White House officials are deep in deliberation over whether President Donald Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used 19th-century law that would allow him to deploy active-duty military forces in American cities for law enforcement purposes. According to NBC News, these discussions have gained urgency in the days leading up to October 8, 2025, as the administration seeks stronger federal action in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland, which the president has repeatedly described as plagued by crime and unrest.
The Insurrection Act, first enacted in 1807, provides the president with the authority to deploy the military domestically under specific circumstances. It is a major exception to the Posse Comitatus Act’s general prohibition against military involvement in civilian law enforcement. The law can be triggered at a state’s request to quell unrest, to enforce federal law when courts cannot function, or to protect civil rights when violence prevents citizens from exercising constitutional rights. The last time it was invoked was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush sent federal troops to Los Angeles at California’s request during the Rodney King riots, as reported by NBC News and the Brennan Center for Justice.
President Trump has made no secret of his frustration with Democratic governors and mayors, accusing them of turning their cities into “war zones” and preventing the federal government from enforcing immigration laws. On October 7, 2025, he told reporters, “Chicago's a great city where there's a lot of crime. And if the governor can't do the job, we'll do the job. It's all very simple.” He doubled down the next day on Truth Social, calling for Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to be jailed for what he described as failures to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
The president’s rhetoric has escalated alongside legal setbacks. On October 5, 2025, a federal judge in Oregon blocked Trump from sending National Guard members from any state to Portland. This ruling revived discussions about the Insurrection Act, as the administration argued that additional military support was needed to protect federal agents from what it called riots targeting ICE facilities. The White House has since been evaluating the timing and legal thresholds for invoking the act, with officials drafting legal defenses and exploring various options. However, a senior administration official told NBC News that the consensus remains to exhaust all other avenues before taking this significant step.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson summarized the administration’s stance: “The Trump administration is committed to restoring law and order in American cities that are plagued by violence due to Democrat mismanagement. And President Trump will not stand by while violent rioters attack federal law enforcement officers. The administration will work to protect federal assets and officers while making American cities safe again.”
Inside the administration, key figures have played prominent roles in shaping the debate. Stephen Miller, a deputy chief of staff and longtime adviser, has been a leading proponent of invoking the Insurrection Act. According to sources cited by NBC News and the Daily Mail, Miller has been at the center of these discussions since Trump returned to office in January 2025. The discussions have shifted from whether the act should be invoked to how and when it could be done, and what legal justifications would be most robust in the face of likely court challenges.
The White House expects that any move to invoke the Insurrection Act would be met with immediate legal challenges, potentially landing in the Supreme Court. After a federal judge ruled last month that the White House’s deployment of active-duty troops to Los Angeles in June was illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act, officials renewed their internal legal analyses. However, some advisers have cautioned the president that invoking the act under current circumstances might not withstand judicial scrutiny, which could jeopardize his recent string of Supreme Court victories.
Trump’s consideration of the Insurrection Act is shaped by both current events and past regrets. He previously weighed invoking the act during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests following the killing of George Floyd but was dissuaded by then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Now, as one senior administration official told NBC News, Trump “regrets that decision and views the current decision through that prism.” He has stepped up his use of the word “insurrection” to describe resistance to ICE operations in Portland and Chicago, with Miller echoing the president’s language. Miller told reporters, “They’re saying they’re going to carry out insurrection against the federal government by using force, obstructive force, to keep ICE officers from going out and conducting arrests. This is an all-out campaign of insurrection against the sovereignty of the United States because the Democrat Party and those who are committing violence in this country do not believe in legitimacy of the sovereign territory of the United States.”
Still, not everyone in the administration is convinced that invoking the Insurrection Act is the right move. Some officials have raised concerns about the possibility of active-duty troops clashing with American civilians, a scenario that could have unpredictable and potentially dire consequences. There is also significant opposition among state leaders: the governors of Oregon and Illinois have both made clear their opposition to sending troops to their states, noting that there are currently no riots or defiance of court orders that would typically justify such a deployment.
Public opinion appears to be against the use of the Insurrection Act in this context. A Reuters/Ipsos poll cited by the Daily Mail found that 58 percent of Americans — including seven in ten Democrats and half of Republicans — believe the president should only send troops into areas where they face external threats, not for domestic law enforcement against civilian protesters.
Legal experts and historians note that the Insurrection Act has been invoked about 30 times in U.S. history, most notably during the Civil Rights era when Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy used it to enforce school desegregation orders over the objections of state governors. The law’s text leaves much discretion to the president, but the courts have suggested they may intervene if the act is used in bad faith or outside its intended scope.
As of now, the White House has not made a final decision, but the trajectory of internal debate suggests the administration is inching closer to a historic and contentious move. With legal, political, and practical risks looming, the coming days could prove pivotal in determining whether President Trump takes the unprecedented step of deploying troops to American cities under the Insurrection Act — and how the nation responds if he does.
