By all appearances, the President of the United States is setting the stage to invoke the Insurrection Act — which he has threatened more than once to do in Minneapolis — under the pretense of combatting domestic terrorism.
Adopted in 1807, the Insurrection Act is a federal law that allows the president to deploy the U.S. military, or to federalize the National Guard, to put down an insurrection, armed rebellion, or other violent civilian action against the government. The act is an exception to Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the military from acting as law enforcement in the U.S.
Given the obvious risk of abuse, presidents have used the act sparingly. Occasions include Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy invoking it to counter violent mobs who resisted civil rights laws. The most recent instance came when George H.W. Bush invoked it in response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Donald Trump mulled using the Insurrection Act during his first term to suppress protests regarding George Floyd’s murder. During his second term, in addition to Minneapolis, he has considered invoking it in response to anti-deportation protests in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oregon. (It is profoundly disturbing that Trump strongly supports anti-government protests in Iran, but not in America.)
I believe that Mr. Trump will ultimately invoke the Insurrection Act, but not for his purported reason. Emboldened by the Supreme Court, empowered by the Congress and encouraged by his supporters, Donald Trump is living out his goal of becoming an autocrat, mimicking men whom he openly admires.
Of course, his actions could be curtailed if Republicans lose the U.S. House in this year’s mid-terms, which seems likely at this point. In anticipation of that outcome, Trump could invoke the act to delay the election overall, or perhaps in Democrat-led cities and states. But deploying National Guard troops for that purpose might be tenuous given the vociferous opposition of governors and mayors in states where Trump has done so.
However, Trump has at his disposal a large — and growing — paramilitary force that has been bolstered by $170 billion from the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill.” For the record, that amount is higher than the entire military budgets of several nations. The bulk of the money goes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with $11 billion earmarked for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
As we have seen, these departments are primed to do President Trump’s bidding, which has led to increasingly hostile confrontations between them and civilians. It should surprise no one if he decided to use his mini-army to implement his multiple threats regarding U.S. elections. And one can imagine a nightmare scenario in which local police ended up in a pitched battle with ICE and/or CBP.
Setting aside voting delays, there are other ways for Trump to disrupt elections. For example, he told the New York Times that he should have sent the National Guard to retrieve voting machines after the 2020 election. Who would stand in his way if he decided to do so this year?
While my allegation might seem outrageous, the evidence is clear. This president has repeatedly demonstrated that he is bound neither by tradition, government precedent, nor even the law. In fact, Trump recently stated that “his own morality,” not international law, is the only limiting factor vis-à-vis his global ambitions. Why would it be different domestically?
Trump was even more explicit in responding to Ukrainian President Zelensky during a White House visit last September. When Zelensky said that he had suspended elections due to the war with Russia, Trump said:
“So, you say during the war, you can’t have elections? So, let me just say, three and a half years from now — so you mean, if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections? Oh, that’s good.”
To be sure, the U.S. has never canceled elections because of war. Not in 1812. Not in 1864. Not in 1918. And not in 1944. But, again, who would stand in Trump’s way if he decided to do so? According to Miles Taylor, who served as DHS Chief of Staff during Trump’s first term, the president has called the Insurrection Act his “magical authority”.
Setting aside canceling an election, Trump has placed other substantial impediments to our voting system. For example, he diminished the role of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which helps states ward off cyberattacks on electronic voting.
Also, Kristi Noem, head of Homeland Security, zeroed out funding for the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center. The center helps states identify and combat hacking attacks. Finally, Trump’s FBI dismantled its task force that was created to investigate foreign influence on U.S. elections. None of these bodes well for our democracy.
The mere fact that any of this is plausible — and it is — should be very sobering. Many people reject this notion, not necessarily because they would support such actions (though, sadly, millions likely would). Rather, they reject it because it seems unthinkable that a U.S. president would do any of this. But this is a president who pardoned nearly 1,600 people who attempted to overthrow our government. We dismiss the unthinkable at our peril.
Contact community leader Larry Smith at larry@leaf-llc.com.
