" .... it seems that the ones that are run by the radical-left Democrats — what they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war, too. It’s a war from within...
“I told Pete we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military — National Guard, but military,” he said. Then, he told them of the preparations he was taken to implement this plan. “Last month, I signed an executive order to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control.”
"Only in recent decades did politicians somehow come to believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia while America is under invasion from within. We’re under invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms... At least when they’re wearing a uniform, you can take them out. These people don’t have uniforms. But we are under invasion from within.”
Donald Trump, 30 September 2025
On 06 October 2025, Trump told reporters at the Oval Office that he was open to invoking the Insurrection Act. "If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I'd do that," Trump said. "I want to make sure people aren't killed. We have to make sure our cities are safe." White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement 07 October 2025 that federal law enforcement officers had been “attacked and assaulted by left wing rioters” during the protests, and that officers “took appropriate action” to protect themselves and federal facilities. “Individuals are free to peacefully protest, but they cannot violently riot or attack law enforcement without consequence,” she said.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin claimed federal officers had faced increased assaults at the protests in Chicago, saying the First Amendment protects “speech and peaceful assembly — not rioting.” She said “We remind members of the media to exercise caution as they cover these violent riots and remind journalists that covering unlawful activities in the field does come with risks — though our officers take every reasonable precaution to mitigate those dangers to those exercising protected First Amendment rights”.
Insurrection Act
There was no crime or terrorism emergency requiring the dispatch of National Guard personnel into cities where they’re not wanted, and there was no ongoing “invasion” of the country by asylum seekers. s Trump entered office in 2025crime was falling, and withi months thereafter irregular border crossings had plummeted. Instead of proclaiming victory, Trump fanned the flames of crisis, claiming for some reason that the nation urgently required unprecedented troop deployments in American cities governed by Democrats.
White House officials held increasingly serious discussions in recent days about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act, a law that gives the president the power to deploy active-duty troops inside the U.S. for law enforcement purposes, according to NBC News 08 October 2025. According to unnamed senior White House officials, “debate within the administration has shifted recently to more deeply exploring how and when the act might be invoked.” According to two White House sources, administration officials have gone so far as to “draft legal defenses and various options for invoking the act.”
Trump said 06 October 2025 he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act "if it was necessary," particularly if courts or state/local officials delay his plans to deploy National Guard troops to cities like Portland and Chicago. He stated: "If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure I'd do that". White House aide Stephen Miller then called federal court rulings against the deployment of the National Guard to Oregon an “insurrection.”
In a flurry of television appearances, interviews and social media posts, Stephen Miller escalated his rhetoric to newly incendiary levels. Miller, President Trump’s deputy chief of staff, was answering a CNN anchor’s question from the White House lawn on 06 October 2025 when he stopped midsentence, falling silent and blinking at the camera. "Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president has plenary authority. Has --" Sanchez then said, "Stephen, I apologize. It seems like we’re having a technical issue," the show went to break and when it returned, Sanchez said, "wires got crossed."
Trump hosted an extraordinary “roundtable” meeting at the White House 08 October 2025 to discuss the necessary actions to crush “Antifa”. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem equated “Antifa” with “ISIS, Hezbollah, and Hamas,” while Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to “destroy the entire organization from top to bottom.”
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker warned that Trump's military deployment actions are aimed at stealing the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential elections, and compared the administration's tactics to those of the Nazis. Senator Bernie Sanders posted a statement acknowledging that Trump “is threatening to arrest elected officials and is moving this country to authoritarianism,” adding, “We won’t let you destroy our way of life.”
Some analysts have warned that Trump could potentially invoke the Insurrection Act to delay or suspend elections if other options appear unavailable, noting that he threatened to invoke it in 2020 during George Floyd protests and again in June 2025 during Los Angeles protests. There is no direct evidence of an explicit "plan" by Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act specifically to control the 2026 midterms. What exists is: (1) Trump's stated willingness to invoke the Act for his city deployments, (2) concerns from critics that his actions could affect elections, and (3) analysis suggesting the Act could theoretically be misused for electoral purposes. The Insurrection Act itself doesn't grant authority to suspend elections.
The data suggests Trump's policies are unpopular with a majority of Americans, and historical patterns point toward significant Democratic gains in 2026—though the outcome will depend on many factors including turnout, economic conditions, and how the political landscape evolves over the next year. The Insurrection Act controls when the President can use components of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes. The Insurrection Act is one of the major exemptions to longstanding statutes but also the distinctive American tradition not to involve the military in domestic law enforcement. One of the characteristics of America is not to have the military patrol communities, but rather to have local law enforcement doing it. Actions taken under the Insurrection Act are exempt from the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act. The courts have held that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to guard members called to duty by the governor. This means that governors may use their own guard members or guard personnel from neighboring states to perform law enforcement functions without violating the act.
US President Donald Trump on 30 September 2025 said the army would be enlisted to quell civil disturbances and fight "the enemy from within" as he addressed hundreds of US military leaders from around the world at the base in Quantico, Virginia. Trump and his Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, spoke in front of a giant American flag backdrop, which many observers noted was a deliberate staging reminiscent of the opening of the 1970 biopic film Patton. Trump warned that the military would be involved in his crackdowns on a number of Democratic-run cities. "We're going to straighten them out one by one, and this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too – it's a war from within," Trump said in front of a huge American flag in Quantico, Virginia.
Trump added that he had signed an order to set up a military quick reaction force to quell civil disturbances "because it's the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control." Much of the extraordinary, hour-long address had a highly political tone, in a break with tradition by previous presidents who have tended to avoid overt domestic politics when addressing troops. The speech by Trump came as the US military faces controversy both at home and abroad, with Trump deploying troops in Los Angeles and Washington, and shortly in Portland and Memphis.
"A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required. These campaigns often begin by isolating and dehumanizing specific targets to justify murder or other violent action against them. They do so through a variety of fora, including anonymous chat forums, in-person meetings, social media, and even educational institutions.... There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fascist” to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution. This “anti-fascist” lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality." according to National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7 "Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence" of 25 September 2025.
USA PATRIOT Act (18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)) provides the official federal definition of domestic terrorism. It specifies three conditions for an act to be considered domestic terrorism: It involves acts that are "dangerous to human life" and are a violation of criminal law. It appears "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." It occurs primarily within the U.S. territorial jurisdiction.
Supporters argue that domestic terrorism is a persistent threat that warrants a strategic and prioritized federal response. The directive formalizes existing law enforcement priorities and provides needed direction and resources to address this evolving threat landscape. Disrupting criminal conspiracies: The memorandum aims to investigate and disrupt criminal networks involved in organized political violence before they can carry out attacks. This preventative approach is seen as a necessary evolution of counterterrorism strategy to better protect public safety.
Critics, including civil liberties organizations and journalists, express serious concerns that the memorandum uses vague and overbroad language that could be used to target political dissent and infringe on constitutional rights. Critics worry that the memorandum's broad list of "indicia" of extremism, such as "anti-Americanism" and "hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality," could be used to label constitutionally protected political speech as a precursor to terrorism.
The memorandum's focus on disrupting "political violence... before they result in violent political acts" has been compared to the concept of "pre-crime" from the movie Minority Report. Critics fear this could lead to investigations based on perceived future actions, rather than on evidence of criminal activity. The fear of being investigated by federal agencies or losing tax-exempt status could have a chilling effect on legitimate political dissent and activism. Activists have expressed concern that attending protests or donating to certain causes could be misconstrued as "material support for terrorism". Some observers see NSPM-7 as a clear risk of executive overreach, allowing the administration to deploy the full weight of the federal government against political opponents. They argue that this move shifts the focus from combating actual terrorist attacks to a more ideologically driven pursuit of a perceived enemy.
This memorandum bears striking similarities to H.R. 9495, the controversial 2024 anti-terrorism bill that would have granted the Treasury Department unprecedented authority to revoke 501(c)(3) status from organizations deemed inconsistent with the administration’s priorities. The memorandum's language suggests that certain viewpoints or issues could be deemed indicative of extremism. This includes, as specified in the directive, "anti-fascism" and "anti-American principles," which some critics worry will be used to target groups focused on social justice, environmental issues, and immigration. For example, a group providing services to undocumented immigrants could be targeted if their activities are framed as "undermining the national interest".
Nonprofits working in areas including justice reform, legal aid and representation, human rights advocacy, and policy research and education will grapple with increased pressure to self-censor or modify their activities to avoid potential targeting. The impact goes beyond mission delivery and messaging, creating significant uncertainty for those supporting nonprofit work. Donors may fear their confidential information could be accessed and scrutinized through expanded investigations. Funders supporting organizations that advocate positions contrary to the administration’s policies may face public criticism or implied threats. There is no question that this will stimulate a chilling effect on philanthropic support.
Early in the history of the Republic, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and the members of the subsequent Congresses understood that the President required power to execute the laws of the land. Under authority of the Militia Clause, Congress enacted the Militia Act of 1792 and the subsequent Insurrection Act of 1807 to provide the President with authority to call forth the militia of the states to execute the laws and suppress insurrections.
New language found its way into the Insurrection Act as a consequence of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. In many southern states after the Civil War, the Klu Klux Klan and other disgruntled groups interfered with public order. When Republican North Carolina Governor William Woods Holden called out the state militia against the Klan in 1870, the result was a local backlash culminating with his impeachment in 1871. In response to the Klu Klux Klan and the broader conditions of lawlessness throughout the South, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. The relevant section of the Act (10 USC § 333) reads as follows:
"That in all cases where insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies in any State shall so obstruct or hinder the execution of the laws thereof, and of the United States, as to deprive any portion or class of the people of such State of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities, or protection, named in the constitution and secured by this act, and the constituted authorities of such State shall either be unable to protect, or shall, from any cause, fail in or refuse protection of the people in such rights, such facts shall be deemed a denial by such State of the equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled under the constitution of the United States: and in all such cases …it shall be lawful for the President, and it shall be his duty to take such measures, by the employment of the militia or the land and naval forces of the United States, or of either, or by other means, as he may deem necessary for the suppressions of such insurrection, domestic violence, or combinations…"
The Insurrection Act permitted the President to call the militia or the National Guard into Federal service to suppress insurrections or to enforce the law, including when State authorities were unable or unwilling to secure the constitutional rights of their citizens. Rarely in the history of the Nation had the National Guard been Federalized under the provisions of the Insurrection Act. There were ten occasions since World War II when the National Guard was Federalized under the provisions of the Insurrection Act, and that was largely done to enforce and protect the civil liberties or the Federal laws that guaranteed civil liberties in the States that were not affording those civil liberties or violating Federal law.
In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower relied on the Insurrection Act to remove obstructions of justice in respect to enrollment and attendance at public schools in the Little Rock, Arkansas. Likewise, President John F. Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act in 1962 and 1963 to send federal troops to Mississippi and Alabama, respectively, to enforce constitutionally protected civil rights threatened by local reactions to desegregation effort.
As recently as 1992, President George W. Bush relied upon the Insurrection Act to federalize much of the California National Guard and employ an additional force of approximately 4,000 active Army and Marine troops to suppress the Los Angeles Riots, which had flared up as the result of the controversial acquittal of white police officers who used force against an African American suspect.
During the 1992 Los Angeles, California riots soldiers and airmen from the California Army and Air National Guard were activated for state duty to quell the riots, and help the police restore order. Guardsmen were quickly committed into areas where they had to contend with considerable shooting, fires, and looting. The riots were declared a national emergency by President George H.W. Bush, and under the provisions of the Insurrection Act he deployed Title 10 military assets to assist in quelling the riots. The declaration insurrection was critical because it rendered Posse Comitatus moot for the purposes of allowing Title 10 forces to secure the streets, suppress looting and rioting, and in general enforce the law in Los Angeles. As a part of his declaration, the President also federalized the National Guard forces involved, in order to bring them under a unified command system.
From 1871 to 2006, the Insurrection Act remained largely unchanged. By 2006, the Insurrection Act was actually comprised of five sections within Title 10 of the United States Code. Each of the individual code sections prescribed the situations in which the President could have invoked the Insurrection Act of 10 U.S.C. §§ 331-335. The critical section is Setion 332:
"Sec. 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority - Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
Before 2006, the President had multiple legal bases available to authorize his use of federal military forces in a variety of law enforcement and natural disaster circumstances. The amended law included several conditions that must be satisfied before the President could authorize the use of federal forces. The most important of these conditions was a showing of lawlessness in a state that sufficiently demonstrated the state’s inability to enforce the laws and maintain public order. Instances in which a state cannot enforce the laws and maintain public order are rare.
Nevertheless, Congress amended the Insurrection Act in 2006 to create the Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order. This statute stirred controversy as it arguably represented an unwarranted expansion of Presidential power. Additionally, while the statute attempted to address the kind of lawlessness seen in New Orleans immediately following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the provision arguably offered no improvement over the Insurrection Act in instances of lawlessness or the Stafford Act in instances of disaster. The 2006 Act made it easier for the President to invoke the Insurrection Act in cases well short of insurrection.
Without ever having been invoked, and in the face of strong opposition, the Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order was repealed on January 28, 2008 and the previous Insurrection Act was restored. It was prudent to repeal this legislation. Moreover, future laws and policies to improve disaster response across the whole-of-government and the private sector should be consistent with the principles in the 2008 National Response Framework, which advocates tiered response rather than a primarily federal response in most instances. The rare instances of catastrophic disaster that might require the President to shortcut tiered response and assume federal control at the outset of the situation should be clearly defined in law.
In 2020, Trump took significant federal action in response to the George Floyd protests and riots. He sent federal law enforcement from multiple agencies (DHS, Bureau of Prisons, ICE, Border Patrol) to cities like Portland and Washington DC. He ceared Lafayette Square, orderingthe violent clearing of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020 using tear gas so he could walk to a church for a photo op. Threatening military deployment, Trump urged governors to "dominate the streets" and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty military if states didn't control protests. Operation Legend launched federal law enforcement operations in multiple cities. And Trump established the Protecting American Communities Task Force to protect monuments and target protesters.
In 2020, Trump mostly worked with governors or sent federal agents, not federalized National Guard troops over governors' objections. Many governors voluntarily sent National Guard to D.C. at his request. When he threatened to federalize troops, it was controversial enough that even within his own administration there was resistance. In 2025, the Trump administration deployed thousands of federal troops, including U.S. Marines and federalized California National Guard members, to Los Angeles amid protests and to assist with immigration enforcement operations, such as protecting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and federal facilities.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
