President Donald Trump announced to reporters on Tuesday, October 7, that he was seriously considering invoking the Insurrection Act in response to the non-compliance of Democratic governors of states such as Illinois and Oregon with the Trump Administration’s immigration policies. His attempts to deploy the National Guard in these states had so far been blocked by federal judges, until a ruling overturned one of the restraining orders against the deployment.

The Insurrection Act allows the president to mobilize state troops to suppress civil disorder or insurrection. Essentially, the president is allowed to deploy the National Guard, a state-based military force, in this case functioning as federal troops, on domestic soil against rebellion or obstructions to law enforcement.

The accusation that Trump would be levelling to use the act is that the states are preventing the government from enforcing immigration laws, and that the high levels of crime in these areas have developed far enough to require federal intervention. Trump’s usage of the Insurrection Act is also in response to demonstrations against ICE agencies, and protests have already been put down by National Guard troops in Los Angeles.

The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois have filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, and likewise Portland and the state of Oregon have also sued. In most states, judges have sided with the affected areas, preventing deployment within the cities, until one court overturned a ruling that blocked troops from entering Portland. As of writing, however, there are considerations to review the ruling again.

How is the situation viewed under US law?

The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) declares that the federal military is not permitted to engage in law enforcement, unless “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” The PCA is an important facet of the constitutional principle that the military should not be unfairly used against the American public, with its roots in the British abuse of the American colonies.

Trump is attempting to bypass the PCA by utilising the National Guard, which is not considered a federal resource, as it is organised by states.

“Unique to the National Guard is our ability to apply the personnel, training and equipment for our wartime missions and our state responses in the homeland,” reads the National Guard’s official website. “When disaster strikes in the homeland, the National Guard stands ready to deploy and serve at a moment’s notice to protect life and property in our communities. The unique nature and capabilities of the National Guard make it critical to both U.S. national security and global stability.”

The National Guard has historically been used with the Insurrection Act to put down acts of extreme rebellion that slowed the workings of or intended to overthrow the US government. Today, Trump hopes to use it to aid ICE efforts and enforce law in areas of high crime.

Although Trump cites in his reasoning the high crime rates of the targeted cities, statistics from the police department of Chicago show a decrease in crime over the past year, especially violent crime, with a 28% decrease in homicides from 2024. The District of Columbia has also seen a decline in violent crime over the past several years as well. However, the larger question being debated is whether or not military force should be used to quell domestic law-enforcement issues.

Some major Republican supporters of Trump have condemned the course of action. Governor Kevin Sitt of Oklahoma said that “Oklahomans would lose their minds” in the same scenario. Vermont’s governor Phil Scott called the deployment a violation of the constitution. Podcaster Joe Rogan, who has sided with Trump on immigration policy in the past, said using the “military in the street is a dangerous precedent.”

Additionally, many criticize Trump’s actions for inhibiting the First Amendment’s provision of the freedom of assembly and speech. The usage of military force against civilians for protesting may be seen as a violation of the amendment’s protection against government censorship.

“We emphasize that the critical analysis of a ‘rebellion’ centers on the nature of the resistance to governmental authority,” wrote the court overseeing the Chicago case. “Political opposition is not rebellion.”