges. Her attorneys are expected to challenge the evidence and argue that the indictment lacks substance. They will likely claim the prosecution’s case is politically influenced and built on technical errors rather than deliberate fraud. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that James knowingly provided false information for financial gain. Establishing intent will be crucial. If the jury believes she acted with intent to defraud, the penalties could be severe. But if her defense convinces the court that she simply made mistakes without intent, she could be cleared of wrongdoing. Because James is a sitting attorney general, the case carries major legal and political consequences. A conviction would almost certainly end her career and damage public confidence in the office she leads. Even an acquittal might leave her reputation tarnished. The case will likely set a precedent for how federal authorities handle alleged misconduct by state officials. Broader Political and Public Impact This indictment is highly unusual. It is rare for a state’s top law enforcement officer to face federal criminal charges. The situation raises broader questions about how politics and justice intersect. Some view the case as proof that powerful figures are not immune from prosecution. Others see it as a troubling sign of how political divisions have influenced the justice system. For New York, the situation adds uncertainty to the leadership of the attorney general’s office. James has been a prominent figure in several high-profile cases…
Portland: Trump Defies Court, Sends 300 CA Guard Troops
President Donald Trump ordered 300 California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, in open defiance of a federal court order. The decision, made on October 5, 2025, set off an immediate political and legal firestorm across the country. The deployment came one day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the White House from using Oregon’s own National Guard in the state. The court ruled that the administration’s justification lacked solid evidence and could violate constitutional limits on presidential authority. Despite that ruling, Trump directed troops from California to cross state lines, saying Portland needed protection from ongoing chaos and threats to federal property. President Trump reacted to the judge’s order: There’s the magic word again 👀 Trump says that “insurrectionists” are burning Portland to the ground. This is not an accident. Trump and his administration are beginning to use this word frequently for a reason. The Insurrection Act is coming. pic.twitter.com/8f9C3S0tki — Clandestine (@WarClandestine) October 5, 2025 Both Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the move. They accused Trump of abusing his power and ignoring the Constitution. Tension Builds in Portland Portland has faced waves of demonstrations since early summer. The protests began after several controversial immigration enforcement actions at a local federal facility. Over time, the gatherings drew national attention and occasional clashes between protesters and federal agents. In late September, Trump announced that his administration would send federal resources to Oregon to restore order. He blamed state leaders for failing to protect federal buildings and personnel. As part of that plan, he sought to federalize Oregon’s National Guard and place them under his command. Judge Karin Immergut halted the order. She ruled that the administration had not shown credible evidence of widespread violence or an immediate threat that justified federal intervention. Her ruling says that the president could not use the military to manage local protests without clear legal authority. Trump responded by directing troops from California instead, claiming the court’s order did not apply to National Guard units from another state. She has since issued a TRO prohibiting the Trump administration from relocating or deploying ANY federalized national guard troops to Oregon. Judge Immergut has issued her written TRO prohibiting the Trump administration from relocating or deploying federalized national guard troops to Oregon. Here it is: https://t.co/9xO5hwocck pic.twitter.com/WU11j6Or2F — Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) October 6, 2025 A Clash Over Constitutional Limits The confrontation in Portland has become a defining example of the struggle between state sovereignty and federal power. Legal scholars point to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states, as central to the dispute. Governors Newsom and Kotek argue that Trump’s decision violates that principle by seizing control over state guard forces without consent. The White House insists the president has the right to protect federal property and enforce federal law. Yet critics say the order oversteps executive authority and blurs the line between military and civilian roles. The Posse Comitatus Act also lies at the heart of the debate. The law generally forbids using the military for domestic law enforcement unless Congress explicitly authorizes it. Opponents of the deployment argue that sending troops to monitor protests crosses that legal boundary. (MORE NEWS: Apple Pulls ICE-Tracking Apps from App Store) Judge Immergut’s earlier ruling complicates matters further. In her opinion, Portland had been relatively calm in recent weeks, contradicting the administration’s portrayal of the city as a “war zone.” Governors Weigh In California Governor Gavin Newsom called the order unconstitutional and reckless. He said his state would not allow its National Guard to be used for political stunts. Newsom promised immediate legal action to block the deployment and protect the rights of California’s soldiers. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek echoed his concerns. She warned that Trump’s actions could undermine federalism and increase tensions instead of reducing them. Kotek’s office confirmed that she is working with state attorneys to seek emergency relief from the courts. Both governors maintain that the situation in Portland does not justify military intervention. They insist that local and state law enforcement agencies are capable of maintaining order without federal troops. (MORE NEWS: Viral 2019 Debate Clip Shows Democrats Back Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants) On the contrary, Texas Governor Abbott authorized 400 members of the Texas National Guard. He is ready and willing to assist federal law enforcement if necessary. I fully authorized the President to call up 400 members of the Texas National Guard to ensure safety for federal officials. You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it. No Guard can match the training, skill, and… https://t.co/7SUk9XlMBn — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 6, 2025 National Implications for Power and Protest The battle over Portland reaches far beyond one city or protest. It tests the boundaries of American democracy, the separation of powers, and the reach of presidential authority. The outcome could redefine how Washington interacts with state governments during times of unrest. Supporters of the deployment argue that the president is within his legal right to act, especially when local leaders order police to stand down or fail to protect federal personnel and property. Under the Insurrection Act, the president can lawfully deploy military forces if states cannot or will not uphold federal law. In this case, Trump’s allies say his decision reflects a duty to defend federal officers and facilities from escalating threats, similar to situations seen in Chicago and other cities where local enforcement retreated. The courts now face the task of determining how far the president’s powers extend under existing law. The restraining order remains in place until mid-October, giving judges time to weigh whether his actions fall within constitutional boundaries. The ruling will likely influence how future presidents handle civil unrest and the use of military forces on U.S. soil. Final Word The deployment of California National Guard troops to Portland stands as one of the most controversial moves of Trump’s second term. It has fueled intense debate over federal…