(MENAFN- Live Mint) President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a centuries-old federal law allowing presidents to deploy the military domestically, as legal battles escalate over his attempts to federalise National Guard troops in Democratic-led states. The move has triggered fierce resistance from state officials and renewed debate about executive power and civil unrest in the United States.

Why is Donald Trump threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act?

President Donald Trump on Monday suggested he might use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy US military forces domestically if federal courts continue to block his orders sending National Guard troops into Democratic-led cities such as Portland and Chicago.

The president's comments came after a federal judge halted his attempt to send National Guard units to Portland, Oregon, describing the move as unlawful federal intervention. Trump, visibly frustrated, warned that he would not hesitate to use emergency powers if“people were being killed and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up.”

“You look at what's happening with Portland over the years, it's a burning hell hole,” Trump said in the Oval Office.“And then you have a judge that lost her way that tries to pretend that there's no problem.”

Although he stressed that he had not yet decided to enact the law, his remarks underscored growing tension between the White House and the judiciary amid efforts to expand federal authority over state-controlled guard units.

What is the Insurrection Act?

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a rarely used federal statute that allows the US president to deploy active-duty military forces or federalise state National Guard troops to suppress what is deemed an“insurrection against the United States.”

The law has historically been invoked during moments of domestic crisis - including the desegregation of Southern schools in the 1950s and riots in Los Angeles in 1992 - but it has remained politically explosive due to the potential erosion of states' rights and civil liberties.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Monday described the current legal conflicts as a form of“legal insurrection,” claiming federal judges were obstructing the president's constitutional authority.

“We need to have district courts in this country that see themselves as being under the laws and Constitution and not being able to take for themselves powers that are reserved solely for the president,” Miller said, arguing that judicial limits on National Guard deployments undermined executive power.

What sparked the confrontation over troop deployments?

At the heart of the crisis is the Trump administration's effort to deploy National Guard troops to Democrat-led cities, arguing that federal forces are needed to protect federal property and suppress unrest.

On Sunday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the deployment of guard units to Portland, Oregon, for the second time. The administration had attempted to circumvent an earlier injunction by sending troops from the California National Guard, prompting California to join Oregon's lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Illinois and Chicago filed suit against the administration on Monday, calling Trump's authorisation of federal guard deployments“patently unlawful.” The president had ordered 300 Illinois troops to Chicago and accepted 400 Texas National Guard members volunteered by Governor Greg Abbott to support operations in Democratic cities.

Despite the lawsuits, a federal judge in Illinois declined to block the deployments for now, allowing the operation to proceed. A military official confirmed that around 200 Texas National Guard troops were expected to arrive in the Chicago area later this week.

How are states and local officials responding?

The legal and political backlash has been fierce. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker condemned the deployments as an“unconstitutional invasion” and accused the administration of using chaos to tighten control.

“Their plan all along has been to cause chaos, and then they can use that chaos to consolidate Donald Trump's power,” Pritzker said at a press conference.

In Chicago, Judge April M. Perry of the Federal District Court pressed administration lawyers for clarity on troop assignments, saying she was“very troubled by the lack of answers” and would review the case before Thursday's hearing.

Local leaders have also moved to resist federal involvement. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson announced plans to create“ICE-free zones” to restrict operations by federal agents without warrants, while officials in Broadview, Illinois, issued orders limiting protests outside immigration facilities to daytime hours, citing concerns about federal agents“needlessly deploying tear gas, pepper spray, mace and rubber bullets.”

Trump, however, defended his stance, repeating long-standing claims that Democratic-run cities were unsafe.

“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” he told reporters.“I'd do that if people were being killed and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up.”

He also described Chicago as a“war zone,” and the administration's legal filings portrayed Portland as a“hotbed of violence and chaos.” Independent observers and local officials have disputed those characterisations, saying conditions on the ground do not match the White House's descriptions.

What happens next?

The White House has already appealed the Oregon court's decision blocking troop deployments and is urging an appeals court to allow the use of National Guard forces from other states. The judge who issued the original order was appointed by Trump himself, underscoring the complexity of the legal standoff.

The Justice Department is expected to argue that the president has constitutional authority to deploy federalised guard troops to enforce federal law - a position that will likely face significant pushback from state governments and civil rights groups.

As the crisis deepens, the administration finds itself in a constitutional tug-of-war over the limits of presidential power. Trump's renewed threat to invoke the Insurrection Act - last raised during his 2024 campaign and previously considered in 2021 following his election defeat - marks one of the most serious challenges yet to the balance between state autonomy and federal authority.

Whether the president follows through on his threat could set a major precedent for the future use of domestic military force in the United States - and test the nation's democratic resilience in the face of escalating political division.

MENAFN06102025007365015876ID1110159047