President Donald Trump has hinted at a strong response to unrest in U.S. cities, especially after a federal judge blocked his efforts to send National Guard units to Portland. In a recent briefing, Trump stated, “I’d do it if it was necessary. So far it hasn’t been necessary. But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason.” His reference to the Insurrection Act, a law from 1807, raises questions about the extent of federal authority in times of domestic unrest.
The Insurrection Act allows the President to deploy military forces to quash rebellions and enforce federal law, fundamentally allowing him to federalize National Guard units and send active-duty troops. Trump acknowledged, “If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were being killed and courts were holding us up… I want to make sure that people aren’t killed.” This emphasis on maintaining order and safety reflects his administration’s priority in dealing with unrest.
Trump’s remarks come on the heels of a judicial ruling that blocked the deployment of California and Texas National Guard troops to Portland, where protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been ongoing. Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, ruled there was insufficient evidence to warrant such a drastic measure at this time. Despite the governor’s pushback, Trump asserted, “Portland’s been on fire for years—and not so much saving it. That’s all insurrection. I really think that’s really criminal insurrection.”
In response to the federal judge’s ruling, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller criticized the decision, labeling it “one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order we have ever seen.” Miller defended the legality of deploying the Guard, emphasizing that there exists no legal distinction in the use of National Guard personnel, whether for border security or safeguarding federal facilities.
Meanwhile, other governors have voiced their concerns. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker accused Trump of deliberately fomenting unrest to justify the deployment of military troops under the Insurrection Act. At a recent news conference, Pritzker claimed, “The Trump administration is following a playbook: cause chaos, create fear and confusion, make it seem like peaceful protesters are a mob.” His statement underscores the deep partisan divide over how to handle protests and public safety.
Trump’s consideration of invoking the Insurrection Act isn’t new. During his first term, the White House had also floated the idea in response to protests following George Floyd’s death. The Insurrection Act remains a controversial tool, as invoking it would temporarily set aside restrictions placed by the Posse Comitatus Act on the military’s involvement in domestic law enforcement.
The debate surrounding these actions highlights a growing tension over how to balance public safety and civil unrest. As protests escalate, federal enforcement continues to be a hot topic, with decisions made at the highest levels of government shaping the responses to such events. Trump’s readiness to consider military intervention reflects a pivot towards a more aggressive stance on maintaining order in American cities faced with ongoing protests.
"*" indicates required fields
