OUR PICKS: DEMOCRACY WATCHThe Appalling Campaign to Erase Jan. 6 Never Ends | A Perilous Difference Between the Trump and Nixon Eras | Trump Deploys Tactics and Language of War Against Perceived Domestic Threats, and more

Trump Has Not Ruled Out Invoking Insurrection Act to Deploy National Guard, Vance Says  (Ashley Ahn, New York Times)
Vice President JD Vance asserted in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that crime was “out of control” in major U.S. cities. 

How a Trump Judge Exposed the Trump Con  (David French, New York Times)
Earlier this month, a Trump—appointed federal did the worst thing you can do to Trump in a court of law: She took him seriously. She read his words, found them disconnected from reality and acted accordingly.
Trump’s National Guard deployments offers an example. He’s posting wildly false statements about American cities online, and then he’s directing that soldiers be sent to cities governed by Democrats, even though none of the historic circumstances that have justified military deployments in the past — like widespread unrest — are present.
But when Trump faces lawsuits, he defends his deployments by leaning on the deference earned by other presidents through their responsible use of power. Because other presidents were deemed trustworthy, his representatives argue, the courts should trust Trump, too.
In Portland, Ore., however, a Trump appointee — Judge Karin Immergut of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon — said no. She refused to play Trump’s game and instead held him accountable for his words. There is no deference due to a president who refuses to operate in good faith.
“This country,” she wrote, “has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs.”
“This is a nation,” she continued, “of constitutional law, not martial law.”
That’s correct. Dishonest presidents should be entitled to no deference at all.