SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
department of justice
Be Warned: Trump May Still Pull the Insurrection Act Trigger
During his first term, Donald Trump was reportedly dissuaded from invoking the act by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and other “grown-ups” in his first administration; this time around, there are no grown-ups in the building.
Feb 13, 2026
Donald Trump hasn’t forgotten about the Insurrection Act, and neither should you. In the face of plummeting poll numbers and public outcry over the deaths of Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, Trump may appear to be retreating from his threats to deploy the military to Minneapolis and other blue state cities, but any retreat is likely to prove temporary and tactical rather than a reversal of policy.
Throughout his career, Trump has been guided by the “lessons” he learned as a young real estate hustler from his odious one-time mentor and fixer Roy Cohn: Never retreat, apologize, or admit wrongdoing, and always remain on the offensive. In keeping with Cohn’s teachings, Trump has made threats to invoke the Insurrection Act dating to June 2020, when he vowed to use it to quell mass demonstrations related to the murder of George Floyd. He was reportedly restrained at the time by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and other “grown-ups” in his first administration.
This time around, there are no grown-ups in the building.
Since retaking the White House, Trump has doubled down on this threat. On the first day of his second term, he issued a presidential proclamation declaring a state of emergency at the southern border that directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security head Kristi Noem to develop plans, including using the Insurrection Act, to combat the now-familiar fantasy “invasion” of “cartels, criminal gangs, known terrorists, human traffickers, smugglers, and unvetted military-age males from foreign adversaries.” The proclamation laid the groundwork for Trump’s mass-deportation program and for giving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol the largest budgets of any police agencies in the country.
Invoking the Insurrection Act would be the biggest gambit of all, likely resulting in a historic showdown before the Supreme Court.
Trump again threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act last June, in response to protests in Los Angeles, and then again in October over demonstrations in Chicago. Although he stopped short in both instances, he has ramped up the rhetoric to new heights in reaction to the growing resistance movement in Minneapolis. Taking to Truth Social on January 15, he warned:
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.
Despite removing Border Patrol “commander at large” Greg Bovino from Minneapolis on January 26 in a gesture some observers saw as a modest measure of conciliation, the threats have escalated.
On January 27, Trump received a letter from the House Freedom Caucus, urging him to use ”all tools necessary,” including the Insurrection Act, “to maintain order in the face of unlawful obstructions and assemblages that prevent the enforcement of the laws of the United States.” Bolstered by the endorsement, Trump returned to Truth Social three days later to denounce Pretti as an “Agitator and, perhaps, insurrectionist.” And in another Truth Social screed on January 31, he pledged to “guard, and very powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings that are being attacked by these highly paid Lunatics, Agitators, and Insurrectionists.” In a veiled reference to Pretti, he added that anyone caught “punching or kicking the headlights of our cars” or throwing bricks or rocks “at our vehicles, or at our Patriot Warriors […] will suffer an equal, or more, consequence.”
Whether Trump ultimately pulls the Insurrection Act trigger may depend on how he applies another of Roy Cohn’s lessons: Use the legal system to crush critics and opponents. Trump’s affinity for litigation is legendary. He has been involved in over 4,000 lawsuits, including several defamation actions taken against major media outlets like the New York Times, ABC, and CBS. In his second term, he has transformed the Department of Justice into his personal law firm, imposing sanctions on liberal law firms and elite universities by executive orders, and launching prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, and scores of rank-and-file anti-ICE protesters across the country. Even when the gambits fail, as they have with Comey and James, they send the chilling message that no one who defies or offends the president is safe.
Invoking the Insurrection Act would be the biggest gambit of all, likely resulting in a historic showdown before the Supreme Court. Trump has enjoyed extraordinary success in his Supreme Court cases, and with three of his nominees on the bench, he has reason to be optimistic about any final confrontation. Still, the outcome of any such move is uncertain.
In December, the court dealt Trump a surprising setback with an interim “shadow-docket” ruling (Trump v. Illinois) that blocked him from deploying National Guard troops in and around Chicago. The ruling was widely praised by liberal legal commentators, who saw it as a hopeful sign that the nation’s highest judicial body was willing to stand up to Trump’s incessant power grabs, at least on the use of the military for domestic law-enforcement purposes.
Unfortunately, the decision was temporary—all interim orders are—and narrow. It was also a split decision, with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.
At issue in the case was the administration’s interpretation of a vague phrase in a statute that empowers the president to federalize members of the Guard if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The administration argued the phrase referred to the inability of federal civilian law enforcement to maintain order during protests. The majority ruled instead that the phrase referred to the regular military, and that because Trump had not attempted to deploy the military and shown that it was unable to maintain order, he had not met the statute’s requirements.
As Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, the decision said nothing about the president’s authority to invoke the Insurrection Act. Rather, Kavanaugh suggested, it opened the door for Trump to proceed. “One apparent ramification of the court’s opinion is that it could cause the president to use the US military more than the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote.
To be sure, any invocation of the Insurrection Act would face legal challenges over whether the country is facing an actual rebellion, and the extent to which the military, if activated, is subject to the same constitutional restraints as civilian law enforcement. The challenges could succeed at the district court level, but from there, all bets would be off. The mad king would no doubt follow the advice of his erstwhile mentor, refuse to retreat, and ask his friends on the Supreme Court to intervene and allow his attacks to continue.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Authoritarian Tactic': Trump's DOJ Is Investigating Minnesota Leaders Walz and Frey
"This is a clear weaponization of justice against Trump's political rivals and a desperate attempt to distract from ICE's growing brutality and Trump's lawlessness," one Democratic senator said.
Jan 17, 2026
The Department of Justice is investigating Minnesota leaders including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, alleging that they are conspiring to impede federal immigration agents due to their outspoken criticism of the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to the Twin Cities.
The investigation, first reported by CBS News on Friday, marks yet another escalation from the Trump administration following the January 6 launch of what the Department of Homeland Security claimed was its larger-ever immigration operation in the Minneapolis area and the killing the next day of legal observer Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.
"Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic," Walz wrote on social media in response to news of the investigation. "The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her."
At the time of Good's death, Walz said the violence was the "consequence of governance designed to generate fear, headlines, and conflict" and told President Donald Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, "From here on, I have a very simple message: We do not need any further help from the federal government... you've done enough."
"This is 100% political retaliation and an implicit threat to all of us standing up for the Constitution."
Frey, meanwhile, responded to the shooting by telling ICE to "get the fuck out of Minneapolis!”
A source informed CNN that the Justice Department has issued subpoenas for both Walz and Frey, but neither leader's office had received any communication from the DOJ as of Friday.
"This is an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, local law enforcement, and residents against the chaos and danger this administration has brought to our city," Frey posted on social media Friday. "I will not be intimidated. My focus remains where it’s always been: keeping our city safe."
Frey continued: "America depends on leaders that use integrity and the rule of law as the guideposts for governance. Neither our city nor our country will succumb to this fear. We stand rock solid."
A US official told CBS News that the leaders were being investigated under 18 USC § 372, which says it is illegal for two or more people to conspire to stop federal agents from doing their jobs through "force, intimidation, or threats." However, this statute has not historically been used against people using their First Amendment right to criticize federal operations.
Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman called the investigation "total garbage" and "a complete and utter non-starter."
He added that the statute DOJ was invoking "requires force, intimidation, or threats," and that "there’s no way they could prove that, but even more… the First Amendment prevents any kind of action unless it is imminent and lawless.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, seemed to celebrate the investigation on social media, writing, "A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law."
Several Democratic politicians joined Walz and Frey in speaking out against the investigation on social media, including several from Minnesota.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called the investigation "an assault on our democracy and the rule of law."
"Speaking out against what our government is doing is not a crime in America—not now, not ever," she continued.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) wrote, "America deserves justice, not President Trump’s use of DOJ as a weapon against his perceived enemies. I stand with Gov. Walz."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said that the investigation was "even more proof that this has never been about making Minnesota safer. It has always been about political retribution for President Trump and his allies."
Beyond Minnesota, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote: "Donald Trump’s corrupted DOJ will stop at nothing—including ridiculous theories unsupported by facts—in pursuing his revenge agenda. No one is safe from his abuse of power. It’s sick."
"This is 100% political retaliation and an implicit threat to all of us standing up for the Constitution," posted Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) "I won’t be bullied and neither will the American people."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pointed to other times that Trump's DOJ had gone after his political opponents: "First it was Tish James and James Comey. Now it’s Senators, Governors, and the Fed Chair. In Donald Trump’s America you get a bogus investigation for doing your job. Americans reject this kind of totalitarian bullying. Where are Republicans? Hiding."
Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) both redirected attention to the killing of Renee Good.
"Instead of investigating the death of Renee Good, Trump wants to investigate Governor Walz and Mayor Frey. Despicable. This is a clear weaponization of justice against Trump's political rivals and a desperate attempt to distract from ICE's growing brutality and Trump's lawlessness," Van Hollen wrote on Friday.
In a follow-up post on Saturday, he continued: "Opening fraudulent investigations into Governor Walz and Mayor Frey is a textbook example of prosecutorial misconduct. Judges must start imposing sanctions and holding lawyers accountable. To every federal official participating in these shams: One day you will be held accountable."
Sen. Warren wrote: "Instead of seeking justice for Renee Good, Donald Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department to investigate and intimidate Democratic leaders in Minnesota. We will not stand by silently and be bullied into submission."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and Hegseth's Boat Strikes Are International Terrorism
It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes.
Jan 06, 2026
There has been much heated discussion of the United States Navy’s attacks, ordered by the President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, against numerous unidentified boats and their unidentified occupants. Many have characterized these lethal strikes as crimes under international law, which is valid position. However, what is less understood and more relevant is that the attacks are crimes under United States law and that they also constitute “international terrorism” as that term is defined in United States law.
Title 18 USC §2331 defines international terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life” that:
- “Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life…;”
- Either are a crime under United States law regardless of where they are committed or would be a crime if committed within the United States; that
- "Appear to be intended... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination...; and”
- “Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
The first, third, and fourth of those conditions are clearly met by the attacks off the coast of Venezuela because:
- 1) It is unquestionably true that the attacks on the boats have been violent and dangerous to human life because they have killed over 100 people;
- 3) Despite Trump’s and Hegseth’s ridiculous claim that the destruction of the boats and their occupants is necessary to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US, the real reason, as disclosed by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, is that they were using the attacks to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, i.e. “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination…;” and
- 4) They have occurred in international waters far outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
It is the second condition, i.e. whether the attacks (a) are a crime under United States law wherever they are committed or (b) would be a crime if committed in the United States, that determines whether they meet the definition of international terrorism under the law. If either or both are true, the condition is met.
As to the first alternative, i.e. whether the attacks are a violation of federal criminal law that applies regardless of where the attacks occur, the relevant federal criminal law is 18 USC § 2280. It provides that a person “who unlawfully and intentionally… performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship" or who "destroys a ship" commits a crime punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of "not more than 20 years, or both,” and if a death results from the violence or destruction, by a sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law’s definition of “ship” includes “a vessel of any type whatsoever,” i.e. the boats are ships within the meaning of the law. Finally, there is jurisdiction under the law when a person who commits the action is a “national of the United States.”
It is indisputable that the attacks constitute acts of violence against the people on the boats and that all of the boats have intentionally been destroyed. And even though Trump, Hegseth, and others have claimed that the attacks are lawful, their arguments do not stand up to even mild scrutiny. Their claim of lawfulness is based on a fictional state of war against the US, but there is in fact no war, no direct threat to the United States or its citizens, and no authorization by Congress for use of deadly force. Therefore, the attacks are clearly unlawful. Finally, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command who participated in ordering and commission of the attacks are nationals of the United States, so they fall within the jurisdiction of USC § 2280. Because the attacks have caused the death of those on the boats, the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment, which means it is a Class A felony per 18 USC § 3559. Therefore, the attacks are a crime under United States law.
The attacks on the boats also meet the alternative standard that they “would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States.” That is, the intentional killing of people without due process, i.e. unlawfully, is the crime of murder pursuant to 18 USC §1111(a).
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name.
The conclusion is that the attacks clearly constitute crimes of violence against maritime navigation and murder under United States law. Therefore, the attacks are acts of international terrorism per 18 USC §2331. That is, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command that furthered the implementation of these attacks are international terrorists. And because the attacks are being made by the United States armed forces in the name of the United States government, it follows that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Even though the Supreme Court has given Trump immunity and impunity, and even though the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi will never prosecute Hegseth, et al., under 18 USC § 2280 or for murder, that does not affect the conclusion that the attacks on the boats are acts of international terrorism as defined by 18 USC §2331, and that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism. The facts speak for themselves.
I believe it is important that the American people recognize that the attacks on the boats constitute international terrorism under United States law and that the United States has thus become a state sponsor of international terrorism. The United States government has condemned, and continues to condemn, foreign governments, e.g. Iran, as alleged state sponsors of international terrorism. That the United States government has now become the world’s most egregious state sponsor of international terrorism makes those condemnations of other countries utter hypocrisy.
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name. It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes. Only then can the United States begin to expunge the stain of being a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular