Conflicting Language Across Sources

There were conflicting reports on the status of the National Guard.

The Associated Press

The Associated Press published an article referencing Trump activating the National Guard.

The AP consistently used the exact language of "activate," stopping short of saying "deploy."

When referencing statements from public figures, they sometimes used "deploy," but only to acknowledge it as something that would happen rather than something that had already occurred.

The New York Times

The New York Times published an article that differentiated between activation and deployment. Although it came out hours before the press conference, it highlights how The New York Times treated the two concepts differently.

NYT editor Eric Schmitt explained that activation meant placing Guardsmen into active service, while deployment meant actually sending them to support law enforcement in the capital.

NYT cited an article from Reuters (Aug 10) which outlined the two processes separately. Activation was putting the Guard into active service, while deployment was the assignment to a specific mission.

Dispute Discussions

Naichli argued that every news article said the National Guard was deployed, which was untrue. The White House explicitly used "activation" and "mobilization." Many outlets blurred the terms, conflating activation with a current or future deployment.

Betterletter123 pointed out the inconsistency between headlines referencing "deployment" and the body text, which made clear that it had not yet happened.

Market Price Sentiment

Users also debated how market prices reflected trader sentiment about whether a qualifying deployment had occurred.

During these discussions, "Yes" shares ranged between 20¢ and 40¢. Around the time the White House memo and Department of Defense statement were released and the first proposal was submitted, prices were between 25¢ and 30¢.

Several users reasoned the low price reflected the risk of dispute and the spirit of the market, meaning deployment had not yet occurred.

Conflicting Language

HLB and Naichli argued over whether the official language counted as deployment.

The White House specifically used "mobilize" and "active service," which is not deployment.

The Department of Defense statement also used "mobilize" and "activated," while making note of a future deployment. It described the intended duties of the activated personnel but did not state that those duties had already begun.

Summary

Reports and statements consistently distinguished between activation and deployment, though some headlines blurred the two. The Department of Defense statement reinforced this distinction, noting that deployment would occur later in the week when the activated personnel began their duties. Market sentiment, reflected in low "Yes" prices, suggested most traders did not view activation as a qualifying deployment.

Coming Up

Having reviewed the conflicting reports on activation and deployment, we now turn to the disagreements over the spirit of the market.