U.S. President Donald Trump is again in the news by his indication that he could invoke a law that predates the constitution by several centuries, the Insurrection Act of 1807, to put military forces within the United States.
The statute, permitting a president to deploy federal forces or seize control of the National Guard forces during unrest periods has not been used in decades. However, its resurgence as a topic of interest by Trump is creating a heated argument on just how much a president can go to ensure law and order in his homeland.
Insurrection Act is a relatively rare legal instrument that allowed a president to defeat state power and deploy the military on domestic territory. It was initially designed to deal with extreme situations what were rebellion, insurrection or situations where local governments are no longer able to maintain the peace. However, Trump has already indicated that he may exercise it even in cases where states do not request assistance, which opponents argue would amount to a grave exercise of power.
In an interview with reporters, Trump stated: We have the Insurrection Act because we need it. When we are killing people or mayors and governors are not letting us act, then sure I will. We need to ensure that our cities are secure. His utterances were made following months of sending National Guard troops into cities where Democrats held power such as Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C. Local leaders accused him of attempting to create anarchy and provide a reason to use federal force rather than to de-escalate.
The scandal intensified when a federal judge prevented Trump in deploying National Guard forces in Portland, Oregon a city that he had referred to as war-ravaged and besieged by domestic terrorists, yet with no clear demonstration. States like California, Illinois and Oregon have filed lawsuits claiming that his actions are against the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the military to enforce domestic law, and the Tenth Amendment, which vests policing authorities in the states. Had Trump declared the Insurrection Act, such protections would be then suspended, which would place him in a direct command of military force in the U.S.
The idea has been highly criticized by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul. This is not about emergency or reestablishing order it is about political targeting, said Raoul, using our own. Several interpret it as one among other attempts by Trump to increase presidential powers particularly where local leaders disagree with his policies.
Insurrection Act has been employed in American history about 30 times, nearly all of them during actual national crisis. It was called upon by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1957 to desegregate Little Rock, Arkansas schools. The most recent occasion on which it was deployed was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush deployed troops to Los Angeles to end the riots after the verdicts in the Rodney King case.
However, Trump seems to be more ready to employ the law on a political or symbolic basis. In his 2024 campaign, he even told his supporters in Iowa that he would not wait next time to get the approval of governors. Next time, I will not wait, he said, implying that he would take action independently in case he felt that local leaders were not doing enough.
Although Trump claims that invoking the act is a question of saving lives and reestablishing peace, critics perceive in it far more to complain about a president and his ability to exercise his military powers within his own territory. With or without his delivery, Trump has already cast a fresh and disturbing question on America: will the military be used to police Americans?
