In a significant escalation of federal-state tensions, President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke the centuries-old Insurrection Act to suppress ongoing protests in Minnesota.
The warning comes as the state grapples with growing unrest following a series of violent enforcement actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
The civil volatility was ignited by the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Macklin Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, followed by a second incident where agents shot a Venezuelan immigrant in the leg during an attempted arrest.
These events have sparked nationwide demonstrations against the continued presence of ICE in Minnesota.
Taking to Truth Social, the president accused local officials of failing to protect federal agents from what he termed “professional agitators”. Trump asserted his readiness to institute the 1807 law to “quickly put an end to the travesty”.
If invoked, the Insurrection Act would grant the military sweeping powers to perform domestic law enforcement functions, such as conducting searches and making arrests – actions generally prohibited under the Posse Comitatus Act. While Trump has suggested that nearly half of all US presidents have utilized this law, historical records from the Brennan Center for Justice indicate that only 17 out of 45 presidents have ever invoked it.
The threat has met with fierce resistance from Minnesota officials.
Attorney General Keith Ellison argued that there are no legitimate grounds for the Act’s invocation, stating that the President’s own decision to send thousands of federal agents to the state triggered the demonstrations.
“If Donald Trump does invoke the Insurrection Act, I’m prepared to challenge that action in court,” Ellison warned.
The Insurrection Act has been utilized only about 30 times in over two centuries, with the last instance occurring over 30 years ago during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Legal experts express concern over the law’s “incredibly open-ended” nature, noting that terms like “insurrection” and “rebellion” are loosely defined, giving the President dramatic discretion without clear congressional oversight.
Historical precedents also highlight the physical risks of deploying soldiers for civilian policing. During the 1992 Los Angeles deployment, a misunderstanding of terminology led Marines to lay down “suppressing fire” on a house when police had only asked for “cover,” a move that left law enforcement officers “completely aghast”.
While the president claims the law provides “legal cover” that no judge can challenge, national security experts argue that using the military for routine immigration enforcement would represent a sharp departure from historical norms and would almost certainly face immediate litigation.
