'It's a signal': Ex-Trump insider flags evidence president's plan is 'beginning to crack'
U.S. President Donald Trump wears a "Gulf of America" hat as he departs en route to Florida, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., July 1, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

Donald Trump received a legal smackdown from a judge the president himself appointed, and a former Trump insider sees it as a "signal" for what is coming next.

Raw Story reported on the "bombshell ruling," in which Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, ruled that Trump's National Guard call-up to Portland was based on false claims about unrest in the liberal city. That ruling also made waves online.

Enter Soviet-born Parnas, who worked closely with Rudy Giuliani during Trump's first administration, and was purportedly sent to Ukraine to help Trump and Giuliani make contacts there for the purposes of digging up negative info on Hunter Biden. Parnas was later convicted of campaign finance violations, and today the analyst reports on Trump from outside the administration.

"I’m writing with good news — real good news — and as soon as I heard it, I knew I had to share it with you right away," Parnas wrote on Substack after the ruling. "A federal judge — one that Trump himself appointed — just ruled that Trump cannot deploy the National Guard into Portland, at least for the next two weeks."

According to Parnas, this is more than just a procedural win in court. It could be a sign that Trump's policies are beginning to meet checks and balances, the analyst suggested

"Think about that: even judges he hand-picked are starting to push back against his most dangerous power grabs," according to Parnas. "This isn’t just a legal win — it’s a signal that the walls around Trump’s authoritarian playbook are beginning to crack."

Parnas continued, highlighting what he sees as an important quote from the ruling.

"In her ruling, Judge Karin Immergut — a Trump appointee — wrote, 'This is a nation of constitutional law, not of martial law.' Those words matter," he wrote. "They carry the weight of history. She made it clear that no president, no matter how powerful or angry, can bypass the Constitution to use the U.S. military against American citizens. Coming from someone he appointed, this is more than a courtroom decision — it’s a line drawn in the sand."

Read the full piece here.