Trump on Thursday escalated a standoff with Minnesota officials by threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy U.S. military forces to the state amid growing protests in Minneapolis. The warnings came as demonstrations over a federal immigration enforcement operation have turned tense, with at least one fatal shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer and another federal agent-involved shooting sparking nightly clashes between protesters and federal agents. Trump’s social media post accused Minnesota political leaders of failing to control “professional agitators and insurrectionists”. It said invoking the law would “quickly put an end” to what he called a “travesty” in the state.
The Insurrection Act is a rarely used federal statute that gives the president authority to deploy active-duty military forces on U.S. soil to suppress insurrection, domestic violence, or unlawful obstruction of federal law when ordinary law enforcement is overwhelmed or unable to enforce the laws of the United States. Under normal circumstances, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops in domestic law enforcement; the Insurrection Act is the key exception that allows that to happen. It has been invoked roughly three dozen times in U.S. history — for example, to enforce school desegregation in the 1950s and 60s and in response to riots in the early 1990s — and typically was used at the request of a state governor.
Legal researchers say that while the president can legally invoke the Insurrection Act under certain conditions, the standard isn’t simply whether there are protests. Historically, invocation has required either a formal request from the governor of the affected state or a clear demonstration that civil authorities are unable to enforce federal law and that ordinary judicial remedies are impracticable. Courts could still review an invocation to determine whether the president’s decision was made in good faith and consistent with constitutional limits.
In Minnesota, state leaders have rejected the characterization of unrest as insurrection and have vowed legal resistance. Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison have condemned the federal operation and its escalation, including a recent lawsuit filed by the state challenging the legality of the aggressive immigration enforcement tactics launched by the Department of Homeland Security. Local officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, described the federal presence as an “occupation” that has heightened tensions rather than calmed them.
Legal scholars point out that invoking the Insurrection Act without state consent would face immediate constitutional challenges, and many constitutional experts argue the threshold for truly uncontrollable insurrection is high. Unrest that consists of protests — even if unruly at times — does not automatically meet that bar. Opponents argue that labeling demonstrators “insurrectionists” when they are exercising First Amendment rights could itself be legally dubious and likely to draw swift court intervention.
The situation remains fluid as Minnesota stands on edge, federal and state leaders exchange sharply worded statements, and legal debate intensifies over whether Trump’s threat is a lawful use of presidential power or an overreach of executive authority.