Since Donald Trump’s rise to prominence in the 2016 presidential campaign and through his first term, out-of-office election-denial antics and his 2024 campaign, many supporters have built a cottage industry excusing his more extravagant claims. They’ve often said that Americans should take him seriously, but not literally. While it’s true President-elect Trump often engages in figurative rhetoric that’s best to ignore, we believe that Americans should take his plan for mass deportations both literally and seriously, given its prominence in his campaign. It’s real cause for concern. The “Mass Deportation Now” placards held by Trump supporters at his rallies were literally a sign of his intentions. Trump’s and Vice President J.D. Vance’s rhetorical attacks on Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were another — even though most of them are here legally and definitely were not eating pet cats and dogs. Then there’s this doozy. Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton posted the following on Truth Social: “GOOD NEWS: Reports are the incoming @RealDonaldTrump administration prepared to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program.” Trump responded to the post by writing “TRUE!!!” ABC News noted that Trump, at his Madison Square Garden rally at the end of his campaign, promised, “On Day 1, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out.” That statement includes wiggle room given its focus on criminals — and it’s still unclear how he might deploy military assets toward that end. The military has long provided operational assistance to border authorities, according to CBS News. “(L)ongstanding federal law generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement,” it noted, but exemptions exist. CBS quoted incoming border czar Tom Homan suggesting a more limited military role with Trump adviser Stephen Miller saying they might deputize the National Guard. Even if the Trump team finds some legal justification, the proposal raises serious constitutional and practical concerns. We’re most concerned by the idea of declaring a national emergency. That tactic is rarely used in this country because it gives the federal government limitless powers to conduct raids and is distinctively un-American. There’s also talk of creating large detainment facilities. This would entail invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the feds to deploy the military in the face of “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion ... (that) make it impracticable by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” Presidents rarely use such martial law-like powers and only for targeted situations — not for nationwide operations. Anyone who believes that only criminal aliens have reason to fear such an approach are forgetting why our nation’s Founding Fathers included myriad checks and balances in the Constitution, were so concerned about due-process rights and so intent on limiting the unilateral power of the federal executive branch. American citizens — and non-criminal illegal immigrants — almost certainly will get caught up in any dragnets. Conservatives who were rightly appalled at unilateral COVID-19 restrictions on our liberties should also oppose this type of power grab. The Orange County Register remains proud of its opposition to the Japanese-American internment during World War II. This editorial board will likewise oppose any similar abuses now. It’s too early to know the details, but we take the threats literally and seriously.

Biden administration to block Nippon Steel purchase of U.S. SteelThe Latest: UnitedHealthcare shooting suspect contests his extradition back to New YorkPresident-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday he planned to expedite federal regulatory approvals, including all environmental permits, for any company or individual proposing to invest $1 billion or more in a construction project. “Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals,” Trump wrote Tuesday afternoon on Truth Social . “GET READY TO ROCK!!!” The announcement on Trump’s own social network comes as lawmakers in Congress are working to pass a bipartisan bill aimed at easing federal permitting requirements, a step widely seen as necessary to hasten building of upgrades in roads, bridges and energy systems as aging infrastructure heaves under pressure from increasingly extreme weather and a growing population. During the first half of his term, President Joe Biden signed into law three landmark bills aimed at modernizing U.S. infrastructure. That includes the hundreds of billions of dollars earmarked in the Inflation Reduction Act for clean energy projects, marking arguably the largest government investment into meeting demand for fossil fuels with lower-carbon alternatives outside of China. But the federal permitting process that developed in the 55 years since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act slowed the deployment of those dollars as opponents of anything from a solar farm to a lithium mine to a natural gas pipeline seized on the country’s bedroom ecological-protection law to halt or delay projects with lawsuits. Obtaining final environmental permits for a project subject to the NEPA process takes on average 4 1/2 years, according to a 2020 study by the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The average for electrical transmission projects is even higher, with the majority taking 6 1/2 years to get final approvals. Since the cheapest technologies to generate zero-carbon renewable electricity ― such as wind turbines and solar panels ― require vast areas of land often far from the cities where power is used, transmission lines are seen as one of the main bottlenecks to bringing more clean power onto the grid. The bipartisan deal brokered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) sought to ease the process. But some environmental groups came out against what they called the “dirty deal” because the legislation benefited fossil fuel companies as well as clean-energy projects. Don't let this be the end of the free press. The free press is under attack — and America's future hangs in the balance. As other newsrooms bow to political pressure, HuffPost is not backing down. Would you help us keep our news free for all? We can't do it without you. Can't afford to contribute? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read. You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again . We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you. Whether you give once or many more times, we appreciate your contribution to keeping our journalism free for all. You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again . We view our mission to provide free, fair news as critically important in this crucial moment, and we can't do it without you. Whether you give just one more time or sign up again to contribute regularly, we appreciate you playing a part in keeping our journalism free for all. Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages. Progressive critics of the permitting overhaul argued instead for increasing staffing and budgets at federal agencies to add more capacity to assess and make judgments on applications. But some of the Democrats’ most prominent self-described climate hawks in Congress backed the bill Manchin negotiated, citing repeated analyses showing that the permitting reform package promised to slash more planet-heating emissions on net by helping clean-energy projects reach the finish line than it contributed by clearing the way for more gas infrastructure. Unless Congress manages to pass the bill in the coming weeks, the GOP majorities set to control both the Senate and the House of Representatives are unlikely to enact the compromise package. It’s unclear, however, what Republicans may propose as an alternative. While some top GOP leaders have vowed to gut the Inflation Reduction Act, others have pleaded with colleagues to preserve much of the clean-energy spending, which has overwhelmingly gone to red and purple states. The changes to energy policy come as the U.S. is experiencing its first major uptick in demand for electricity in three decades thanks to the need for more data centers to power artificial intelligence software, more air conditioners to keep Americans cool amid worsening heat waves, and record purchases of electric vehicles. At the same time, the U.S. power grid is becoming less reliable and more expensive as dependable coal and nuclear plants shut down in favor of gas and renewables that, while cheap individually, have driven up electricity costs in many markets where the two sectors combined make up the majority of power generation. Trump pledged on the campaign trail to slash electricity prices, and drive up U.S. oil and gas production up beyond the record levels set under Biden. Related From Our Partner

Packers wide receiver Romeo Doubs leaves game because of concussion

Limerick organisations encouraged to apply for Rethink Ireland funding