A Trump administration official has allegedly claimed the US president has "plenary authority" while on a live interview with CNN.
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller made the comment in relation to deploying National Guard troops in Portland, Oregon.
But the viral moment came immediately after, when he appeared to cut himself off mid-sentence, leaving his statement incomplete.
Here's how things played out.
What happened?
In an interview with CNN, Mr Miller was asked whether he was planning to abide by a court order that would prevent the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland.
"Well, the administration filed an appeal this morning with the Ninth Circuit," he said.
"I would note the administration won an identical case in the Ninth Circuit just a few months ago with respect to the federalising of the California National Guard.
"Under Title 10 of the US Code, the president has plenary authority. Has —."
Mr Miller then appeared to freeze on camera mid-sentence.
Immediately after, CNN host Boris Sanchez suggested that there were some technical difficulties that forced them to take a commercial break.
"It seems, Stephen, I apologise. It seems like we're having a technical issue. We'll try to fix that and get back to you after a quick break," he said.
However, viewers on social media, where the video has since gone viral, suggested Mr Miller was still blinking, implying he deliberately stopped talking.
After the commercial break, Mr Sanchez then asked Mr Miller the question again.
But this time, Mr Miller omitted the word "plenary" from his response.
"But I was making the point that under federal law, Section Title 10 of the US Code, the president has the authority anytime he believes federal resources are insufficient, to federalise the National Guard to carry out a mission necessary for public safety."
CNN does have a transcript of the entire interview on its website, which includes the word "plenary" being used.
However, the official video posted on the CNN website and YouTube page appears to have cut out the initial question asked by Mr Sanchez.
CNN was contacted for comment but did not respond in time for publication.
What is plenary power?
It refers to a government official having absolute control on a matter, according to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.
That means a president with plenary power on a particular issue wouldn't need approval from other government bodies when making decisions.
Why is that claim controversial?
There is a long American tradition of keeping the federal military out of civilian affairs.
It all stems back to the reason why the nation was founded.
Having witnessed abuses by the British military during colonial times, the founding fathers feared giving a president absolute control over troops would erode civil liberties and the democratic process, constitutional scholars have said.
This principle is still revered in modern times and was the overarching theme behind the series of "No Kings" protests that took place against the Trump administration in June.
Under the US Constitution, governors generally have the authority to maintain order within the borders of their states.
So, does Trump have plenary power?
No.
Even the president of the United States must answer to authorities.
The US government has three branches that keep each other in check:
- The executive (run by the president)
- The legislative (Congress)
- The judiciary (the courts)
In the case of the National Guard deployments, the courts have been playing that role.
Officials in California, Illinois, Oregon and Washington DC have sued the Trump administration over its takeover of the states' National Guard troops, arguing the move violates a 19th-century law called the Posse Comitatus Act.
Judges have issued orders in some cases that have blocked the Trump administration from continuing.
While speaking with CNN, Mr Miller suggested Mr Trump had authority to deploy the National Guard under a provision called Title 10.
That's what the Trump administration has been arguing in the court cases.
But it may be difficult to mount this case.
Title 10 allows a president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country "is invaded", or when there is "a rebellion or danger of rebellion" against the authority of the government.
So judges need to weigh up whether an invasion, rebellion or even a reasonable threat of a rebellion is occurring.
In the cases brought by California and Oregon, the judges ruled those conditions had not been met for Title 10 to be a relevant argument.
What about the Insurrection Act?
Mr Trump has suggested he might use a law called the Insurrection Act to get past court orders and governors in the way of his plans.
The centuries-old law gives a president the power to deploy the military on home soil in the case of a domestic uprising.
It allows troops to take part in domestic law enforcement activities like making arrests and performing searches — functions they are normally not allowed to engage in.
That goes further than Title 10, which allows troops to help protect federal officers and property, but not conduct arrests.
The Insurrection Act has been invoked in the past, but its use has become exceedingly rare since the second half of the 20th century, a report by the Congressional Research Service says.
It was last used in 1992, after four Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in the beating of a Black man, sparking deadly riots.
California's governor at the time requested military aid from then-president George HW Bush to help stamp down the violence.
It's not clear what the outcome would be if Mr Trump decided to invoke the Insurrection Act to create a path for his plans with the National Guard.
Courts have historically been very reluctant to second-guess a president's military declarations, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled the president's decision to send in the military was entitled to a "great level of deference".
But some legal experts have argued this deference does not completely stop courts from reviewing the president's decisions.
The judge in the Oregon case wrote: "'A great level of deference' is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground" in her ruling against the Trump administration.
Who is Stephen Miller?
Stephen Miller is a Republican political adviser who serves as deputy chief of staff for policy and as homeland security adviser in Mr Trump's second administration.
He also wrote Mr Trump's inaugural address speech for his first presidential term in January 2017 and served as the president's senior policy adviser.
Mr Miller is known for his anti-immigration views.
Over the past two years, he has worked on immigration blueprints for Mr Trump, which include measures such as detaining and expelling undocumented migrants from the US.
In some circles, Mr Miller has been dubbed "the president's id".
An unnamed former Trump adviser told NBC "it's just now he has the leverage and power to fully effectuate it".
ABC/Reuters
