Bulwark Takes: Detailed Summary of "Military In The Streets?! This Is MARTIAL LAW by Another Name"
Release Date: June 10, 2025
Introduction
In the June 10, 2025 episode of Bulwark Takes, hosted by Sam Stein from The Bulwark, the focus is on a highly contentious memorandum issued on June 7th that authorizes the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles amidst ongoing protests. Sam Stein is joined by Ryan Goodman, co-editor of Just Security, to dissect the legal and constitutional implications of this memorandum. The discussion delves deep into the potential overreach of federal authority, the impact on First Amendment rights, and the broader national implications of deploying military forces in civilian spaces.
Background: The June 7th Memorandum
The episode begins with Sam Stein introducing Ryan Goodman to discuss a memorandum signed by Stephen Miller, which authorizes the National Guard and active armed forces to be deployed in Los Angeles without explicit request from California's Governor Gavin Newsom. This move has sparked significant concern regarding its legality and the potential suppression of nonviolent protests.
Key Quote:
"Ryan, what prompted us to reach out to you is this post you put on Blue sky about the memorandum that was issued, I want to say yesterday, but everything's fuzzy. No, it's June 7th memorandum." [00:00]
Legal Ramifications of Federalizing the National Guard
Ryan Goodman elaborates on the breadth of the memorandum, highlighting that it not only authorizes the National Guard but also delegates significant authority to Secretary Hegseth. One of the primary concerns is the memorandum’s vague language, particularly the use of the conjunction "or," which could be interpreted to include nonviolent protests under the umbrella of "protests or acts of violence."
Key Quotes:
"The memorandum is much broader than what we're currently seeing on the ground... providing a huge amount of authority that it also then delegates down to none other than Secretary Hegseth." [01:17]
"It is authorizing the use of the National Guard and the active armed forces to respond to protests or acts of violence." [01:17]
Goodman argues that the memorandum's preemptive nature allows for the deployment of military forces nationwide in anticipation of protests that might disrupt federal law, rather than responding to existing civil unrest. This broad authorization bypasses the necessity for specific, localized requests for assistance, thereby potentially infringing on states' rights and individual freedoms.
First Amendment Concerns
A significant portion of the discussion centers on First Amendment rights. Goodman emphasizes that the memorandum’s language could be used to suppress nonviolent protests, effectively throttling free speech and assembly.
Key Quotes:
"The memorandum is not geared towards riots and it's not geared towards violence or violent action... However, the use of the word 'or' explicitly gives them leeway to go after nonviolent protests." [02:27 - 02:51]
"On the face of it, it says that they will deploy the National Guard just for nonviolent protests. And that is, excuse me, trying to stamp it out, stamp out First Amendment activity." [15:17]
Sam Stein probes further into how this could enable the National Guard to manage even peaceful demonstrations, raising alarms about the potential for abuse of military power in civilian contexts.
Preemptive Action and Escalation
Goodman critiques the memorandum’s preemptive stance, noting that it allows for military intervention before any actual violence has occurred. This approach contradicts longstanding Department of Justice positions that military deployment should be a last resort.
Key Quotes:
"The preemptive action is also remarkable because the Department of Justice has said for decades that the deployment of U.S. forces inside the United States... should be one of last resort." [03:45]
"It's not just the National Guard. It has taken that additional step by including the active arm, the regular armed forces." [05:35]
The discussion highlights the memorandum's lack of geographical restrictions, meaning it can be applied nationwide without targeting a specific state or city, thereby setting a precedent for future interventions.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s Legal Challenge
The episode addresses Governor Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit against the federalization of the National Guard, arguing that the President overstepped by not requesting his authorization. Goodman argues that Newsom not only has standing but also a strong case, especially if the federal actions are deemed to exceed legal authority or involve prohibited law enforcement activities.
Key Quotes:
"So the big question is going to be, ordinarily, the courts defer very much to the president on these kinds of questions. But even in the Insurrection act cases, there's this indication that they would not defer if the president's acting in bad faith." [11:47]
"The Kristi Noem letter to Hegseth seems to be a clear violation of the latter. She's asking the DOD to participate in civil law enforcement. That's a red line." [07:07]
Goodman further explains that if the military begins to engage in activities typically reserved for civil law enforcement, it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which strictly limits military involvement in domestic affairs.
Implications of Deploying Active Armed Forces
The memorandum not only allows for the deployment of the National Guard but also the regular armed forces, such as Marines, which marks a significant escalation in federal intervention. Goodman expresses skepticism about Secretary Hegseth’s ability to adhere to legal constraints, citing his inflammatory statements and the tone of internal communications advocating for a militarized approach to civil unrest.
Key Quotes:
"If that's your worldview of what's actually going on, then I have no reason to think that he's going to be constrained with the legal niceties that I've just described." [10:03]
"We're not doing law enforcement, we're just doing military." [11:20]
This militarization raises concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and the potential for authoritarian governance under the guise of maintaining order.
Potential Legal and Constitutional Challenges
Goodman discusses the likelihood of successful legal challenges against the memorandum, noting that courts may scrutinize the definitions and justifications used by the federal government. He anticipates that courts would closely examine whether the conditions for invoking Article II protective powers—or similar statutes—are genuinely met.
Key Quotes:
"They'll take a look at it and make a determination as to, at a minimum, whether the allegations being made in the memorandum or elsewhere meet the definition of rebellion." [12:49]
"I think there's a pretty sound argument for that regarding the First Amendment." [11:55]
Goodman also points out that individual protesters or organized groups could serve as plaintiffs in First Amendment lawsuits, challenging the government's overreach and defending their rights to peaceful assembly.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead and National Impact
As the episode draws to a close, Goodman and Stein reflect on the broader implications of this memorandum. They express deep concern that this action signifies a dangerous shift towards normalizing military involvement in domestic affairs, which historically has been a safeguard against authoritarianism.
Key Quotes:
"I think we should be very worried... what is one of the cherished parts of American society? It's that we do not have the military policing Americans on their city streets." [16:32]
"It really is testing, I think, for Stephen Miller how far they can go on violating that kind of cherished American principle." [16:32]
They emphasize the importance of vigilant legal and public opposition to prevent the erosion of civil liberties and maintain the separation between military and civilian spheres.
Final Thoughts
This episode of Bulwark Takes serves as a crucial analysis of a pivotal moment in American governance, questioning the balance between national security and individual freedoms. Through Ryan Goodman's expert insights, listeners gain a comprehensive understanding of the potential legal pitfalls and constitutional crises emerging from the federalization of the National Guard and the deployment of active military forces in civilian contexts. The discussion underscores the necessity for legal challenges and public awareness to safeguard democratic principles against possible overreach by federal authorities.
For those who haven't listened to the episode, this summary captures the essence of the conversation, highlighting the significant legal and constitutional concerns surrounding the federalization of the National Guard and the deployment of military forces in response to civil protests.