President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used US law from the early 1800s, in Minnesota amid protests over federal immigration enforcement. The move has sparked strong reactions from state leaders and civil rights advocates, raising questions about presidential powers and the role of the military in domestic affairs, according to a Reuters report.
What is the Insurrection Act?
The Insurrection Act was first enacted in 1807. It gives the US president authority to deploy military forces or the federalised National Guard inside the United States under specific conditions. Normally, the US military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement due to the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act is one of the few exceptions to that rule.
Under the law, a president may send in troops when civil disorder, rebellion, or obstruction of federal law makes it impracticable to enforce the law otherwise. This can happen when state governments request help or when violence prevents enforcement of federal law without military intervention, as per an Economic Times report.
For most of modern history, however, the law has gone unused. The last formal invocation was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when then-President George HW Bush deployed troops after widespread violence and looting.
In recent years, some presidents have considered invoking the Act during episodes of civil unrest. But actual use has remained rare due to legal, political, and constitutional concerns.
Also Read | US orders evacuation of some personnel at key Qatar base after Tehran official references past attack
Unrest in Minneapolis
Trumpâs threat comes amid protests in Minneapolis following controversial actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Federal officers, including ICE, have been deployed in large numbers after shootings during immigration enforcement operations sparked anger and demonstrations.
On social media, Trump warned that if Minnesota politicians do not stop what he described as attacks on federal officers, he would âinstitute the Insurrection Actâ to put an end to the unrest.
The presidentâs threat signals a potential military deployment inside a US state without that stateâs consent. This is unusual; past invocations of the law normally involved governors requesting federal support.
Also Read | US freezes immigrant visas for 75 countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh- Check the full list
Minnesota authorities, civil rights groups oppose enactment
Meanwhile, Minnesota officials have rejected Trumpâs stance. Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey criticised the idea of federal troops, saying it escalates tensions and undermines local authority.
Civil liberties groups have also voiced opposition. They argue that using the Insurrection Act to quell protests could erode trust in democratic institutions and blur the line between law enforcement and military action.
However, the Actâs theory suggests that it temporarily allows the regular military to assist civilian authorities. It does not suspend the Constitution, and deployed troops must still respect legal rights. Even if invoked, the presidentâs power is not unlimited. Courts have historically reviewed aspects of domestic force deployments. But judges have been cautious about overturning a presidentâs decision to act under the Insurrection Act.
The current standoff in Minnesota highlights deep debates over immigration policy, public safety, and federal-state relations. How the situation evolves will shape discussions on the limits of presidential power.
