Podcast Summary: Tangle – Appeals court greenlights Trump's National Guard deployment

Date: October 23, 2025
Host: Isaac Saul
Featured Contributors: Will (Legal Analyst), Ari Weitzman (Managing Editor)
Main Focus: Analysis of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard in Portland, Oregon.

Overview

This episode critically unpacks the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that allows President Donald Trump to deploy the Oregon National Guard to Portland, in the context of recent protests and unrest. The episode presents a wide range of arguments from across the political spectrum, features detailed legal analysis, and shares a variety of editorial perspectives—culminating in an internal debate between managing editor Ari Weitzman and host Isaac Saul.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Background & Legal Foundation

• News Recap (04:49–06:38):
  • The Trump administration has been seeking to deploy the Oregon National Guard in Portland, arguing the need to maintain order during ongoing protests, particularly targeting unrest near an ICE facility.
  • District Judge Karen Immergut initially blocked the deployment, finding that Trump's characterization of the events was overstated.
  • On appeal, the Ninth Circuit (2–1) lifted the block, asserting that the President had likely “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” in mobilizing the Guard.
  • Notable Dissent: Judge Susan Graber dissented, questioning whether ICE was actually unable to perform its foundational duties and urging “faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.” (06:38)

2. Arguments from the Left (12:05–15:50):

• Concerns about Executive Overreach:
  • Many on the left argue the court granted the executive branch too much deference, thereby threatening civil liberties and paving the way for potential authoritarian abuses.
  • Key Quote:
    • Mark Joseph Stern (Slate) (12:56):
      "In Nelson's view, Trump enjoys absolute discretion to send troops into American cities for any reason he deems necessary, and no court may stand in his way... it is precisely what the Trump administration is now asking the Supreme Court to embrace, and it is wrong from top to bottom."
• Judiciary’s Role in Checking Power:
  • Some point out that by failing to check presidential declarations, courts enable the executive branch to unilaterally define what constitutes a threat or rebellion.
  • Key Quote:
    • Joe Patrice (Above the Law) (14:49):
      "That's not legalism, it's epistemic control, the right to define what counts as a threat, what counts as a rebellion, and what counts as the ability to execute law."

3. Arguments from the Right (15:51–18:56):

• Defense of Presidential Authority:
  • Conservative commentators support the ruling, emphasizing the president’s historical and statutory power to deploy the National Guard to protect federal facilities.
  • Key Quote:
    • Byron York (Washington Examiner) (16:22):
      "There have been extensive and frequent attacks on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland. The president of the United States has the authority to protect federal installations, so Trump can order National Guard troops to protect a federal installation that is under attack."
• Historical Precedent:
  • Citing interventions in the civil rights era, some argue that disallowing Trump this power would be hypocritical considering past Democratic presidents’ use of similar authority.
  • Key Quote:
    • John Yoo (Civitas Institute) (18:00):
      "If critics want the federal government to have the power to enforce civil rights laws against resistant states, they also must concede... the authority to enforce immigration laws against rioters in the cities of Portland and Chicago."

4. Legal Analyst and Editorial Take

4.1 Legal Summary and Analysis (Will, 06:38–10:25)

• The ruling is anchored in the concept of “presidential deference,” suggesting the courts have a limited role in second-guessing the president’s determination when he claims to be acting under statute 12406.
• The dissent calls for a full en banc review—a reconsideration by the entire Ninth Circuit.

4.2 Ari Weitzman’s Take (20:43–29:18)

• On Trump’s Strategy:
  • Argues the administration intentionally redefines terms like “rebellion” and “invasion” to expand its authority—an approach largely advanced by Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
  • Quote:
    • “Since at least 2023, Miller has argued that Trump could use the military domestically by defining illegal immigration as an invasion and civil disobedience as a rebellion. Now Trump is attempting exactly that argument, and he's running into roadblocks because, again, these terms just don't fit.” (21:46)
• Government’s Legal Pivot:
  • Noted a strategic shift from branding protests as “rebellion” to arguing that ongoing violence undermined execution of federal law, a more defensible legal stance.
  • The Ninth Circuit found this reasoning sufficient: “There is a colorable basis for the President’s determination that he is unable, with regular forces, to execute the laws of the United States.”
• Practical and Democratic Concerns:
  • Weitzman is troubled by the implication that courts must ignore bombastic presidential rhetoric and focus solely on the government’s “colorable” legal justifications.
  • “If we can't trust what the president is saying and courts are telling us not to trust what the president is saying, then that’s pretty bad.” (27:08)
• On the Ground and the Efficacy of Protest:
  • Observes that protester tactics in Portland have shifted toward nonviolent, even absurd performances (like dancing in Pokémon costumes, naked bike rides), effectively undermining Trump’s narrative about violent rebellion and reducing public support for a militarized response.
  • Expresses cautious optimism that such peaceful protest tactics, along with legal pushback, may reduce future escalation.

4.3 Isaac Saul’s Dissent (29:18–31:25)

• Grave Democratic Risks:
  • Saul is much less optimistic, viewing the court’s willingness to tolerate extreme deference to presidential authority as “alarming” and a slippery slope to unchecked executive power.
  • Quote:
    • “Nelson’s concurrence posits that Trump can deploy the National Guard without any judicial review from the courts, introducing an extreme view of presidential power with boundless opportunities for abuse, even if the legal justification is easier to track.” (29:18)
• Saul anticipates increased unrest as a result of this ruling and fears the administration may welcome such tension to justify further crackdowns.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Judge Susan Graber Dissent (via News Reporter, 06:38):
  "I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer."

• Ari Weitzman, on ignoring rhetoric (27:08):
  "If we can't trust what the president is saying and courts are telling us not to trust what the president is saying, then that's pretty bad."

• Byron York, on precedent (16:22):
  "The president of the United States has the authority to protect federal installations... so Trump can order National Guard troops to protect a federal installation that is under attack."

• Joe Patrice, on epistemic control (14:49):
  "That's not legalism, it's epistemic control, the right to define what counts as a threat, what counts as a rebellion, and what counts as the ability to execute law."

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [02:22] – Start of Episode, Isaac Saul’s Intro and Context
• [04:49–06:38] – News Recap/Case Background
• [06:38–10:25] – Legal Summary and Will’s Analysis
• [12:05–15:50] – Arguments from the Left
• [15:51–18:56] – Arguments from the Right
• [20:43–29:18] – Ari Weitzman’s Take
• [29:18–31:25] – Isaac Saul’s Dissent

Additional Data Presented

• Under the Radar Story (34:53):
  • Declining local news outlets—over 130 local papers closed in the past year; 50 million Americans in “news desert” counties.
• Numbers on Portland:
  • 128 arrests related to the ICE facility (June–October 2025)
  • Vandalism in Portland: 12,000 incidents in 2022, down to 6,800 in 2024
  • Reuters/Ipsos Poll: 58% of adults say troops should only confront external threats, 83% say the military should remain politically neutral

Takeaways

• The Ninth Circuit ruling foregrounds a critical debate on the limits and oversight of presidential power, especially in response to protests and civil unrest.
• The administration’s evolving legal arguments have, for now, been successful in court, though internal dissent and public criticism remain robust.
• Editorial voices within Tangle express wide-ranging emotions: Weitzman’s cautious optimism about nonviolent protest and judicial restraint contrasts sharply with Saul’s deep concerns about potential authoritarian overreach.
• The episode serves as a primer on both the legal mechanics and the high-stakes democratic implications of executive action in times of unrest.