#machado

Addressing misconceptions about the Insurrection Act

January 16, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

On Thursday, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minneapolis, a claim that many major media outlets have run on a 30-second loop. Although invoking the Insurrection Act would be illegal and outrageous, we should step back to clarify what invoking the Insurrection Act means—and does not mean. With the benefit of a bit of legal analysis, some of the most extreme fears about the invocation of the Insurrection to Act can be put into perspective.

Nothing I say should be construed as excusing or minimizing damage to the rule of law by invocation of the Insurrection Act. Doing so would be a breach of trust with the American people and blatant misuse of the military for political purposes. It would be a desecration of the Constitution and a perversion of the president’s authority as Commander in Chief.

The modern “Insurrection Act” is codified at 10 USC §§ 251-255. Before looking at the text of the Act, let’s get some of the biggest fears about the Act out of the way.

The Insurrection Act DOES NOT

Invoke “martial law”

Suspend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights

Suspend state or local civil or criminal law

Suspend the operation of state or federal courts

Allow for the cancellation of state or federal elections

Allow federal troops to supplant local law enforcement

Allow federal troops to enforce state law, except to ensure that civil rights guaranteed under state law are not infringed.

Allow federal troops to arrest and detain people for violating federal law. (Detention, indictment, and prosecution would remain in the hands of civil authorities under judicial supervision.)

The Insurrection Act does allow the president to do the following, under certain limited conditions:

Order “insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.” Deploy federal troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” IF it

In short, the Insurrection Act allows the president to

Deploy federal troops to enforce federal law to the extent that federal and state officials are unable to do so, and

Order “insurgents” to disperse and retire peaceably to their homes.

Peaceful protestors are not “insurgents”—as any court asked to rule on the matter will quickly conclude.

The two powers noted above are not inconsequential and can be abused by Trump. But those powers are also narrowly circumscribed by statute, limitations that are enforceable by federal courts. Moreover, in invoking the Insurrection Act, the president must act “within a permitted range of honest judgment.”

To the extent that the current Supreme Court has considered the president’s authority to deploy troops on US soil, at least six members of the Court have expressed reservations and skepticism, requiring the president to adhere closely to statutory authorization. See Trump v. Illinois (2025).

In sum, invoking the Insurrection Act does not mean that federal troops will swoop into Minneapolis and “take over” state and city government functions. Instead, federal troops will assist existing law enforcement and judicial authorities to enforce federal law—here, federal immigration law.

That scenario likely means that federal troops will form a “protected zone” around ICE agents as they seek to locate and detain immigrants subject to deportation.

It is likely that federal courts will conclude that there is no insurrection that obstructs the implementation of federal law. Indeed, the fact that ICE continues to detain and arrest immigrants is proof that there is no insurrection within the meaning of the Insurrection Act. The fact that peaceful protesters are in the vicinity as ICE conducts its operations does not mean that federal law cannot be enforced—a prerequisite for implementation of the Act.

Invocation of the Insurrection Act would be unwarranted and outrageous. The Brennan Center for Justice has published a legal analysis that assesses the outer limits of a president’s power under the Insurrection Act. See The Brennan Center for Justice, The Insurrection Act, Explained. I recommend this article for anyone interested in a deeper discussion of the Insurrection Act’s nuances.

But let’s set aside the legal analysis and think through the ramifications of invoking the Insurrection Act.

First, it would be highly unpopular with the American people. Trump is moving into the “Dear Leader” territory of dictatorship—a radical shift that is turning even his most ardent young white male supporters against him. See Daily Beast, Damning poll reveals why Trump is rapidly losing young men. (Trump has lost 10 percentage points of support among young men since 2024, and his overall support among young voters is 36%).

Second, it would (again) involve the US military in domestic affairs, converting men and women who signed up to protect America from foreign threats into partisan actors policing US citizens

Third, the deployment of the National Guard and the regular US military would be a huge “step up” from the thuggish ICE tactics. Indeed, if federal troops assist and “protect” ICE agents, ICE’s tactics are likely to be muted as military discipline in planning and execution cushions the roving ICE gangs from the public.

Trump should not invoke the Insurrection Act. If he does, we should add that to the long list of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which he should be impeached in 2027, if Democrats take control of the House. Invoking the Act will further degrade morale and discipline in the US military, hurt recruitment, and diminish public respect for the military. That is a lose-lose-lose proposition for the military—something that senior military advisors to the president should be working strenuously to avoid.

So, when you hear the words, “Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act,” do not assume that means that the military will occupy and take over control of Minneapolis. It will not, for the reasons explained above.

Trump suggests canceling midterms, White House says he was “joking.”

Many Americans fear Trump will “cancel the midterms.” He won’t and he can’t. Elections are conducted by the states. The Insurrection Act does not authorize the cancellation of elections. Indeed, no US law does so.

Moreover, “cancelling” the 2026 midterms would mean we have no House of Representatives, as every member's term expires on January 3, 2027, at 11:59 a.m. Likewise, the terms of 34 Senators expire at the same moment, an outcome that would leave a diminished Senate under Democratic control.

Trump made a glancing reference on Thursday to “not needing” midterms. After a firestorm of reaction in major media outlets and social media platforms, Karoline Leavitt claimed the president was “joking.” See Democracy Docket, White House claims Trump was ‘joking’ when he talked about canceling election.

Pathetic Trump accepts Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Maria Machado

Trump’s feelings were hurt big-time when his campaign to win the Nobel Peace Prize was foiled by his constant use of military threats against friend and foe alike. Instead, Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Machado was awarded the Peace Prize, which caused Trump to skip over Machado as the obvious person to assume the presidency of Venezuela after the US kidnapped Maduro.

In a futile attempt to assuage Trump’s monstrous ego, Machado “gave” her Nobel Peace Prize medal to Trump on Thursday. See NY Magazine, Trump Gets Nobel Peace Prize in Saddest Way Possible

The Nobel Committee issued a statement saying that the gift was a nullity because prizes cannot be transferred. But that didn’t stop Trump from accepting Machado’s Nobel medal. Trump will undoubtedly claim in the future that he “won” the Nobel Peace Prize because Machado gave him her medal.

What a pathetic, whiny little loser. Everyone knows that Trump stole the Nobel Prize medal to assuage his fragile ego. Trump is going to lose even more support among young men who have a preternatural ability to spot an insecure poser.

Concluding Thoughts

I published a shorter newsletter tonight because the news cycle this evening seemed to be a loop of stories from the last three days. When we can, we should rest and recharge for the next battle. The tragic situation in Minneapolis and the madness in Trump’s “foreign policy” make it difficult to see the longer-term trends. We are winning, and Trump is losing. We are on the right path and engaged in the right tactics. Keep up the good work, everyone!

Medellín, Colombia – María Corina Machado, the figurehead of Venezuela’s opposition movement and thorn in the side of Nicolás Maduro’s regime, was officially awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo today despite being unable to attend the ceremony. The Nobel Committee said Machado won the award for her “tireless work in promoting the democratic rights of the Venezuelan people and for her struggle…

María Corina Machado Maria Corina Machado giving her Nobel Peace Prize to Donald Trump is an insult to every person who has ever won a”Nobel Peace Prize”. To be extremely blunt, it is the ultimate”arse kissing” of this century. Isn’t it bad enough that Trump has repeatedly laid claim to “ending eight wars” even though that has been proven multiple times to be completely false? The Nobel…

Based on its name, the Nobel Peace Prize should belong to those who promote peace.

Instead, what we see is that the Prize is given to those who promote democracy.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been given to Machado, who advocates for democracy in Venezuela by inciting civil war, causing unrest, and supporting economic sanctions that seriously harm the welfare of ordinary Venezuelan people.