Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities – The Fulcrum

Analysis of Executive Action on Troop Deployment and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 16

Introduction: Governance, Rule of Law, and Institutional Integrity

Recent executive actions involving the federalization and deployment of National Guard units to major cities represent a significant challenge to the principles outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16, which calls for promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The use of military personnel for domestic law enforcement in a manner that bypasses state and local authority raises critical questions about the rule of law, institutional accountability, and the nature of federal-local partnerships essential for sustainable development.

Challenges to Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16)

Erosion of the Rule of Law (SDG Target 16.3)

The legal justifications for these deployments are testing the established boundaries of U.S. law, directly impacting the promotion of the rule of law at the national level.

• Title 10: This law, intended for national crises such as invasion or rebellion, is being applied to domestic protests and immigration enforcement disputes, a use legal experts describe as contrived and unprecedented.
• The Insurrection Act of 1807: The potential invocation of this act, which permits the domestic deployment of troops without state consent, is viewed by legal scholars as a significant threat to constitutional norms and the balance of power.
• Judicial Ambiguity: Courts have issued conflicting rulings on the legality of these deployments, highlighting a lack of clear legal precedent and creating uncertainty around the limits of executive power. This judicial inconsistency undermines the goal of ensuring equal access to justice and predictable legal frameworks.

Undermining Accountable and Transparent Institutions (SDG Target 16.6)

The pattern of troop deployment suggests a centralization of power within the executive branch, weakening the effectiveness and accountability of other governmental institutions.

1. Bypassing State and Local Governance: By federalizing the National Guard, the executive branch removes them from the command of state governors, disrupting the federalist system and undermining the authority of locally elected officials. This action contradicts the principle of responsive and representative decision-making at all levels (SDG Target 16.7).
2. Politicization of Security Forces: Using the National Guard and other federal agents as tools in political disputes with city and state leaders compromises their institutional neutrality and public trust.
3. Consolidation of Executive Power: These deployments are part of a broader trend of utilizing executive orders and other administrative mechanisms to bypass legislative and local authority, thereby reducing institutional accountability and transparency.

Broader Implications for Sustainable Development

Impact on Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11)

The militarization of urban spaces has direct consequences for the goal of making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

• The presence of federal troops deployed against the wishes of local leaders can erode public trust and create an environment of instability, undermining community safety.
• The conflict between federal and local authorities disrupts the cooperative partnerships necessary for effective urban planning and governance, as emphasized in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Exacerbating Inequalities (SDG 10)

The targeting of specific cities based on their political leadership can be interpreted as a form of political exclusion, which runs counter to the objective of reducing inequalities and promoting the political inclusion of all (SDG Target 10.2). Such actions risk deepening societal divisions and disproportionately affecting marginalized communities within these urban centers.

Conclusion: The Imperative to Uphold Democratic Institutions

The deployment of military forces as a tool of domestic political pressure constitutes a direct threat to the foundations of SDG 16. It weakens the rule of law, erodes the accountability of institutions, and undermines the cooperative governance structures necessary for achieving all Sustainable Development Goals. The normalization of these actions risks establishing a precedent where military force becomes a standard political instrument, fundamentally altering the balance of power and jeopardizing democratic stability.

Recommendations for Upholding Institutional Integrity

To counteract this trend and reinforce the principles of SDG 16, the following actions are essential:

1. Strengthening Legislative Oversight: Congress must reassert its role in checking executive power and preventing the militarization of domestic politics.
2. Judicial Clarification: The judiciary is called upon to provide clear rulings on the constitutional limits of executive authority regarding domestic troop deployments.
3. Civil Society Engagement: Non-governmental organizations, journalists, and community groups play a vital role in documenting abuses, advocating for transparency, and defending democratic norms against federal overreach.
4. Reinforcing Federalism: State and local leaders must continue to advocate for protections against federal intrusion, reinforcing the cooperative principles essential for effective and accountable governance.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The primary Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) addressed in the article is:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. This goal is central to the article’s theme, which focuses on the erosion of democratic institutions, the challenge to the rule of law, and the potential for civil unrest stemming from the political weaponization of military and federal forces. The article discusses the weakening of federalism, the bypassing of local authorities, the lack of accountability in the executive and legislative branches, and the use of presidential power in ways that legal experts and local leaders deem “unlawful and unconstitutional.” These issues directly relate to the core mission of SDG 16, which is to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion of institutional integrity and the rule of law, the following specific targets under SDG 16 can be identified:

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • The article highlights a direct challenge to the rule of law. The president’s use of Title 10 is described as a stretch of a law “meant for national crisis, not political theater.” The conflicting court rulings in Oregon and Illinois, and the warning from Attorney General Kwame Raoul that Americans “should not live under the threat of occupation,” point to a breakdown in the consistent application of law and justice.
2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The article argues that institutions are being made less accountable and effective. The president’s actions are part of a “broader pattern of consolidating power” and bypassing local authority to “concentrate decision-making in the executive branch.” It also criticizes the legislative branch, stating, “the GOP-led Congress stands by as Trump shreds the constitutional fabric,” indicating a failure of accountability.
3. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • The article explicitly details how the president’s actions undermine responsive and participatory governance. By invoking Title 10, the president “cuts governors out of the chain of command,” ignoring the objections of state and local leaders. This transforms a cooperative system into one of “coercion,” where the message to Democratic mayors and governors is “submit or be overrun.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several qualitative and quantitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• For Target 16.3 (Rule of Law):
  • Indicator: The number of legal challenges and court cases filed against executive actions regarding troop deployment. The article mentions specific cases: “In Oregon, Judge Karin Immergut blocked Trump’s order… In Illinois, Judge April Perry allowed deployments to continue while the state’s case proceeds.” The outcomes of these cases serve as a measure of how the judiciary is upholding the rule of law.
  • Indicator: The frequency of executive actions that are publicly labeled as “unlawful and unconstitutional” by legal experts and elected officials, such as Governor J.B. Pritzker.
• For Target 16.6 (Accountable Institutions):
  • Indicator: The number of federalized National Guard troops deployed to cities for domestic law enforcement or political purposes. The article provides specific figures: “roughly 300 Illinois Guardsmen have been federalized and another 400 troops brought in from Texas.” An increase in such deployments could indicate a weakening of institutional norms.
  • Indicator: The level of legislative oversight of executive actions. The article implies a lack of oversight by stating that “Congress, dominated by partisans too afraid to challenge Trump, has become an enabler.”
• For Target 16.7 (Responsive Decision-Making):
  • Indicator: The number of instances where federal forces are deployed despite formal objections from state and local governments. The article states, “Governors and mayors have objected,” which is a direct measure of non-responsive decision-making from the federal executive branch.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thefulcrum.us