Why Trump's threat to use Insurrection Act is about more than restoring order

Donald Trump

As hundreds of Texas National Guard troops prepared to patrol the streets of Chicago on Tuesday, Donald Trump’s vow to invoke the centuries-old Insurrection Act has sharpened his standoff with Democratic-led cities and reignited debate over the limits of presidential authority.

On Monday, the president told reporters, “We have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If people were being killed and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that.” His remarks followed court battles challenging his decision to send Guard troops into major U.S. cities over the objections of state and local officials.

The Insurrection Act, first passed in 1792, allows the president to deploy military forces domestically to control unrest or rebellion. Historically, it has been used sparingly -- and usually at the request of governors. The last president to invoke it was George H.W. Bush during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

Trump’s insistence on using the military inside U.S. cities marks a dramatic expansion of executive power. Last week, he told military leaders that American cities could serve as “training grounds” for troops, a statement that alarmed Democrats and civil liberties advocates.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker accused the president of deliberately provoking conflict. “Donald Trump is using our service members as political props and as pawns in his illegal effort to militarize our nation’s cities,” Pritzker said.

Illinois and Chicago filed a lawsuit Monday to block Trump’s order to federalize 300 Illinois Guard members and bring in an additional 400 from Texas. During a court hearing, Justice Department lawyers said that hundreds of Texas troops were already en route to Illinois. Judge April Perry allowed the deployment to continue temporarily but ordered the federal government to respond to the state’s complaint by Wednesday.

Meanwhile, a separate federal court in Oregon issued a temporary injunction halting the administration’s plan to send Guard troops to Portland. National Guard units typically answer to state governors and are primarily mobilized for natural disasters or emergencies.

Since Trump increased federal presence in Chicago last month, the city has seen relatively calm conditions despite the president’s claims of “war zone” chaos. While a handful of protests have taken place, particularly outside an immigration processing facility in Broadview, most of Chicago’s residents have continued normal routines -- commuting, attending theaters, and enjoying the warm fall weather.

Outside the Broadview facility, however, confrontations between demonstrators and federal officers have escalated. Agents stationed on the roof have fired tear gas and rubber bullets into crowds, injuring several people, including a journalist. Multiple arrests have been made during these standoffs.

The Defense Department has said that Guard troops have limited authority to detain individuals “to prevent immediate harm.” Still, a federal judge in Los Angeles previously ruled that troops there exceeded their authority when they blocked traffic and controlled crowds during immigration raids. The administration has appealed that ruling, arguing that such measures were necessary to protect federal agents.

Legal scholars suggest that Trump’s possible use of the Insurrection Act would face swift court challenges. The Supreme Court has held that the president alone determines whether the act’s conditions have been met -- specifically, whether “unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages or rebellion” threaten federal authority.

Historically, the law has been invoked only in moments of severe crisis -- from the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion to the deployment of troops against the Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War. The last instance of a president sending troops into a state without a governor’s consent occurred in 1965, when Lyndon B. Johnson acted to protect civil rights marchers in Montgomery, Alabama.

As tensions rise, Trump’s threat to use the Insurrection Act underscores his willingness to override state opposition -- a move that could test the balance of power between the White House and the nation’s governors like few moments in modern U.S. history.

With inputs from Reuters