🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump has once again threatened to invoke the Act of Insurrection, legislation that authorizes the US president to send armed forces on domestic territory. This move is seen as a method to control the activation of the state guard as courts and state leaders in cities under Democratic control continue to stymie his attempts.

Is this permissible, and what are the consequences? Below is key information about this centuries-old law.

What is the Insurrection Act?

The statute is a US federal law that provides the US president the authority to send the military or federalize national guard troops within the United States to quell internal rebellions.

The act is commonly called the 1807 Insurrection Act, the period when Jefferson signed it into law. However, the contemporary act is a combination of regulations established between the late 18th and 19th centuries that outline the role of US military forces in civilian policing.

Typically, US troops are not allowed from performing police functions against the public unless during emergency situations.

The law permits military personnel to participate in civilian law enforcement such as detaining suspects and executing search operations, tasks they are generally otherwise prohibited from engaging in.

A legal expert commented that National Guard units cannot legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless the president initially deploys the law, which allows the use of military forces inside the US in the event of an civil disturbance.

This step heightens the possibility that military personnel could resort to violence while filling that “protection” role. Furthermore, it could be a harbinger to other, more aggressive military deployments in the time ahead.

“There is no activity these troops are permitted to undertake that, such as law enforcement agents targeted by these rallies could not do independently,” the commentator remarked.

Historical Uses of the Insurrection Act

This law has been invoked on dozens of occasions. This and similar statutes were employed during the rights movement in the 1960s to protect activists and students integrating schools. Eisenhower deployed the 101st airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas to protect Black students entering Central high school after the governor activated the national guard to keep the students out.

Since the civil rights movement, however, its application has become “exceedingly rare”, as per a report by the Congressional Research.

Bush invoked the law to respond to unrest in the city in 1992 after law enforcement filmed beating the African American driver the individual were cleared, causing deadly riots. The state’s leader had requested armed assistance from the president to suppress the unrest.

Trump’s History with the Insurrection Act

Trump suggested to invoke the act in the summer when California governor took legal action against him to stop the deployment of military forces to accompany immigration authorities in LA, labeling it an “illegal deployment”.

In 2020, he urged state executives of several states to deploy their state forces to the capital to control rallies that broke out after Floyd was died by a officer. Several of the governors consented, dispatching forces to the capital district.

Then, the president also suggested to deploy the law for demonstrations following Floyd’s death but ultimately refrained.

As he ran for his second term, the candidate indicated that this would alter. He informed an group in the state in last year that he had been hindered from employing armed forces to quell disturbances in locations during his previous administration, and commented that if the situation came up again in his future term, “I will not hesitate.”

He has also vowed to deploy the national guard to assist in his border control aims.

He stated on Monday that so far it had not been necessary to invoke the law but that he would evaluate the option.

“We have an Insurrection Law for a cause,” the former president stated. “In case people were being killed and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, certainly, I would act.”

Why is the Insurrection Act so controversial?

The nation has a strong American tradition of maintaining the federal military out of public life.

The framers, having witnessed abuses by the British military during the colonial era, feared that giving the chief executive total authority over military forces would weaken civil liberties and the democratic system. As per founding documents, governors generally have the right to ensure stability within state borders.

These ideals are reflected in the Posse Comitatus Act, an historic legislation that typically prohibited the military from engaging in civil policing. The Insurrection Act functions as a legislative outlier to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Rights organizations have consistently cautioned that the law provides the commander-in-chief extensive control to use the military as a internal security unit in methods the founding fathers did not intend.

Judicial Review of the Insurrection Act

Judges have been hesitant to challenge a president’s military declarations, and the federal appeals court noted that the commander’s action to deploy troops is entitled to a “significant judicial deference”.

But