Legal AF by MeidasTouch: "Trump Blindsided as Cities Unleash Unexpected Pushback"
Date: September 12, 2025
Host: Michael Popok (for MeidasTouch Network)

Episode Overview

In this episode of Legal AF, Michael Popok delivers an urgent analysis of the legal and political clash as blue cities and states face unprecedented incursions by federal forces under former President Donald Trump. The episode's main focus is on how mayors and governors, particularly in Boston, Chicago, and California, are mounting legal resistance to Trump’s deployment of federal and state National Guard troops in Democratic-leaning cities, examining the complex intersection of federalism, the Supremacy Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Federal Incursion into Blue Cities

• Trump is sending a federal police force made up of ICE, Border Patrol, and out-of-state National Guardsmen into Democratic-run cities (e.g., Boston, Chicago, New York).
• Cities' and states’ resistance is largely happening in the courts, rather than through physical confrontation.

“They will be invaded this week by Donald Trump's federal police force troops, his illegal shock troops made up of ICE and Border Patrol and armed National Guardsmen from other states as they invade Chicago and Boston, potentially New York…”
—Michael Popok [00:28]

• The reasoning: Trump’s efforts are politically motivated and target blue cities despite falling crime rates in these locations.

2. The Legal Battle: Sanctuary Policies and the U.S. Constitution

• Trump’s DOJ is filing numerous lawsuits (14 recently by Pam Bondi) against sanctuary cities, claiming local non-cooperation with immigration enforcement violates the Supremacy Clause.
• Popok explains these arguments are constitutionally flawed; the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing local law enforcement to help enforce federal law.

“The concept that states are required, required and, and can be compelled by the federal government to enforce federal law. No, they can’t interfere, but they are not required to cooperate because that would be a violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution…”
—Michael Popok [02:44]

• Reference is made to past legal victories against similar lawsuits, particularly Judge Jenkins’ dismissal of these types of challenges in Illinois.

3. Dissecting the Boston Lawsuit Against Mayor Michelle Wu

• Boston’s status as a “sanctuary city” under its Trust Act is challenged by the DOJ.
• DOJ complaint argues that not assisting is equivalent to obstructing federal law, a point Popok strongly refutes.

“Obstructing is obviously a federal officer tries to grab somebody, an immigrant, put them in the back of a van. Boston PD steps in the middle and stops them from doing that. That's obstruction. Federal officer grabs somebody, calls to the police department on the corner… that's not obstruction. When he refuses, that is just not cooperating.”
—Michael Popok [05:57]

• Popok is confident the lawsuit will be dismissed under the same reasoning as prior failed attempts.

4. Local Leaders Respond: Voices of Resistance

• Popok features Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s defiant public statement against the federal government’s ultimatum.

“This has always been a city of revolution, of innovation, of standing up for the public good and never bowing down to tyranny.”
—Michelle Wu [10:40]

5. Escalating Tactics: Texas National Guard Deployed

• Insider reports suggest Texas has sent National Guard troops to Illinois, amounting to what Popok calls an “invasion.”
• Popok questions the wisdom and legality of this interstate deployment and warns Texas that a precedent is being set for future administrations.

“So now we've got Texas invading Illinois. Where are we? Is this a sequel to Civil Action the movie or Civil War the movie? What are we watching? Texas versus Illinois?”
—Michael Popok [11:06]

6. Road Ahead: Legal Strategies for Cities and States

• Popok notes that direct confrontation with federal officers won’t work due to the Supremacy Clause.
• The answer is litigation: seeking injunctions and fighting in federal court, as California and D.C. have done successfully.
• Trump’s tactics are evolving, now using red-state Guards instead of trying to federalize local ones, requiring new litigation strategies.

“It's not impossible, but it's very hard for the states to block and or arrest federal officers executing duties that even appear and are unconstitutional. Self help is not the way… at the end of the day, it's going to be in the courts.”
—Michael Popok [12:46]

• Reassures audience: no physical clashes, rather “pitched battles” in the courtroom.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On the precedent and gravity of Trump’s actions:

  “…the first president since Abraham Lincoln who has sent federal troops to attack states. And for all the most wrong, depraved and unconstitutional reasons, that's what we're watching.”
  —Michael Popok [01:34]

• On the weakness of the DOJ lawsuits:

  “Compelled, conscripted, forced service to do the dirty work of the federal government is something quite different… I am quite confident that this lawsuit will go the way of… will dismiss this case as a violation of the 10th Amendment…”
  —Michael Popok [09:32]

• On the ongoing legal resistance:

  “We're not going to see pitched battles between state law enforcement and federal law enforcement on the streets… But we are going to see pitched battles inside the courtrooms and we're going to cover it right here in the Midas Touch Network and Legal AF.”
  —Michael Popok [14:07]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:28] — Introduction & overview of Trump’s invasion of blue cities, the legal frontlines
• [02:44] — Explanation of the Supremacy Clause vs. 10th Amendment in sanctuary city litigation
• [05:57] — Discussion of the Boston Trust Act lawsuit and distinction between obstruction and non-cooperation
• [10:35] — Michelle Wu’s speech on Boston’s resistance to federal intervention
• [11:06] — Chicago and Texas National Guard “invasion” context and broader constitutional stakes
• [12:46] — How cities should (and shouldn’t) resist: the legal pathways
• [14:07] — Closing thoughts on the legal “battles” to come and Legal AF’s continuing coverage

Conclusion

This episode powerfully contextualizes the current constitutional crisis involving federal overreach and local resistance, blending sound legal analysis with urgent commentary from Michael Popok and voices like Michelle Wu. Listeners are given a clear roadmap of the law, the stakes, and the strategies likely to play out both in the courts and in public opinion.

Key Takeaways:

• The legal fight over sanctuary cities is reaching new heights as Trump escalates federal intervention.
• Existing precedent overwhelmingly supports local autonomy against federal conscription.
• Cities and states are turning to the courts as the prime battleground, with a high probability of victory based on the U.S. Constitution.
• Leaders like Michelle Wu are emerging as public faces of resistance, adding historical and moral weight to the legal battle.

For more insights and ongoing legal updates, Popok steers listeners to Legal AF’s YouTube channel and Substack.