If President Trump considers invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy troops in Minneapolis amid rising violence against ICE, the blame will rest entirely on the state’s leaders.
In the wake of a dangerous incident last week, where a motorist was shot during a confrontation with ICE, Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey seem to have sparked a significant unrest. Instead of waiting for all the details to surface, Frey dismissed claims of self-defense, calling them outrageous, and instructed ICE to leave Minneapolis immediately. As protests turned into riots, Frey pointed fingers at federal agents, which is, well, a bit like blaming a bank for a robbery.
Walz didn’t hold back either, describing ICE as a “modern-day Gestapo” and commending the protesters while alleging ICE’s role in “atrocities” and “systemic brutality.” Such statements resonate with activists shouting accusations at federal agents in the streets.
The situation quickly escalated, resulting in violent confrontations. The American flag was burned, and rioters attempted to obstruct ICE agents—some even tried to use SUVs as barriers. There were plots to “de-arrest” individuals taken into custody by federal agents. Yet, it’s important to note that getting in the way of federal law enforcement isn’t just reckless; it’s also illegal.
After a second shooting where federal agents were ambushed during a lawful arrest, things became even more volatile. Protesters targeted ICE officers with rocks, bottles, and fireworks, leading to vandalism and theft of federal vehicles. One vandalized car dared to display the words, “Hang Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem,” while others inscribed “The only good agent is a dead agent.”
Amid the chaos, local police did not intervene much, which is not surprising for a city known as a sanctuary, where the rights of undocumented immigrants often overshadow those of law-abiding residents.
Deputy U.S. Attorney Todd Blanche criticized the situation, calling it a rebellion arising from the leadership of a resigned governor and an ineffective mayor who incite violence against law enforcement. He accurately triggered the term “rebellion,” which fundamentally describes a violent uprising against government authority.
In light of the rising violence, President Trump has threatened to use the Insurrection Act if state leaders do not take steps to protect federal employees and ensure safety. Legally, he has the authority to act this way.
This could involve deploying troops rather than federalizing the National Guard, a strategy he has employed in other instances of civil unrest tied to immigration enforcement.
A bit of history here: the Insurrection Act has seen usage by various presidents since Thomas Jefferson’s time. For example, in 1957, President Eisenhower dispatched troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to uphold civil rights laws amidst local defiance. Similarly, Kennedy intervened in Alabama and Mississippi, and Bush sent federal troops to Los Angeles during unrest in 1992, when local authorities failed to manage the situation.
Some critics mistakenly argue that Trump’s actions would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts federal troops from maintaining domestic peace. This claim overlooks the exceptions granted by the Insurrection Act.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh recently underscored the president’s established authority under Article II to deploy the military to safeguard federal personnel and property, separate from the National Guard.
Essentially, that’s what Trump is attempting to do in Minneapolis—protect ICE agents and their properties while enforcing laws regarding immigration and deportation. Like Bush, he also possesses the authority to quell larger riots.
It’s ultimately up to the president whether to invoke this law. Still, there are arguments against it, as pointed out in a Wall Street Journal editorial. They suggest that the turmoil in Minnesota does not reach the level of violence that justifies invoking such powers and that calling in troops might actually provoke more protests. Plus, it’s an election year, which adds additional considerations.
These are valid observations, certainly weighing on Trump’s mind. Having the power to act is tempting, but sometimes it’s wise to hold back.
