Insurrection Act: How it’s been used and what Trump wants to do with it

Trump’s Insurrection Act Threat in Minnesota Breaks Historical Precedent

Donald Trump would not be the first president to invoke the Insurrection Act, as he has threatened, to deploy U.S. military forces to Minnesota. However, legal experts point out that his potential use of the 19th-century law represents an unprecedented scenario in American history.

The law, which has been invoked more than two dozen times throughout American history, allows presidents to use military forces domestically. Yet it has rarely been used since the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century.

“This would be a flagrant abuse of the Insurrection Act in a way that we’ve never seen,” said Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. “None of the criteria have been met.”

What makes the current situation unique is that Trump seeks to quell protests that began in response to the actions of federal officers he already deployed to the area—one of whom shot and killed a U.S. citizen, Renee Good. Between 2,000 and 3,000 federal authorities from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are currently operating in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area, far outnumbering the city’s police force of fewer than 600 officers.

William Banks, a Syracuse University professor emeritus specializing in domestic military use, described the situation as “a historical outlier” because “the violence Trump wants to end is being created by the federal civilian officers” he sent there. However, Banks cautioned that Minnesota officials would face challenges in court since “the courts are typically going to defer to the president” on military decisions.

Traditionally, federal forces have been called upon when widespread violence has overwhelmed local authorities and they’ve requested assistance. In cases where presidents acted without local requests, it was typically to protect individuals whose rights were being threatened by state or local governments—or in extreme cases like the Civil War.

The Insurrection Act’s origins trace back to 1792, when George Washington signed the first version to authorize mobilizing state militias when “laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed.” Washington and John Adams used it to suppress citizen uprisings against taxes. Congress expanded the law in 1807, maintaining the fundamental principle that military intervention in civilian affairs should be “a tool of last resort.”

During the Civil War era, Abraham Lincoln convinced Congress to grant him express power to deploy troops into Confederate states without state permission. After the war, Congress added provisions allowing presidents to protect individual rights, which Ulysses S. Grant used to counter white supremacist groups that were ignoring civil rights laws and amendments.

Throughout the industrial era, presidents including Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, and Woodrow Wilson deployed troops at governors’ requests to address labor strikes, protect immigrant communities, and quell violent clashes. In each case, federal resources were used only when state and local authorities were overwhelmed—a stark contrast to Minnesota, where leaders insist their cities would be stable without federal intervention.

The mid-20th century saw presidents using the act to counter white supremacist violence. Franklin Roosevelt sent 6,000 troops to Detroit after race riots that began with white attackers targeting Black residents. During the Civil Rights Movement, presidents deployed forces to Southern states without permission when local authorities defied federal civil rights laws and themselves fomented violence.

The last invocation of the Insurrection Act occurred in 1992, when California Governor Pete Wilson requested federal assistance following riots that erupted after the acquittal of officers involved in beating Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush authorized approximately 4,000 troops while simultaneously directing the Justice Department to open a civil rights investigation.

Nunn emphasizes that the current situation in Minnesota fundamentally differs from these historical precedents. “They can’t intentionally create a crisis, then turn around to do a crackdown,” he said, arguing that the Constitutional requirement for a president to “faithfully execute the laws” means Trump must wield his power “in good faith.”

As tensions continue in Minnesota, the unprecedented nature of Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act raises profound questions about the limits of presidential power and the law’s intended purpose in American democracy.