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
martial law
Trump Threatens to Invoke Insurrection Act, Take 'Unquestioned Power' Following No Kings Protests
Trump claimed that if he invokes the Insurrection Act, "there are no more court cases, there is no more anything."
Oct 20, 2025
While the nation was fixated on President Donald Trump’s deranged social media antics in response to this weekend’s "No Kings" protests, he managed to slip under the radar with some ominous threats to substantially expand his power.
The president generated bewilderment and outrage when, in response to the mass mobilization of more than 7 million Americans against his abuses of power, he posted an artificially-generated video of himself wearing a crown and flying a fighter jet emblazoned with “King Trump” that dumped what appeared to be a pile of excrement upon demonstrators in the middle of Times Square.
The public was understandably preoccupied with the president of the United States posting a video of himself “literally dumping shit on America,” which Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch called “metaphorically the most accurate piece of propaganda he’s put out this year.”
But it served as a useful distraction as Trump implied that he may use these protests as a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act, which he incorrectly suggested gives him “unquestioned power.”
“Don’t forget, I can use the Insurrection Act,” Trump said in a Fox News interview Sunday morning. “Fifty percent of the presidents almost have used that. And that’s unquestioned power. I choose not to.”
“I’d rather do this,” he said, referring to his deployment of the National Guard to American cities, including Chicago, Portland, and now San Francisco, which he announced as his next target last week. “But I’m met constantly by fake politicians, politicians that think that they—you know, it’s not a part of the radical left movement to have safety. These cities have to be safe.”
The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows presidents to direct federal troops to enforce US law in cases of extreme emergency, including rebellions against the federal government, beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement. Contrary to Trump’s claim, it has only been invoked by about a quarter of US presidents.
The last president to invoke the act was George H.W. Bush, in response to the riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of the police officers who brutalized Rodney King in 1992. Other presidents invoked it during times of extreme upheaval or war, including President Abraham Lincoln, who used it during the Civil War, and Ulysses S. Grant, who used it to suppress terrorism against newly freed Black Americans by the Ku Klux Klan across the South.
It has not historically been used to put down peaceful protests, like this past weekend’s No Kings marches, which frequently emphasize their commitment to nonviolence.
It is unclear what precisely Trump referred to when he said “that’s unquestioned power.” He may have meant that he has unquestioned power to invoke the Insurrection Act, which is also not true.
The law gives the president the power to invoke it in response to “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,” which has made it “impracticable to enforce the laws... by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
Though the Supreme Court has largely granted the president the authority to determine what forms of unrest may meet these criteria, Joseph Nunn, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice, explained earlier this year that "there are exceptions to the general rule that courts can’t review a president’s decision to deploy" forces:
The Supreme Court has suggested that courts may step in if the president acts in bad faith, exceeds "a permitted range of honest judgment," makes an obvious mistake, or acts in a way manifestly unauthorized by law.
Even in cases where the courts will not second-guess the decision to deploy troops, the Supreme Court clarified in Sterling v. Constantin (1932) that courts may still review the lawfulness of the military’s actions once deployed. In other words, federal troops are not free to violate other laws or trample onconstitutional rights just because the president has invoked the Insurrection Act.
Comments made by Trump aboard Air Force One later on Sunday suggest a different meaning to his claim of “unquestioned power,” that he was not referring to his ability to invoke the act, but rather saying it gives him authority to act unilaterally without any intervention from the courts.
“Everybody agrees you’re allowed to use [the Insurrection Act], and there are no more court cases, there is no more anything. We’re trying to do it in a nicer manner, but we can always use the Insurrection Act,” he continued. “We wanted to go this route, but we get sued every time you look at somebody, you look at somebody the wrong way, and you end up getting sued. We just want no crime.”
Trump has indeed been sued over his deployment of federal troops to American cities, including in Portland, where a judge ruled earlier this month that his claim that the city was “war-ravaged” was “untethered to facts,” as the protests there against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
It was also unclear what Trump meant when he said that if he invokes the Insurrection Act, “there are no more court cases, there is no more anything.” The comment seemed to imply that he believes that the Insurrection Act is tantamount to martial law, where the normal forms of due process do not apply, and the courts have no recourse to intervene against abuses of power.
Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy White House chief of staff, implied a similar unchallenged power earlier this month when he asserted that Trump has “plenary,” meaning practically limitless, “authority” to use the military on US soil, however he sees fit. Miller earlier this year also suggested suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the right to challenge unlawful detention, for immigrants.
Trump previously discussed invoking martial law with his advisers in 2020 in an effort to hold onto power following his election loss and later suggested that the supposed “fraud” in his election loss “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
But as Andy Craig, a fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies, explains, even if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, which he predicted, “is likelier than not,” it doesn’t give him the power to suspend the Constitution, at least not legally.
“None of this is true,” Craig said. “The Insurrection Act is not a declaration of martial law. It doesn’t close the courts. It doesn’t suspend habeas corpus. It means you can use the military to enforce federal laws, but the laws themselves remain the same.”
“There are lots of disasters waiting to happen in how much we have wired up to pure presidential power,” he continued. “But one thing we don’t have is some state-of-exception button the president can push and instantly become an absolute dictator. That’s not a thing in American law. No emergency power encompasses it.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Governors Warn of 'Martial Law' and Trump 'Invasion' as US Judge Halts Troop Order—for Now
"This is a moment where every American must speak up and help stop this madness," declared Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
Oct 06, 2025
A federal judge in Oregon issued a new and broader order on Sunday night to halt President Donald Trump from deploying any National Guard troops—regardless of their state of origin—to Oregon, Illinois, or elsewhere, as Democratic governors resisting the president warned of a frightening escalation in his authoritarian tendencies.
U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, who on Saturday ruled that Trump could not lawfully federalize National Guard troops from California for deployment to Portland, Oregon, issued a second order after the president mobilized 400 National Guard troops out of Texas, with the blessing of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, to deploy instead.
"It seems to me that based on the conduct of the defendants and the now seeking National Guard from Texas to go to Oregon again, I see those as direct contravention of the order [...] issued yesterday," said Immergut, nominated to the federal bench by Trump during his first term.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who brought the challenge with the request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), explained the ruling and the events leading up to it in a Sunday night video statement:
Late tonight, a federal judge issued a sweeping new order prohibiting the president from deploying National Guard forces—from any state or DC—to Oregon.
The president can’t keep playing whack-a-mole w/ different states’ Guard units to get around court orders & the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/X8hhZBSFhx
— Attorney General Dan Rayfield (@AGDanRayfield) October 6, 2025
California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose administration had challenged the order to send the California soldiers, applauded the ruling after calling Trump's effort to send the Texas troops "a breathtaking abuse of the law and power by the President of the United States."
"America is on the brink of martial law," said Newsom. "Do not be silent."
According to the Associated Press:
Approximately 100 California National Guard troops landed in Portland after midnight Sunday and around 100 more arrived by early evening, Alan Gronewold, commander of Oregon’s National Guard, said in a court filing before the emergency hearing late Sunday.
The state of Oregon also included in its filing a memo written by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that ordered up to 400 Texas National Guard personnel activated for deployment to Oregon, Illinois and possibly elsewhere.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, also a Democrat, issued a stark warning about the president's effort to send soldiers to Chicago, where ramped-up immigration enforcement raids have roiled the city and terrorized community members.
"We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion," said Pritzer. "It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops."
"The president is abusing his power, attempting to militarize our cities. The power of the people must remain greater than the people in power. We need to show up in peaceful protest across this nation. Stay Loud!"
—Rep. Maxine Dexter
Pritzker called on Abbott to withdraw his support for Trump's deployment, saying, "There is no reason a President should send military troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation."
As of this writing, the Trump administration had not responded to Immergut's latest ruling, but an appeal to a higher court is nearly certain.
Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) said while the latest TRO was a vital development, sustained and peaceful protest against Trump's march toward a militarized dictatorship remains essential.
"We cannot rest," said Dexter. "The president is abusing his power, attempting to militarize our cities. The power of the people must remain greater than the people in power. We need to show up in peaceful protest across this nation. Stay Loud!"
Important update! Judge Karin Immergut just issued a broader temporary restraining order that precludes any National Guard troops from being in Oregon for 14 days.
We cannot rest. The President is abusing his power, attempting to militarize our cities. The power of the people… pic.twitter.com/Ii4J1JRpBS
— Congresswoman Maxine Dexter (@RepDexterOR) October 6, 2025
In a Saturday statement, in response to Immergut's initial TRO blocking the deployment of the troops from California, Hina Shamsi of the ACLU said it was vital for the court to block Trump's dangerous move.
"As the founders of this country made abundantly clear, turning troops on civilians is an intolerable threat to our liberties,” said Shamsi.
"When President Trump is trying his best to imperil our First Amendment rights and scare those protesting his cruel policies into silence," she said, "it’s encouraging to see this court ruling based on adherence to law and facts, not the President’s fantasies of beautiful, vibrant American cities as hellscapes.”
In a similar joint statement, the Not Above the Law coalition warned that Trump's effort to deploy Illinois National Guard troops despite Prizker's objection "isn't about public safety, it's about testing how far a president can override elected state leaders and deploy forces against American communities."
"Turning troops on civilians is an intolerable threat to our liberties."
—Hina Shamsi, ACLU
“The pattern is clear and dangerous. Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, and now Illinois – each time against the will of local officials," said the coalition's co-chairs in their statement. "Our armed forces exist to defend the nation and protect our freedoms – not to patrol our own streets. And our nation’s brave servicemembers should not be used as the political pawns of a would-be authoritarian."
The coalition leaders said that lawmakers in Congress, who are nowhere to be seen this weekend due to Republicans in the House holding the chamber in recess, "must act now to prevent any president from weaponizing our National Guard this way. Whether you're a red or a blue state, every American should be alarmed when federal troops are deployed over the objections of local authorities. Americans in every community must speak out now. Stopping this abuse of power is essential to protecting our freedoms and our democracy.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Wants to Turn America Into a Police State
They're not even hiding it anymore.
Aug 10, 2025
After a couple of wannabe carjackers punched out Big Balls in DC, Trump used it as an excuse to threaten to take over the city and bring in the National Guard to police it, in a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. This despite the fact that crime in Washington DC is at a 30-year low and the city already has the largest police force, per capita, of any municipality in America.
None of that matters; Trump wants to turn America into a police state, just like every other dictator in the world does when they get ahold of a democracy. They steal from the people, enrich their cronies, break laws with impunity, and then use police agencies to terrorize the general populace, judges, and legislators into docility and submission when they object.
In fact, they told us this was their goal. They showed us. They planned it in writing.
You may not see it in the headlines. But if you read the memos — and watch the deployments — you’ll see it plain as day. The military is no longer on the sidelines. It’s here.
A leaked memo from inside the Department of Homeland Security reveals what many of us feared but hoped we were wrong about: that the military is no longer a last resort in American governance. It’s now a first tool. A central player. A political weapon, just like in Russia.
And they’re not even hiding it anymore.
This isn’t some vague speculation or dystopian what-if. This isn’t a shadowy plot hatched in secrecy. The document was written, circulated, and discussed at the highest levels of DHS and the Department of Defense and it spells out, in clinical, terrifying language, a plan to normalize and expand the use of the United States military within our own country, on our own soil, against our own people.
The memo, obtained by The New Republic, outlines a coordinated strategy to embed military forces into immigration enforcement not just at the border but across American cities. It calls for replicating the recent Los Angeles deployment “for years to come.” It uses phrases like “homeland defense” and paints immigration threats as akin to Al Qaeda or ISIS. It pushes for “new ideas” on how DHS and DoD can work together on “national security” threats inside the United States.
— This isn’t about law enforcement. It’s about militarization.
— This isn’t about safety. It’s about power.
— This isn’t about stopping crime. It’s about building a political machine with boots and guns that can intimidate or even subdue any opposition.
And it’s already happening. America is rapidly turning into an authoritarian police state.
Over the past two months, Trump has done what no modern president has dared. He sent 4,000 National Guard troops — federalized, not state-controlled — into Los Angeles to back up ICE raids. He followed that with 700 active-duty Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines.
These weren’t weekend warriors. These were combat-trained infantry troops deployed to performatively surround federal buildings and “support” immigration enforcement while pro-democracy protestors filled the streets.
Marines. In American cities. In June and July. “Guarding” federal offices and intimidating demonstrators.
And now, we’ve learned that smaller units have been sent to Florida and are prepping for deployment to Texas and Louisiana. The memo wasn’t a warning. It was a blueprint. A playbook for turning the world’s most powerful military force inward and turning constitutionally protected First Amendment political dissent into a “national security threat.”
Don’t believe Trump’s PR spin or the media’s pretending this isn’t as illegal and anti-democracy as it is. Don’t let the uniforms fool you into thinking this is routine.
This is not normal.
This is not legal.
This is not American.
This memo, which Hegseth and friends didn’t intend you and I would ever be able to read:
— Urges DHS to persuade top military brass to view immigration enforcement as a “homeland defense mission.”
— Seeks to embed armed, kill-trained military personnel inside ICE and CBP to “increase information sharing” and support “nationwide operational planning.”
— Frames transnational gangs and cartels as equivalent to Al Qaeda, a dangerous, dishonest leap that pretends to justify extreme, deadly force.
— And it admits, in its own words, that due to the “sensitive nature” of the meeting it documents, “minimal written policy or background” should be preserved.
Translation: They know what they’re doing is legally and morally criminal. So they’re minimizing the paper trail.
Carrie Lee, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, put it bluntly:
“This speaks to the intent to use the military within the United States at a level not seen since Japanese internment.”
I’d add, also not seen since the Civil War, when Americans turned their guns on each other and 700,000 of us died. And outlawed a decade after that war with the Posse Comitatus Act. And after the Kent State massacre, we resolved, “Never again.”
Joseph Nunn at the Brennan Center warned that this could create a permanent “domestic Forever War,” a campaign of endless militarization justified by fear and manufactured crises. Soldiers — including armed, masked ICE agents answerable only to the president — terrifying civilians on their own streets and in their own homes: a military occupation of The United States of America.
And that’s exactly the point. It’s all part of the classic dictator’s playbook.
You gin up fear about migrants and minorities. You call them invaders, terrorists, cartel assassins. You blur the line between protest and insurrection. You say cities are out of control. Then you send in the troops. Not to protect, but to occupy. And you call it “national security.”
This isn’t just Trumpism. This is textbook authoritarianism in the mold of Putin’s Russia and Orbán’s Hungary. It embodies the early stages of all the horror stories of 1930s Europe.
And let’s not forget the power grab embedded in all this. When Trump federalized the California National Guard, he did it against the will of Governor Newsom.
The state fought back in court. A federal judge ruled in California’s favor, but the administration appealed, and for now, the troops can remain under federal control.
That’s not just a skirmish over jurisdiction. That’s an open attack on the sovereignty of states, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. That’s a president saying, “Your Guard is my army now.”
This moment is a test. Of our Constitution. Of our institutions. Of our will.
Because if we let this stand — if we normalize Marines in our cities, Guard troops on our streets, soldiers surveilling residential communities — then we’ve already surrendered.
What happens when the next protest erupts? What happens when a city pushes back against federal immigration policy? What happens when a journalist, a mayor, or a movement becomes “too disruptive”?
Do we really think they’ll hesitate to send in the troops again?
And what kind of soldier will say no, when DHS and DoD have spent months telling them they’re defending the “homeland” against “enemy cells” within?
The line between foreign combat and domestic suppression is being erased. On purpose. By design.
The Founders of this country were obsessed with avoiding a standing army for precisely this reason.
It’s why they wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution requiring a “well regulated militia” at the state level and that same Constitution, in Article 1, Section 7 bars Congress from appropriating money for the Army for any period longer than two years. (“The Congress shall have Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”)
They had seen what happened when monarchs used soldiers to police dissent. They knew the threat; not just to liberty, but to the very idea of a democratic republic. They wanted to keep the military on a very, very short leash.
So they built guardrails. Laws. Norms. Civilian command. Posse Comitatus. State control over Guard units. Strict separation between military and police roles.
All of that is being unraveled right now.
You may not see it in the headlines. But if you read the memos — and watch the deployments — you’ll see it plain as day.
The military is no longer on the sidelines.
It’s here.
And unless we act — loudly, urgently, relentlessly — it will become a permanent force in American civic life. Not a protector of freedom, but a tool of control, just like in Orbán’s Hungary or Putin’s Russia.
We are not at war with ourselves, at least yet. But our democracy is under siege.
And the troops have already landed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular