Opinion, Politics

A Federal Takeover – Insurrection Act

Posted by Dave on

Photo: In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard without the consent of Governor George Wallace to protect civil rights marchers during the Selma to Montgomery marches. This action came after state and local authorities failed to protect the marchers and their 1st Amendment rights, and it was taken to ensure the marchers could safely complete their 54-mile journey.

The protection provided by federalized troops, alongside other federal forces, was crucial for the march and directly preceded the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In keeping with our emphasis on facts and third party “expert” confirmation, we asked AI: “would the Insurrection Act”, being threatened by Trump, usurp state and local control over first reponders – police,  medical, ambulannce, fire departments, etc.? ” And you won’t be surprised what AI said:
“Yes, the Insurrection Act could effectively usurp state and local control over first responders and other civil services.” It went on to say “the Act permits the President to deploy the U.S. military or federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement, which takes precedence over state authority.”

and Grok provided the following key points for the discussion:

How the Insurrection Act affects state and local authority

The Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which typically prohibits using the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. The Act allows the President to deploy armed forces and federalize the National Guard in certain situations, which affects the chain of command for first responders.
The President can invoke the Act in three scenarios:
  • With state consent: At the request of a state’s governor or legislature, to suppress an insurrection within that state.
  • Without state consent:
    • To enforce U.S. laws and suppress rebellion when an “unlawful obstruction, combination, or assemblage” makes it impractical to enforce federal law through normal legal proceedings.
    • To suppress domestic violence that deprives people of their constitutional rights, and state authorities are “unable, fail, or refuse” to protect those rights.

Potential impact on civil services

When the Act is invoked, the President can use military personnel to conduct law enforcement activities, which can place them in a position of authority over or alongside state and local services.
Command and control
  • Federalization of the National Guard: When federalized, a state’s National Guard troops are no longer under the command of the governor but are instead under presidential control. This has been done in the past, sometimes against the objection of governors.
  • Coordination and friction: The deployment of federal troops could create a parallel command structure, potentially leading to conflict or friction with existing state and local law enforcement, firefighters, and other first responders.

Scope of authority

  • Law enforcement functions: Under the Act, federal military troops can perform law enforcement duties, including crowd control, making arrests, and conducting searches. This can override the normal functions of local police.
  • Vague language: Critics note that the Act’s vague language—such as “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages”—gives the President broad discretion to decide when to deploy troops and what tasks they should perform.

Precedence of federal orders

  • Enforcing federal law: If federal troops are deployed to enforce federal law, their actions and orders would take precedence over conflicting state and local directives. This could supersede the authority of local police and other officials in certain situations.
  • No martial law: It is important to distinguish the Insurrection Act from martial law. While the Act allows the military to assist civilian authorities, martial law is the complete military takeover of civilian government functions, which the President currently has no legal authority to declare.

Historical precedent

  • Historically, the Act has been used in ways that override state resistance. Most famously, President Eisenhower used it to federalize the Arkansas National Guard and enforce desegregation at a high school after the governor resisted.
  • The Act has also been invoked with state consent during large-scale civil unrest, such as the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when federal forces were deployed to assist local authorities.

My Note on insurrection and motivation

The contrast between the protests of 2025 and the January 6th Insurrection could not be more stark. To exacerbate the issue, Trump’s blanket clemency of 1,600 rioters and convicted criminals – including more than 600 rioters who had been convicted of or plead guilty to assault of or obstructing law enforcement officers and 170 of using a deadly weapon – illustrates a depth of depravity never before seen in the American Presidency. 

Resources

League of Women Voters

What you need to know about the National Guard,  the Insurrection Act and Martial Law – click here.


PolitiFact

Trump keeps threatening to use the Insurrection Act. What is the Insurrection Act and does the U.S. President have plenary authority? – click here.


CNN

Fact check: Trump’s false claims about the Insurrection Act – click here.
President Donald Trump has made a series of inaccurate claims about the Insurrection Act in 2025 as protests grew around the country. 


Brennan Center for Justice

The Insurrection Act Explained – click here.
The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence.
The New York City Bar Association[1] (the “City Bar”) is gravely concerned about two laws that carry the potential for unprecedented misuse of the United States military: the Insurrection Act of 1807[2] and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.[3] Absent a clear need either to assist state and local authorities in quelling major, violent, civil unrest, or to assure the protection of constitutional rights, using the military in immigration enforcement would be inappropriate, contrary to its customary use, and place servicemembers in roles in which they lack the necessary training and experience.
The Insurrection Act is a dangerous law that gives the president broad powers to authorize far-reaching uses of the military in the domestic sphere. It is based on highly permissive standards for action and provides neither a role for Congress nor a basis for serious judicial review.


NPR

A bipartisan group of legal experts is sounding an alarm about presidential power this election season.

They’re pushing Congress to update a cluster of laws known as the Insurrection Act and limit how the White House can deploy troops on American soil, in case a future president takes advantage of that sweeping power.

Why abuse of the Insurrection Act worries legal experts and how they’
Experts say the Insurrection Act gives a president too much sweeping power to deploy troops on American soil without guard rails.

There’s been a spike in speculation lately—and yes, there’s a reason people are paying attention. The Trump administration is considering whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, a rarely used law that allows the president to deploy the U.S. military domestically under certain conditions.


National Defense University Press

Calling Forth the Military: A Brief History of the Insurrection Act. It is a broad, overarching concept for a series of acts dating to the 1790s that concern the use of American military forces within the United States. – click here.


Brennan Center for Justice
https://www.brennancenter.org

The Insurrection Act: A Presidential Power That Threatens Democracy
It is legally possible under the Insurrection Act, an outdated law that is in urgent need of reform to prevent abuses of power. – click here.

Boise, Idaho No Kings 50501 Protest – October 17, 2025 

Leave a Reply