Donald Trump's threat to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota is deemed an unprecedented abuse by experts. Unlike past uses of the 19th-century law, these protests stem from federal officers already deployed by Trump, one of whom killed a citizen, making it a 'historical outlier' where federal actions are creating the very unrest the president seeks to suppress.
The article details how President Donald Trump's threat to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy U.S. military forces in Minnesota would mark an unprecedented and 'flagrant abuse' of the 19th-century law, according to constitutional and military law experts. Historically, the Insurrection Act has been invoked over two dozen times, primarily to protect the early republic, during the Civil War, to enforce civil rights, or in response to widespread violence where local authorities are overwhelmed or request federal aid. However, the situation in Minneapolis is unique because the protests Trump seeks to quell originated from the presence and actions of federal officers he already sent to the area, one of whom shot and killed a U.S. citizen. Experts like Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center for Justice and William Banks of Syracuse University emphasize that none of the traditional criteria for invoking the act are met, as federal actions are 'creating the crisis' rather than responding to an unmanageable local one. The law, first signed by George Washington in 1792, was expanded over time, notably by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War to assert federal authority over seceding states, and later to protect individual rights, as seen when Ulysses S. Grant countered the Ku Klux Klan or mid-20th century presidents enforced civil rights in the South. Presidents have also used it during labor disputes and city riots, often at the request of state governors, with the last instance being the 1992 Los Angeles riots. However, in Minneapolis, Minnesota officials argue their cities would be stable if federal forces left, highlighting the reversal of typical circumstances. While courts are generally hesitant to challenge presidential military decisions, experts caution that Trump's proposed use would be an extraordinary departure from the law's intended purpose and historical application, effectively allowing the federal government to intentionally create unrest and then deploy the military to suppress it.
