Will Trump Invoke the Insurrection Act?

Summary of Will Trump Invoke the Insurrection Act?

by The Daily Wire

17m•January 28, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of "Will Trump Invoke the Insurrection Act?" (The Daily Wire)

This episode argues that the Insurrection Act is a lawful, historically used federal tool that President Trump could (and, the host contends, should) invoke to restore federal authority in places where state or local officials refuse to allow federal law enforcement to do their jobs — specifically naming recent conflicts in Minneapolis over ICE operations. The host traces the Act’s origins to Thomas Jefferson (1807), explains the two main legal pathways for invocation, reviews historical precedents, rebuts common counterarguments (including Posse Comitatus), and frames the choice as one between enforcing federal law or allowing local nullification by mobs and sympathetic officials. The transcript also contains sponsor reads (Trust & Will; Balance of Nature) and a movie promo.

Key points and main takeaways

  • The Insurrection Act (1807) gives the president authority to use U.S. military forces to suppress insurrections or enforce federal laws when necessary.
  • There are two statutory paths:
    • Section 251 ("cooperation model"): the president may act upon request of a state governor or legislature.
    • Section 252 ("hammer clause"): the president may act unilaterally when unlawful obstructions make ordinary judicial enforcement impracticable.
  • The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) restricts use of the Army/Air Force for civilian law enforcement except where Congress or the Constitution authorize it — and the Insurrection Act is such an authorization.
  • The Act has been used many times (over 30 instances cited) by presidents from both parties: examples include Lincoln, Grant (Reconstruction), Eisenhower (Little Rock), JFK (Ole Miss), LBJ (1968 interventions), and George H.W. Bush (1992 LA riots).
  • The host argues that if Minnesota officials continue to impede federal agents (surrounding vehicles, blocking arrests, refusing to act), the federal government would be justified — and possibly obliged — to intervene under Section 252.

Legal background and statutory breakdown

Textual mechanics

  • Section 251: President may call in federal forces upon request of a state’s governor or legislature (used when states ask for help).
  • Section 252: President may use federal forces without state consent when unlawful obstructions or rebellion against federal authority make it impracticable to enforce laws through ordinary judicial processes.
  • Posse Comitatus Act: Generally forbids Army/Air Force domestic law enforcement except where another law (e.g., the Insurrection Act) authorizes it.

Practical trigger elements (per the host’s reading)

  • Unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages that directly interfere with federal officers.
  • Interference must make ordinary judicial enforcement impracticable (e.g., state police stand down, federal agents cannot leave buildings or execute warrants).
  • Presidential “consideration” is the statutory trigger — Section 252 does not require state consent.

Historical precedents (select examples cited)

  • 1807: Enacted under Jefferson to stop Aaron Burr’s conspiracy.
  • Andrew Jackson (1831): border dispute enforcement.
  • Abraham Lincoln (1861): Civil War.
  • Ulysses S. Grant: multiple uses during Reconstruction against KKK activity.
  • Grover Cleveland (1894): Pullman Strike.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt: Detroit race riot intervention.
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower: enforced desegregation in Little Rock.
  • John F. Kennedy: enforcement at Ole Miss and other civil-rights crises.
  • Lyndon B. Johnson: multiple domestic deployments in 1968.
  • George H.W. Bush (1992): deployed troops to quell the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
  • (Host notes last formal “invocation” widely referenced was 1992.)

Arguments the host makes for invocation in Minnesota

  • Recent events: activists surrounding ICE vehicles, obstructing federal agents, alleged attacks and two deaths (names cited in transcript).
  • Minnesota leadership (Governor Tim Walz, AG Keith Ellison, Mayor Jacob Frey per transcript) are portrayed as unwilling or defiant, effectively abdicating enforcement.
  • Under Section 252, if federal enforcement is impracticable because of state abdication or obstruction, the president can and should act to preserve the rule of law.
  • Failure to act would, the host argues, violate the presidential duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and risk encouraging more nullification elsewhere.

Counterarguments addressed (and the host’s rebuttals)

  • “The president can’t act unless the governor asks.” — Rebuttal: only true for Section 251; Section 252 allows unilateral presidential action.
  • Posse Comitatus prohibits use of the military domestically. — Rebuttal: the Posse Comitatus Act explicitly permits exceptions authorized by Congress (i.e., the Insurrection Act).
  • Accusations of “fascism” or “dictatorship” if the president uses the Act. — Rebuttal: historical bipartisan uses protected federal authority and civil rights; invoking the Act in response to obstruction is lawful enforcement, not tyranny.
  • Concern about January 6 and expanded restrictions after it. — Host contends courts/congress have litigated or debated those issues and that the law applies irrespective of partisan claims; neither side exclusively owns the law.

Potential scenarios and implications

  • Short-term: federal use of Insurrection Act authority could deploy troops/military resources to protect federal officers, secure federal facilities, and enable federal prosecutions.
  • Political: invocation would generate sharp partisan criticism and legal challenges; perception of legitimacy will hinge on factual evidence that local enforcement is failing.
  • Constitutional: a successful invocation would reinforce federal supremacy over state nullification attempts; failure to act could incentivize further local refusals to cooperate with federal law.
  • Human cost: host acknowledges risk of escalation and casualties; frames action as last-resort to prevent greater lawlessness.

Notable lines / quotes (paraphrased)

  • The Insurrection Act is a “foundational safeguard” passed to preserve federal authority.
  • Section 251 = “we need backup.” Section 252 = “get out of the way.”
  • “If one political party or one state can effectively nullify entire swaths of the federal government, we don't really have a country at all.”

Actionable summary for policymakers or informed listeners

  • Document instances where federal agents are obstructed and where local authorities refuse to act (evidence needed to justify Section 252 invocation).
  • Consider exhausting Section 251 (request for assistance) where feasible, but prepare Section 252 arguments if state officials will not cooperate.
  • Expect legal challenges and intense political backlash; prepare legal memos linking facts to Section 252 standards (unlawful obstruction + impracticability of ordinary judicial enforcement).
  • Communicate clearly about limits and objectives of any deployment (protect federal officers, restore the ability to enforce federal law, avoid mission creep).

Conclusion

The episode frames the Insurrection Act as a constitutionally sanctioned tool with significant historical precedent that can be used without state consent when federal enforcement is obstructed. The host argues that continued obstruction of federal agents in Minneapolis fits the statutory criteria for unilateral presidential action under Section 252 and that, if local authorities will not enforce federal law, the president has both the legal authority and constitutional duty to intervene. The segment is overtly political and prescriptive: it urges federal intervention as the necessary firewall against local nullification and escalating chaos.