In the nine months since Donald Trump’s dramatic return to the White House, the nation has witnessed a series of moves that have both alarmed and galvanized Americans across the political spectrum. Trump’s agenda, as reported by EL PAÍS, has become increasingly clear: weaken the United States abroad while consolidating power at home, in what critics argue is an effort to establish a form of dictatorship. The president’s use of the military—both as a symbol and a tool—has taken center stage in this contentious political drama, leaving many to wonder just how far the administration might go, and how the country will respond.
Recent weeks have laid bare the contours of this new reality. Deployments of National Guard troops and even Marines in U.S. cities have been described as a “show of force,” with critics calling these moves illegal and clearly intended to intimidate. The rationale, they say, is not to defend the country from external threats, but to police American streets—a sharp departure from longstanding precedents about the appropriate use of the armed forces. According to EL PAÍS, such deployments are “the political equivalent of a lit fuse,” risking incidents that could be used to justify even greater crackdowns.
Nowhere has this been more visible than in Portland, Oregon, where Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops to protect immigration officers and federal facilities. In a post on Truth Social, the president vowed to use “full force” if necessary to defend what he described as a “war ravaged Portland.” This announcement came just days before a high-level military meeting in Virginia, which Trump plans to attend in person, according to CNN. The meeting, billed as a morale-boosting gathering for top generals and admirals, is expected to focus on new readiness requirements, physical fitness, and appearance standards—part of Trump’s ongoing campaign to reshape the military in his image.
The financial and organizational scale of the Virginia meeting is staggering. Sources told CNN that transporting hundreds of generals and their aides could cost millions of dollars, raising eyebrows about the necessity and timing of such an event. Despite speculation that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth might use the occasion to announce a major shift—transforming the Department of Defense into a so-called Department of War—no such announcement was planned as of late September. Instead, the event is expected to serve as a demonstration of “the strength of what the new army under the president’s leadership looks like now,” with an emphasis on martial spirit and discipline.
Trump’s assertive use of the military has not gone unnoticed by political leaders at every level. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, for example, rejected a federal deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago, forcing the administration to back down—at least temporarily. This refusal, sometimes described as “soft secession,” highlights the growing standoff between state governments and the Trump administration on issues ranging from law enforcement to climate change. As EL PAÍS notes, Democratic state governments have become an anti-authoritarian bulwark, invoking the same “states’ rights” arguments once used by Republicans to resist federal authority in the civil rights era.
But support for Trump’s approach is far from universal. In Portland, reactions to the president’s threats and deployments have been deeply polarized. Former Oregon congresswoman and current U.S. labor secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer publicly praised Trump, saying, “I’ve seen firsthand how lawlessness has transformed Portland from a beautiful place to live to a crime-ridden war zone.” She thanked the president for his commitment to protect ICE facilities and urged decisive action. Meanwhile, U.S. Border Czar Tom Homan had already signaled plans to boost the presence of ICE agents in the city, intensifying the debate over federal intervention.
Yet, as the armed vehicles rolled into Portland, a parallel drama was unfolding online. Social media posts and viral threads on platforms like Reddit and X (formerly Twitter) speculated that Trump’s military moves were not just about quelling unrest, but also about distracting from newly released Epstein files. These documents, according to critics cited by SnDMediaNews, reportedly contain verified schedules, flight manifests, and financial records linking Jeffrey Epstein to Trump’s donors, operatives, and inner circle. The timing of the troop deployment, they argue, is suspicious—an attempt to shift public attention away from explosive revelations that could threaten the administration’s legitimacy.
Lev Parnas, a businessman involved in the Ukraine scandal during Trump’s first term and now a podcast host, put it bluntly: “While Trump plays dictator, turning ICE and the military on our own people and tearing at the very fabric of our Constitution, he’s also running a shell game to hide what really scares him — his kryptonite. And that kryptonite is the truth buried in the Epstein files.” The files reportedly include records of meetings between Epstein and figures such as Steve Bannon and Peter Thiel, as well as a note referencing Elon Musk. Although Trump himself is not named in the files, the presence of his associates has fueled a firestorm of speculation and outrage.
Not everyone is convinced by the distraction theory. Some social media users argue that the new files “showed nothing new,” and point out that much of the information had been circulating for years. Others focus on the local dynamics in Portland, noting that city officials had moved to evict ICE from their headquarters and accused federal agents of instigating conflicts with protesters. This local resistance, combined with the broader national debate, has made Portland a flashpoint in the struggle over the future of American democracy.
Amid these swirling controversies, Trump’s supporters continue to frame his actions as necessary steps to restore order and strengthen the nation. The president himself has long advocated increased Pentagon spending and a tougher, more disciplined military, arguing that only a strong show of force can deter threats both foreign and domestic. Yet, for many critics, the real threat lies not outside America’s borders, but within—a creeping authoritarianism that, if left unchecked, could fundamentally alter the nation’s character.
As the country stands at this crossroads, the outcome remains uncertain. The fate of American democracy, as EL PAÍS observes, may depend on whether citizens and state leaders choose to resist or acquiesce to the new order. With the stakes so high, the coming months promise to test the nation’s resolve—and its commitment to the principles that have long defined it.
