Listen to the article
Trump Threatens to Invoke Insurrection Act in Minneapolis Amid ICE Protests
President Donald Trump has threatened to deploy federal military forces to Minneapolis using the Insurrection Act in response to ongoing protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the city.
The threat came via a January 15 social media post on Truth Social, where Trump declared: “If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT.”
Trump’s statement follows escalating tensions in Minneapolis after an ICE officer fatally shot protester Renee Nicole Good during a confrontation on January 7. The shooting triggered additional protests and prompted the Trump administration to deploy hundreds more immigration officers to the Twin Cities region, joining approximately 2,000 Department of Homeland Security agents already sent to the area as part of what DHS has termed “Operation Metro Surge.”
The scale of federal deployment has alarmed local officials. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey noted on January 15 that while the city’s police force numbered “approximately 600,” there were “approximately 3,000 ICE agents in the area.” According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, this amounts to “nearly one agent for every 1,000 of the Twin Cities’ 3.2 million residents.”
In response, Minnesota and the Twin Cities filed a lawsuit against DHS on January 12, seeking to end what they describe as an “unconstitutional and unlawful” surge of immigration officers. The legal action claims that “agents’ reckless tactics endanger the public safety, health, and welfare of all Minnesotans.”
The Insurrection Act, which dates back to 1792, provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally prohibits federal military forces from performing civilian law enforcement duties. Under specific circumstances, the president can deploy federal troops to suppress insurrections, domestic violence, or conspiracies that hinder the execution of federal laws or deprive citizens of constitutional rights.
Legal experts note the broad nature of the president’s authority under the act. Joseph Nunn, counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program, has described the statute as “dangerously overbroad and ripe for abuse,” noting it “fails to adequately define or limit when it may be used.”
Historically, approximately 40% of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act, though most instances occurred before 1900. The most recent application was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush, at the request of California’s governor, sent federal troops to address civil unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the act has been used to address 30 crises since 1794. The last time National Guard troops were federalized against a governor’s objection occurred in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed forces to Selma, Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.
Legal scholars point out that judicial review of presidential invocations of the Insurrection Act is limited. William Banks of Syracuse University College of Law and Mark P. Nevitt of Emory University School of Law note there is “little case law” on the matter, with courts historically reluctant to question presidential military authority.
Former New Jersey Governor and U.S. Attorney Chris Christie observed in an ABC News interview that while a governor “can’t stop” a presidential invocation of the act, they “could always bring a court action and then the courts could decide whether the facts are there to support his invocation.”
This latest threat follows similar statements by Trump last fall regarding possible Insurrection Act use to override objections from governors in Illinois and Oregon to National Guard deployments in those states. Those deployments have been blocked by courts while litigation proceeds.
As tensions continue in Minneapolis, the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act raises significant questions about the limits of presidential power and federal-state relations during times of civil unrest.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
15 Comments
The threat to use the Insurrection Act raises serious questions about the balance of power between federal and local authorities. While maintaining public order is important, it’s critical that the authorities respect the right to peaceful protest and work collaboratively to find a solution.
This is a highly charged political issue with valid concerns on both sides. I hope cooler heads prevail and a compromise can be reached to address the protesters’ grievances without resorting to heavy-handed federal intervention.
Invoking the Insurrection Act seems like an extreme measure that could backfire and further enflame the situation. The authorities should focus on facilitating lawful protests while maintaining public safety.
Deploying federal troops to Minneapolis using the Insurrection Act could be a very risky move. It’s critical that officials work collaboratively with local leaders and protesters to find a peaceful resolution that addresses the underlying concerns.
The prospect of invoking the Insurrection Act is certainly alarming. I hope the authorities can find a way to maintain public order without resorting to heavy-handed federal intervention that could further inflame tensions.
The threat to use the Insurrection Act is a concerning development that could set a dangerous precedent. It’s crucial that the authorities engage in good-faith dialogue with local leaders and protesters to find a constructive solution that respects civil liberties and maintains public order.
The threat to use the Insurrection Act is concerning and raises questions about the appropriate balance between federal power and local control. Nuanced solutions are needed to address the complex issues at play here.
I’m curious to see how this situation unfolds. The authorities will need to tread carefully to uphold the rule of law while also respecting the right to protest. Hopefully, a constructive dialogue can help find a middle ground.
This is a complex and sensitive situation that requires a delicate balancing act. While the protesters’ concerns deserve to be heard, the authorities also have a duty to uphold public safety. Hopefully, a measured, good-faith approach can help de-escalate the situation.
Invoking the Insurrection Act could set a dangerous precedent and further inflame tensions. It’s crucial that authorities respect the right to peaceful protest while upholding public safety. A measured, de-escalatory approach is needed to resolve this complex situation constructively.
I agree, the Insurrection Act should be a last resort. Local and federal officials need to work together to find a balanced solution that protects both civil liberties and public order.
Invoking the Insurrection Act in response to protests would be a highly controversial and potentially destabilizing move. The authorities need to engage constructively with local leaders and protesters to address the underlying issues through lawful, non-violent means.
I share the concerns about the implications of using the Insurrection Act in this context. The authorities should exhaust all other options before even considering such an extreme measure, which could easily backfire and exacerbate the tensions.
This is a complex and highly charged situation that requires a nuanced, de-escalatory approach from all sides. Resorting to the Insurrection Act could do more harm than good by further inflaming tensions and undermining trust in the democratic process.
I agree that the authorities need to tread very carefully here. Invoking the Insurrection Act should be an absolute last resort, if at all. The focus should be on facilitating lawful protest while upholding public safety through proportionate, community-oriented policing.