President Donald Trump has once again started a national debate by suggesting the use of the Insurrection Act, a law from 1807 that lets federal troops keep order in the US. Trump said on October 6, 2025, that he might use the law if courts, governors, or mayors keep stopping him from sending the National Guard to cities like Chicago and Portland.
Key Takeaways
- Trump hinted at invoking a centuries-old law to bypass state opposition.
- The Insurrection Act allows federal troops to act when states fail to maintain order.
- Protests and violent clashes in several cities have reignited law-and-order debates.
- Supporters see it as decisive leadership; critics call it a threat to democracy.
- The move could reshape how federal power operates within U.S. cities.
Unrest is growing, and Trump is responding.
After violent protests near federal buildings, tensions have risen in major cities. ICE offices were attacked several times, and fights with local police got worse. Trump called Portland a “burning hell hole” because he was angry that court rulings were stopping Guard deployments. He said local leaders were letting chaos spread.
Judges in Oregon and Illinois stopped his earlier troop movements. Chicago officials even sued the federal government, calling the plan a “unconstitutional invasion.”
What You Should Know About The Insurrection Act
The Insurrection Act of 1807 lets the president use the U.S. military or National Guard to restore order when local governments can’t. It has been used about 30 times in U.S. history, such as during the school integration crises of the 1950s and the riots in Los Angeles in 1992.
The Posse Comitatus Act usually keeps the military out of civilian law enforcement. The Insurrection Act is one of the few exceptions that can be used in emergencies that threaten public order. Trump said he would act “if people were being killed” or “if continued legal challenges blocked federal protection.”
The reactions were all over the place.
As “Insurrection Act” became popular on social media site X, people started talking about it online.
Supporters praised Trump’s stance as a strong law-and-order move, saying it was a way to protect against “organized attacks” and state resistance. Many people pointed to cities run by Democrats, like Chicago and Portland, and said that their leaders weren’t doing enough to protect people or work with federal agencies.
But critics said there could be dangerous effects. Civil rights groups said it was a way to get to martial law and take away people’s democratic rights. Governors like J.B. Pritzker said that Trump was “manufacturing chaos” to make it look like the federal government needed to step in. Others said it could make divisions worse and hurt civil rights.
What’s Next
This conflict could make things safer for people who live in affected cities, but it could also make things more uncertain. Trump has already asked the Portland court to change its mind, and he is still pushing for the federal government to have power over local responses.
The result could show how much power the president has during times of trouble at home. It’s not clear if this will make the streets safer or cause a constitutional crisis, but one thing is for sure: the limits of federal power are being tested again in a very divided America.
