Former President Donald Trump may be preparing to invoke the Insurrection Act, a centuries-old statute that permits the use of military force on U.S. soil during moments of national upheaval. With escalating unrest in Los Angeles and other cities, his recent actions have ignited alarm among governors, civil rights advocates, and legal experts over what they view as an unprecedented expansion of executive power.
Trump has already deployed active-duty Marines and federalized the California National Guard, stripping Governor Gavin Newsom of control over state forces. Critics argue that the situation is quickly evolving into a broader test—not just of law and order, but of the outer boundaries of presidential authority.
What Is the Insurrection Act—and Why It’s a Big Deal
Passed in 1807, the Insurrection Act empowers a president to deploy the military in cases of insurrection or when local law enforcement fails to uphold federal law. It provides a legal exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits military involvement in civilian affairs. Historically, the Act has been invoked sparingly, most recently in 1992 during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
Although Trump has not formally invoked the law, his movements—mobilizing troops and seizing control of state resources—suggest he may be laying the groundwork. If enacted, the Insurrection Act would grant sweeping powers with limited oversight, raising serious constitutional and civil liberty concerns.
Title 10 and the Battle Over California’s National Guard
Using Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Trump federalized the California National Guard, bypassing traditional protocols that require state approval. Citing a national emergency, Trump asserted control without Governor Newsom’s consent—an aggressive legal move that sparked swift opposition.
Critics argue that Title 10 does not justify unilateral federal action unless there’s a clearly defined national threat. Legal experts warn that the precedent could undermine state sovereignty and blur the line between civilian governance and military force.
California Strikes Back in Federal Court
In response, Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit, arguing that Trump’s action violated the Tenth Amendment, which safeguards states’ rights. On June 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer sided with California and ordered the National Guard returned to state control.
However, Trump defied the order, prompting a federal appeals court to issue a temporary stay, allowing him to maintain command until a full hearing later this month. The standoff is now heading for a high-stakes legal showdown with national implications.
700 Marines in LA: Testing the Boundaries of Presidential Power
Alongside the National Guard, Trump has deployed 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, claiming they’re necessary to protect federal buildings. While this may be legally permissible under exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, critics say it’s a thin justification for a deployment that edges dangerously close to militarized policing.
Without officially invoking the Insurrection Act, Trump’s use of federal troops is seen by many as a trial balloon—pushing the limits of presidential power while avoiding direct legal accountability. The move has sparked bipartisan criticism and constitutional concern.
A Rare and Controversial Legal Tool
The Insurrection Act has only been used in exceptional cases—such as Eisenhower’s deployment to enforce school desegregation in 1957 or President George H.W. Bush’s response to the 1992 LA riots. Its use has always been cautious, given its potential to override civilian governance and inflame unrest.
Trump’s willingness to engage the act—or act without it—signals a dramatic departure from precedent. Legal scholars warn that if invoked for political or preventative purposes, it could lower the threshold for future presidents to use military force domestically.
What’s at Stake
At the heart of the unfolding crisis is a fundamental question: How far can a president go in using military power on U.S. soil? Trump’s maneuvers are already redefining the balance between federal and state authority—and may set the tone for how future crises are handled.
As court battles intensify and public protests grow, the outcome of this standoff could shape the legal and political landscape of presidential power for decades to come.
