The governors of several states are sending hundreds of additional National Guard troops to the nation’s capital.

Trump administration officials reportedly say some National Guard members in Washington, D.C. may now carry firearms, reversing previous assurances that all troops would be unarmed.

That worries one former Detroit police chief and deputy mayor.

Isaiah McKinnon was a young police officer working with National Guard troops when violence broke out in Detroit during July of 1967.

McKinnon says he’s had concerns for decades whenever the U.S. military mixes with the nation’s civilian population.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length

Isaiah McKinnon: I’m always skeptical because my experiences going back to the late 1960’s with the National Guard were not good. I hope that people understand this is not a dig at the National Guard troops themselves. But I think that if we use people who are not trained in law enforcement, it’s like a police officer going to war in a foreign country. You’re not trained for that. You’re trained to deal with domestic type situations. And that bothers me. Because when I saw the National Guard here in Detroit and the things that they did, it was frightening and scary.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: That would have been during the 1967 Detroit riots or rebellion, depending on who you talk to, when you were not the chief but a police officer. Why was working with the Guard scary?

IM: They assigned a squad of National Guard people with me, a young officer. We were riding in Jeeps. I had been in Vietnam as an Air Force person and watched the military, and I was impressed with how they reacted to certain situations. But these National Guard people in Detroit, they were young people too. They asked me, “How are we going to do this? What are we going to do?” And I said, “Guys, listen, what we’ll do is we’ll look for looters. We’ll look for people that’s doing wrong things and bad things. And if we have to lock them up, that’s what we’ll do.” Well, as we’re driving in our Jeeps down the streets and patrolling one National Guard member said, “There’s someone moving up in the window on one of the streets.” It was, I think, Chicago Blvd. He started shooting at the window. I said, “Wait a minute! Did you see anyone? Did you see a gun or something?” “No, but it was suspicious.” You don’t shoot on suspicions. Those are the things that scared me because they had no idea of what they were there for. Doing things like shooting the street lights out because they don’t want people to see them. Now, we are years past that. But what are these guys [in Washington, D.C.] going to do when they come into a community? If there’s a domestic situation, are they thinking that they have to use ultimate force to take someone down?

QK: In a military situation, that’s what they would do, right? Try to get rid of the lights or that kind of thing.

IM: Yeah. But I saw National Guardsmen shoot at people and thank God they missed. In fact, my brother, who is now deceased, he told me a similar story. He was walking down 12th Street in Detroit and a number of National Guard people came in that area. They told the people to leave and the people started yelling and screaming back at them, which is a normal thing that people in these kinds of situations do. So, they started shooting at people. And I’m going, again, my God. These are the experiences that I’ve had and other law enforcement people have had. We don’t want to knock the National Guard. But when you bring someone into a domestic situation one has to be trained, for their safety and for the safety of the people that they might be interacting with.

QK: Now, to be fair, a Pentagon spokesperson claims that these particular National Guards people have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control. And I know the Guard does help in certain natural disaster situations. But the Pentagon is also saying that the National Guard in Washington is going to, “Provide a safe environment for law enforcement officers so they can make arrests and be a visible deterrent for violent crime.”

IM: I would have to see it to believe it. I think people say things to make it sound better. But the reality is that you don’t know until they’re there and they have these interactions with people, someone screaming, yelling, throwing bricks and bottles at you. Do they start using ultimate force on them? Police officers have gone through countless hours of training about dealing with these kinds of situations. You can’t just go into a city and say, “My people are trained, they can handle that to relieve the officers.” So they relieve the officers and then what happens? What is making something safer for a police officer who’s responding to a situation or patrolling an area? It appears to be a convenient thing to say. But the reality is, we’ll see as things go on.

QK: You have experience as an officer and police chief and also as a deputy mayor. So you’ve been on both sides of governing and running a police department. President Trump says there is an emergency situation in Washington, D.C., so therefore he’s had to act. Others say they fear he could do the same thing in some other large cities. From your vantage point, do you fear that this could be the precursor, somehow, of the president, in effect, trying to take over police departments across the country?

IM: The proof is in what is happening right now. You had the mayor of Los Angeles who said, “We don’t need you.” The governor said the same thing. So did the mayor in Washington, D.C. If there’s a need to make the officers safer, let us hire more officers who are trained regularly to handle these kinds of situations. We’ve seen what has happened in other locations, whether it’s untrained officers or untrained troops that go in, it does not help the situation in that respective city. There’s a distrust of police officers. But there’s even more distrust of someone who comes in who the community doesn’t even know. I’ve seen this in all my years and it’s frightening to me, when you bring in troops. Someone said to me last night, “Dr. McKinnon, I never thought we would see troops patrolling the streets of our cities when there’s not a rebellion, there’s not a riot, there’s not these horrible things going on, but under the auspices of ‘We’re going to make things safer for the police.’” The way you make things safer for the police is, number one, hiring more law enforcement officers. Number two, you deal with the mental health situations of people and other things to calm or quell the actions that are going on in a respective location.

The Trump administration wants American museums to be less critical of our history. 

On Tuesday, the White House called for a “comprehensive internal review” of eight Smithsonian museums. They want institutions to celebrate American exceptionalism instead of discussing race and America’s racial history, and to avoid negatively discussing the president. 

Already, one Smithsonian museum changed its exhibit about President Donald Trump. It omitted that the president made false statements challenging his 2020 election loss, as well as a statement that said Trump delivered a speech encouraging lawless action at the Capitol. 

The current administration says it wants our museums to end partisanship and to “restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.” But many worry that, instead, the president is stoking an already-heated culture war and limiting free speech.

How should these museums respond to political pressure? How should American museums react to criticism and make appropriate changes? And, what is their role in critiquing and celebrating American life?

We asked Devon Akmon, Director of Michigan State University Museum and core faculty member in MSU’s Arts, Cultural Management & Museum Studies program for his perspective. 

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or NPR or wherever you get your podcasts.

More stories from The Metro

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans on Tuesday advanced President Donald Trump’s request to cancel some $9 billion in previously approved spending, overcoming concerns from some lawmakers about what the rescissions could mean for impoverished people around the globe and for public radio and television stations in their home states.

The Senate vote was 50-50, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie.

A final vote in the Senate could occur as early as Wednesday. The bill would then return to the House for another vote before it would go to Trump’s desk for his signature before a Friday deadline.

Republicans winnowed down the president’s request by taking out his proposed $400 million cut to a program known as PEPFAR. That change increased the prospects for the bill’s passage. The politically popular program is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under then-President George W. Bush to combat HIV/AIDS.

The president is also looking to claw back money for foreign aid programs targeted by his Department of Government Efficiency and for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“When you’ve got a $36 trillion debt, we have to do something to get spending under control,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

The White House tries to win over skeptics

Republicans met with Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, during their weekly conference luncheon as the White House worked to address their concerns. He fielded about 20 questions from senators.

The White House campaign to win over potential holdouts had some success. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., tweeted that he would vote to support the measure after working with the administration to “find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption.”

Some senators worried that the cuts to public media could decimate many of the 1,500 local radio and television stations around the country that rely on some federal funding to operate. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes more than 70% of its funding to those stations.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she was particularly concerned about a lack of specifics from the White House.

“The rescissions package has a big problem — nobody really knows what program reductions are in it,” Collins said. “That isn’t because we haven’t had time to review the bill. Instead, the problem is that OMB has never provided the details that would normally be part of this process.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she didn’t want the Senate to be going through numerous rounds of rescissions.

“We are lawmakers. We should be legislating,” Murkowski said. “What we’re getting now is a direction from the White House and being told: ‘This is the priority and we want you to execute on it. We’ll be back with you with another round.’ I don’t accept that.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Collins and Murkowski joined with Democrats in voting against the Senate taking up the measure.

McConnell said he wanted to make clear he didn’t have any problem with reducing spending, but agreed with Collins that lawmakers didn’t have enough details from the White House.

“They would like a blank check is what they would like. And I don’t think that’s appropriate,” McConnell said.

But the large majority of Republicans were supportive of Trump’s request.

“This bill is a first step in a long but necessary fight to put our nation’s fiscal house in order,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.

Democrats warn of the consequences

Democrats warned that it’s absurd to expect them to work with Republicans on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don’t like.

“It shreds the appropriations process,” said Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats. “The Appropriations Committee, and indeed this body, becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the administration wants.”

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that tens of millions of Americans rely on local public radio and television stations for local news, weather alerts and educational programs. He warned that many could lose access to that information because of the rescissions.

“And these cuts couldn’t come at a worse time,” Schumer said. “The floods in Texas remind us that speedy alerts and up-to-the-minute forecasts can mean the difference between life and death.”

Democrats also scoffed at the GOP’s stated motivation for taking up the bill. The amount of savings pales compared to the $3.4 trillion in projected deficits over the next decade that Republicans put in motion in passing Trump’s big tax and spending cut bill two weeks ago.

“Now, Republicans are pretending they are concerned about the debt,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. “So concerned that they need to shut down local radio stations, so concerned they are going to cut off ‘Sesame Street.’ … The idea that that is about balancing the debt is laughable.”

What’s ahead in the Senate

With Republicans providing enough votes to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama. The House has already shown its support for the president’s request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but since the Senate is amending the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote.

Republicans who vote against the measure also face the prospect of incurring Trump’s wrath. He has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the rescissions package. He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,” he said.

–Reporting by Kevin Freking, The Associated Press. Congressional correspondent Lisa Mascaro and staff writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Stephen Groves contributed.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling Thursday prohibiting President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.

Judge Joseph LaPlante issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s order and certified a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected. The order, which followed an hour-long hearing, included a seven-day stay to allow for appeal.

The judge’s decision puts the birthright citizenship issue on a fast track to return to the Supreme Court. The justices could be asked to rule whether the order complies with their decision last month that limited judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

The class is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who wanted to include parents, but attorneys said that wouldn’t make a material difference.

“This is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It’s among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

At issue is the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.

LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge.

As in New Hampshire, a plaintiff in Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization.

Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic.

“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”

The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife’s father is a U.S. citizen.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote.

Reporting by Holly Ramer and Mike Catalini, Associated Press.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.

The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.

But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump’s order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.

The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Enforcement of the policy can’t take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.

The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

The president, making a rare appearance to hold a news conference in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “The court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.” This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court.

Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of “putative nationwide class.” Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion.

States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.

“We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed on his first day in office.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.

But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption.

Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration.

The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.

The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.

The justice also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.

–Reporting by Mark Sherman, Associated Press