Trump Insurrection Act Threat for Minnesota

In a statement posted to Truth Social, President Trump warned that he may invoke the Insurrection Act if Minnesota officials refuse to enforce federal law and fail to stop what he described as “professional agitators and insurrectionists” attacking ICE agents. The President said that if Minnesota’s “corrupt politicians . . . don’t obey the law,” he will take direct action to restore order – a move he noted has been used by many Presidents before him.

As reported by Politico:

President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to send the military into Minneapolis over widespread demonstrations after federal agents shot and wounded a man, and in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of a protester by an ICE agent last week.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” the president wrote on Truth Social. . . .

Minneapolis has become the center of the national fight over Trump’s immigration agenda after an ICE agent shot and killed 37-year old Renee Good in her car last week. State and city officials have since sparred with the federal government over everything from continued law enforcement presence in Minnesota to the status of the investigation into Good’s killing.

President Trump’s warning comes amid days of unrest in Minnesota tied to ICE operations, protests, and riots that have escalated well beyond peaceful assembly. Regardless of where you land politically, the loss of life and the level of disorder we’ve seen are tragic. But what’s become increasingly clear is that the situation on the ground is spiraling, and leadership – which can make all the difference in moments like these – has been unable or unwilling to handle the situation and restore order.

So, what exactly is the Insurrection Act, and why does this threat carry so much weight?

Often referred to as the “Insurrection Act of 1807,” it’s actually a collection of early American laws, some of which date back to the 1700s, that have been codified in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Sections 251 through 255. It has been used more than 30 times throughout American history, as far back as President George Washington, and as recently as 1992 during the Los Angeles riots.

The key provision here is Section 252, which states:

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Seems pretty straightforward. The Insurrection Act allows the President to deploy federal troops or federalize the National Guard when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” make it impractical to enforce federal law through normal judicial means. I will point out, though, that the law does not define “rebellion,” which has historically given Presidents broad discretion.

This is also one of the rare exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the military from being used for domestic law enforcement. In other words, invoking the Insurrection Act is a serious step – one with enormous constitutional and political consequences.

That’s why this moment demands careful consideration. The President can’t afford to be brash here. Even those who support strong immigration enforcement should pause and think long-term. Any authority exercised today sets a precedent for tomorrow – even for Presidents we may strongly disagree with in the future. In other words, what goes around could easily come back around, and those who support it now might not be so pleased later.

What makes Minnesota different from previous flashpoints, like California, is the posture of state leadership. During the California riots, Governor Newsom criticized federal policy but argued his state could handle public safety internally. In Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz has gone further – not just opposing federal enforcement, but actively encouraging resistance.

In a recorded message, Governor Walz told Minnesotans to “resist” and to keep protesting. Language that appears to encourage defiance of lawful deportation orders. That rhetoric matters. When a sitting governor tells citizens to push back against federal law enforcement, it creates a dangerous dynamic – one that arguably strengthens the legal case for federal intervention under the Insurrection Act.

Now, the governor could’ve chosen the responsible alternative here and told Minnesotans to remain peaceful, not to confront or become aggressive toward ICE agents, assuring them that all law enforcement issues will be handled through courts, and to take ownership of protecting public safety. But in keeping with his record, he instead chose to fan the flames – while simultaneously telling the President to “turn the temperature down.”

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included more discussion of President Trump’s warning to Minnesota if it can’t restore order. We also updated you on a major case we’re fighting in Kansas to defend the free speech of kids at school, after a sixth-grade student was told to identify a personal hero as part of a school leadership exercise. When the student chose President Trump and Charlie Kirk, the teacher reportedly told the class that those were not acceptable heroes.

Afterward, administrators imposed a “no religious or political figures” rule. Then the administrators crossed a serious line by instructing students NOT TO TELL THEIR PARENTS about what happened. Not only are they trying to impede our kids’ constitutionally protected rights, but they’re also encouraging them to lie or conceal the truth altogether. As a parent, I think I can safely speak for all parents when I say that is NOT okay.

That’s why the ACLJ is stepping in, filing federal complaints to defend parental rights and free expression.

Watch the full broadcast below: