President Donald Trump appears closer than ever to invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, a rarely used but powerful law that would allow him to deploy the U.S. military domestically to address what he and his advisers have labeled as insurrection and rebellion within American cities. This escalation comes amid ongoing protests—most recently outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Oregon on October 11, 2025—and mounting legal obstacles to the administration’s efforts to send National Guard troops into cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland.
For months, Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have openly threatened to use the Insurrection Act to bypass judicial and gubernatorial resistance to federalizing and deploying the National Guard. According to NBC News, Vance recently said on "Meet the Press" that the president is "looking at all his options" regarding the law, a statement that underscores the administration’s willingness to test the boundaries of executive power.
The Insurrection Act, first enacted in 1807, allows the president to use federal troops on U.S. soil to suppress rebellion and enforce federal law, temporarily suspending the Posse Comitatus Act, which otherwise restricts military involvement in civilian law enforcement. The law’s language is notably broad, granting the president discretion to determine what constitutes an "insurrection" or "rebellion." The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 1827 that this determination rests solely with the president, making the law a potent—if controversial—tool for executive action.
Trump’s renewed interest in the law is not new. As Kevin Carroll, a former military intelligence officer and Homeland Security official during Trump’s first term, told NBC News, "I think that the president is closer to invoking the Insurrection Act than he’s been since 2020, 2021. If he gets a final judicial order saying that he can’t use troops under the statutory authorities he’s exercised thus far, he’ll do it under the Insurrection Act."
On October 13, 2025, returning from a trip to Israel and Egypt, Trump himself hinted at the possibility. "I could use it, if I wanted to," he said aboard Air Force One. "I’m allowed to use the Insurrection Act." His comments followed a series of legal setbacks: a judge in Oregon twice blocked the administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, and a federal appeals court issued a similar ruling for Chicago, allowing the guard to remain federalized but not deployed.
The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush used it during the Los Angeles riots that erupted after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. Historically, the law has been used sparingly—around 30 times since 1808—often in response to extraordinary breakdowns in public order, such as the desegregation crises of the 1950s and 1960s and major riots.
Despite the administration’s growing impatience, resistance has emerged from within the president’s own party. Republican governors Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and Phil Scott of Vermont, along with former governors John Kasich of Ohio and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, have expressed reservations about Trump’s attempts to deploy National Guard troops across state lines without consent. But as Miles Taylor, a former Trump administration official, told NBC News, "If anything’s giving him pause behind the scenes, it’s that his number one fear of all of his fears as a flesh-and-bone human being is the fear of looking like a loser. He doesn’t want to invoke the act and then lose in the highest court."
The legal and constitutional implications are profound. While the Insurrection Act grants the president significant leeway, it does not provide carte blanche. Joseph Nunn, a lawyer for the Brennan Center for Justice who focuses on the domestic use of the military, explained to NBC News that invoking the act "could put the president on stronger legal footing," but cautioned, "It’s not a slam dunk. There will be lawsuits challenging it, and the Insurrection Act doesn’t let troops do whatever they want. It doesn’t change the fact that Americans have constitutional rights, and it would not let them go into Chicago and take over local policing."
Stephen Miller, known as the architect of Trump’s immigration crackdown, has been especially vocal. After an Oregon judge blocked the administration’s troop deployment, Miller posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the ruling amounted to a "legal insurrection" and described the protests as "an organized terrorist attack on the federal government and its officers." He later told reporters at the White House that the president has "many other options" for deploying troops, suggesting the administration is actively exploring every available legal avenue.
As legal battles intensify, the administration has begun to frame the protests in increasingly stark terms. Republican leaders, including House Republican Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota, have labeled demonstrators as "insurrectionists" and "terrorists." Emmer went so far as to call those planning to join the upcoming No Kings demonstrations "the terrorist wing" of the Democratic Party, according to NBC News. Some Republicans have even referred to these protests as "hate America" rallies, further escalating the rhetoric.
The protests themselves, which are expected to surge again during the weekend of October 18-19, have drawn warnings from Democratic leaders. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, speaking to MSNBC, urged Oregonians not to engage in violence that could give the administration justification to expand its military presence. Citing peaceful protest tactics—like women handing out pastries in pajamas and activists staging a wedding ceremony outside a city ICE facility—Merkley advised, "The president’s goal will be to produce violence and then use violence to expand his authoritarian powers. Don’t help him do that."
Amid the legal wrangling, public confusion about the relevant laws has grown. The Insurrection Act is often conflated with martial law, but legal experts clarify that martial law involves the military imposing its own rules over civilians, a much more extreme measure that the Supreme Court has ruled can only be used in active war zones where civilian courts are not functioning. The Posse Comitatus Act, meanwhile, generally bars the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, unless the Insurrection Act is invoked.
The National Guard plays a central role in this drama. Typically a state-based force under the command of governors, the Guard can be federalized by the president in certain emergencies. However, once federalized, its members are subject to the same restrictions as regular federal troops. As noted by the Council on Foreign Relations and NationalGuard.mil, federalization for domestic missions is rare and usually done with gubernatorial consent—something currently lacking from several states.
As the legal and political stakes rise, the nation faces a pivotal moment. Trump’s willingness to invoke the Insurrection Act, the resistance from state leaders, and the threat of further inflaming civil unrest all point to a volatile period ahead. The coming days may well determine not only how far a president can go in deploying military force at home, but also how Americans define the boundaries of protest, dissent, and executive power in the twenty-first century.
