Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
President Donald Trump this week repeatedly suggested he might invoke the Insurrection Act — a centuries-old law granting sweeping domestic powers to the commander in chief — to quell what he described as “lawlessness” in American cities, signaling a potential escalation in his administration’s approach to domestic unrest.
“It’s been invoked before,” Trump told reporters Tuesday, adding, “We want safe cities.” He said he would consider using it “if necessary,” echoing language he used in his first term, though he never followed through then.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement that the president “has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets” and “will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities.”
The remarks, while vague, mark Trump’s most explicit reference yet this term to using the military for internal security — a move that would deepen existing tensions between the White House and state governments already feuding over federal authority, civil liberties, and the use of force.
A sweeping presidential power rooted in early U.S. law
The Insurrection Act, first signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807, allows a president to deploy active-duty U.S. troops and federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement under limited but flexible circumstances.
Ordinarily, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits using the military as a domestic police force. But the Insurrection Act is the main exception — giving presidents broad discretion to respond to “rebellion,” “unlawful combinations,” or “domestic violence” that hinders enforcement of federal law.
The law has been invoked multiple times in American history, most famously by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957, and by President George H.W. Bush during the 1992 Los Angeles riots at the request of California officials.
It hasn’t been used in over three decades. But its language — unchanged since the 19th century — gives modern presidents considerable room to interpret what constitutes an “insurrection” or “domestic violence.”
A 2022 review by the Brennan Center for Justice called the act “so bafflingly broad that it cannot possibly mean what it says,” warning that it effectively lets a president determine what counts as rebellion and when it has been suppressed.
Trump’s expansive view of ‘insurrection’
Trump, who was impeached in 2021 for inciting insurrection on January 6, has since used the word with growing frequency. On Monday, he mentioned “insurrection” five times while speaking to reporters and conservative media outlets.
“Portland is on fire. Portland’s been on fire for years,” he said from the Oval Office. “We have to save something else, because I think that’s all insurrection — really criminal insurrection.”
Later, in an interview with Newsmax, Trump described unrest in West Coast cities as “pure insurrection” and accused Democrats of tolerating “anarchy and chaos.”
By Tuesday, his rhetoric had broadened even further. “These Democrats are like insurrectionists,” he told reporters, referring to congressional opponents blocking his new domestic spending proposal.
His definition of “insurrection” — encompassing everything from urban protests to political opposition — underscores the potential for a sweeping interpretation of the Insurrection Act should he decide to use it.
Legal experts say that latitude is precisely what worries civil rights advocates and constitutional scholars.
“Historically, presidents have invoked this act in moments of grave crisis — not to make a political point or to punish their critics,” said Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security. “The danger lies in its vagueness. Once the president calls in the military, there are very few checks on what happens next.”
Military use and legal gray zones
The Trump administration has already faced legal scrutiny for using military and National Guard forces in domestic operations.
Last year, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that federal forces violated the Posse Comitatus Act when they performed crowd control and traffic enforcement duties during protests in Los Angeles over immigration policy. The court found the administration “systematically used armed soldiers” to police civilians without invoking the Insurrection Act, making their actions unlawful.
“The evidence at trial established that defendants used soldiers and military vehicles to set up perimeters, block traffic, and manage crowds — all of which are law enforcement functions,” Breyer wrote. The administration is appealing the decision, and an appellate court has stayed the ruling pending review.
If Trump formally invokes the Insurrection Act, such actions would gain a legal foundation — though at significant political cost. The move would almost certainly face immediate lawsuits and inflame tensions between federal and local authorities, particularly in Democratic-run states.
“Invoking the act would essentially allow the president to deploy troops to cities without permission from governors or mayors,” said Samuel Issacharoff, a constitutional law professor at New York University. “That’s a Rubicon we haven’t crossed in decades.”
A political and constitutional flashpoint
Trump’s renewed mention of the Insurrection Act comes as his administration leans increasingly on executive authority to enforce domestic policy — from immigration crackdowns to housing mandates — and as protests continue over policing, housing, and inflation-driven inequality in major cities.
In private conversations, aides have reportedly urged restraint, fearing images of federal troops in U.S. streets could alienate suburban voters just as the White House tries to project economic recovery and order ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Still, Trump’s public language suggests he sees potential political value in threatening such a move, particularly with his base.
“He’s not saying he’s going to do it,” said one senior Republican strategist familiar with internal discussions. “He’s saying he’s willing to — and that’s the point. It projects strength.”
But to critics, even the suggestion of invoking the Insurrection Act underscores how far the White House is willing to go in reasserting federal dominance over dissent.
“This isn’t about law and order,” McCord said. “It’s about power — and the willingness to use the tools of the state to enforce political loyalty.”
