A 19th-century law with modern implications
The Insurrection Act, a series of laws passed by Congress between 1792 and 1871, allows the President of the United States to deploy active-duty military personnel within the country to carry out law enforcement duties in the event of a rebellion or the threat of a rebellion. This law, which has been invoked only rarely in recent decades to quell riots, represents the primary legal mechanism that would allow a president to federalize or deploy forces within the country to suppress unrest when local authorities are deemed unable or unwilling to do so. In the current context, this long-standing law has become a potential tool that Trump could use to justify deploying troops to cities like Minneapolis ahead of the midterm elections.
Trump publicly suggested last October that he might attempt to circumvent the legal limits on his military deployment by invoking the Insurrection Act, telling reporters: “So far, it hasn’t been necessary, but we have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If I had to apply it, I would.” ” Although he has not yet used this law during his second term, the incident in Minneapolis could provide the necessary pretext for invoking it. The growing tensions between the federal government and local authorities, combined with the protests that followed the shooting, create exactly the kind of situation the Insurrection Act is meant to address—at least according to its broadest interpretation.
There is something strangely ironic about seeing a 19th-century law used to justify a 21st-century policy that resembles authoritarianism more than democracy. The Insurrection Act was designed to protect the Union against genuine existential threats, not to suppress legitimate protests against abuses of power. When I see how this administration plans to use old laws for modern political purposes, I feel a deep sense of unease. It’s as if they’re trying to turn tools of protection into weapons of repression. And it reminds me of the warnings from all those who have studied the rise of authoritarian regimes throughout history.
Recent Legal Precedents
Previous efforts by the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard in cities led by Democrats have largely failed in court. Proposed deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago were blocked by federal judges before the troops were even deployed, and the courts have repeatedly ruled that there was insufficient evidence that federal law enforcement needed military assistance to enforce the law. This conclusion was confirmed last month by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, which wrote: “The government has failed to prove that the law allows the president to federalize the National Guard in the exercise of his inherent power to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.”
However, the Insurrection Act could circumvent these legal obstacles by allowing the president to deploy federal troops without the consent of the governor of the state in question. Unlike previous deployments that were successfully challenged, the use of the Insurrection Act would represent a fundamental shift in the Trump administration’s approach. This law provides a stronger legal basis for federal intervention, at least in theory, although its use in this specific context would undoubtedly be challenged in court. Whether the current Supreme Court—which has demonstrated its support for Trump’s controversial actions—would uphold such a use remains to be seen.
The courts have so far acted as checks and balances against the Trump administration’s excesses. But when I look at the composition of the current Supreme Court, I can’t help but wonder how long these safeguards will hold. It’s as if we’re testing the limits of our constitutional system, and I fear we may discover too late that those limits are more porous than we thought. The thought that politically appointed judges might approve the use of the military against American citizens protesting peacefully keeps me awake at night. This isn’t just a matter of politics. It’s a matter of the survival of our democratic institutions.
Section 2: Trump's Political Strategy
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FRippled_USA_stars_and_stripes_American_flag-optimized-madmax-mkdqhhg5.jpg)
Creating an atmosphere of fear ahead of the elections
Al Tillery, a professor of political science at Northwestern University in Illinois, told Newsweek that Trump could use the Insurrection Act to send troops to various parts of the country ahead of the election. “There is no doubt in my mind that Trump wants to use ICE and the National Guard to create a climate of fear in Democratic cities ahead of the midterms,” ” he said. This strategy is based on the idea that a visible military presence in Democratic cities before the election could discourage voter turnout among progressive and minority voters, while mobilizing Trump’s conservative base through “law and order” rhetoric.
The Republican Party holds a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress, and the party not in power tends to perform better in midterm elections. In the 2018 midterm elections, during Trump’s first term, the Democrats gained 40 seats in the House of Representatives. Losing the House of Representatives would affect the GOP’s ability to pass key legislation and advance Republican policies. Trump has expressed concerns about the party’s potential performance in the midterms, and the party is implementing various strategies to put itself in a strong position, including putting Trump on the campaign trail and attempting to redraw state district boundaries to favor Republican candidates.
This is an utterly cynical strategy, but it’s also a dangerous one. Deliberately creating an atmosphere of fear to manipulate election results is not normal politics. It’s psychological manipulation on a massive scale. When I think of the families already living in these communities—the mothers who fear for their children’s safety—I feel a deep, simmering anger. Using these existing fears as political leverage means exploiting people’s vulnerabilities for personal gain. And what terrifies me most is that this strategy might actually work. History shows us that fear is a powerful political motivator, and Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to channel it effectively.
Mobilizing the Conservative Base
Trump’s rhetoric regarding the ICE shooting was immediately hostile and partisan. In a statement, he described Renee Good as “very disorderly, obstructive, and defiant, who then violently, deliberately, and viciously ran over the ICE officer, who appears to have shot her in self-defense.” ” This description, despite contradictory video evidence, serves to reinforce the narrative that Democratic cities are zones of “lawlessness” requiring federal intervention. Vice President JD Vance called Good’s death “a self-inflicted tragedy” and labeled her a “victim of left-wing ideology.”
This aggressive rhetoric aims to mobilize Trump’s conservative base by framing the midterm elections as a clear choice between supporting law and order or chaos and anarchy. By personalizing the conflict around federal agents doing their jobs and “obstructionist” citizens, Trump seeks to turn every election into a vote on his administration rather than on the local issues that traditionally dominate midterm elections. This strategy has worked for him in the past, and he seems determined to use it again, even if it means exacerbating already deep national divisions.
When I hear this rhetoric, I can’t help but think of all the times we’ve heard political leaders use similar language to justify repressive actions. This isn’t new. It’s an old playbook that has been used by authoritarian regimes throughout history. What strikes me is how well it still works. There is something in the human mind that responds to fear, to urgency, to the need to choose a side. And Trump has mastered this art like few others. What saddens me is seeing how this divides our communities, our families, and our country. We are becoming political enemies rather than fellow citizens seeking common solutions.
Section 3: Local and State Resistance
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_c7547909a034fa0c-optimized-madmax-mkdqhk81.jpg)
Governor Tim Walz Takes a Stand
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, himself a former National Guard veteran, responded firmly to the events in Minneapolis. At a press conference on the day of the shooting, he described the incident as “the consequences of governance designed to generate fear, headlines, and conflict” and added, “We don’t need any additional help from the federal government.” ” Walz announced that he was ordering the state National Guard to go on standby, but he made it clear that these troops would be used to “support public safety, security services, and law enforcement activities” rather than to confront federal agents.
In a call for public calm, Walz warned residents not to “take the bait” by allowing the federal government to deploy troops to their cities. “Don’t let them invoke the Insurrection Act. Don’t let them declare martial law. Don’t let them lie about the safety and decency of this state,” he urged. This firm stance represents direct resistance to Trump’s potential strategy and could serve as a model for other Democratic governors facing similar attempts at federal intervention.
There is something refreshing about Governor Walz’s response. Instead of giving in to panic or federal pressure, he has stood his ground on principle. When he says “don’t take the bait,” he acknowledges something crucial: that this situation is, in part, a theatrical ploy designed to provoke a reaction. What inspires me is seeing a local elected official who refuses to participate in this political charade. There is dignity in this calm and firm resistance. And I wonder if other leaders will follow his example. Because if every Democratic governor takes the same stance, Trump’s strategy could collapse under its own weight.
Local Authorities Are Taking Action
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has taken an even more direct stance, publicly declaring, “ICE, get out of Minneapolis.” He vigorously contested the DHS’s claim that Renee Good had attempted to use her SUV as a weapon to run over an ICE agent, noting that videos of the incident did not appear to suggest that. “Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everyone straight up that this is bullshit,” he said. This blunt criticism represents a significant departure from the usual diplomatic language of relations between local and federal governments.
The Minneapolis Police Department has activated mutual aid from surrounding jurisdictions and bolstered local law enforcement resources as a precaution against potential civil unrest. In addition, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty stated that her office was “exploring all options to ensure that a state-level investigation can proceed” after the FBI revoked the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s access to evidence from the shooting. These collective actions demonstrate coordinated resistance to federal attempts to control the narrative and the investigation into the incident.
When I hear Mayor Frey use such direct language, I feel a mix of shock and respect. American politics has become so sanitized, so measured, that hearing an elected official say “that’s bullshit” is almost shocking. But at the same time, it’s refreshing. Sometimes, situations call for language that matches the gravity of what’s happening. What happened in Minneapolis isn’t a matter of political nuances. It’s a matter of life and death, of justice and injustice. And sometimes, only direct language can express the outrage we all feel in the face of such situations.
Section 4: Constitutional Implications
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_79987ae918062143-optimized-madmax-mkdqhn03.jpg)
The Separation of Powers Put to the Test
A potential battle over the Insurrection Act would test the constitutional foundations of the separation of powers between the federal government and state governments. The U.S. Constitution grants governors considerable control over their National Guard forces, but it also gives the president the authority to federalize these troops under specific circumstances. The tension between these competing powers lies at the heart of the current conflict, with each side invoking different parts of the Constitution to justify its position.
The Trump administration has argued that the president’s power as commander-in-chief gives him the authority to deploy federal troops to protect federal agents and federal property. In contrast, governors such as Tim Walz argue that the Tenth Amendment—which reserves to the states those powers not delegated to the federal government—gives them the right to control law enforcement within their borders. This legal battle could end up before the Supreme Court, which would have to decide how to balance these competing powers amid intense political turmoil.
When I look at this constitutional battle taking shape, I feel a sense of vertigo. We are talking here about fundamental questions regarding the nature of our system of government. Who controls the streets of our cities? The federal government or local governments? This is a question our Founding Fathers debated intensely, and we are about to revisit it in a modern context. What concerns me is that no matter who wins this legal battle, our country stands to lose something. Either we lose our ability to resist the overcentralization of power, or we lose our ability to respond effectively to national threats. It is a constitutional dilemma with no easy solution.
Historical Precedents
The use of military forces to resolve internal conflicts has historical precedents in the United States, but these precedents are generally associated with periods of extreme crisis. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock after Governor Orval Faubus mobilized the Guard to prevent nine Black students from entering Central High School. Eisenhower stated: “The law of the mob cannot be allowed to prevail over the decisions of the courts.”
Similarly, in 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to remove Governor George Wallace from the entrance to the University of Alabama, where he was preventing two Black students from enrolling. However, Kennedy promised to maintain control of the National Guard troops for as short a time as possible, writing in a telegram to Wallace: “It will be unfortunate if the members of the Alabama National Guard now on federal duty must remain away from their homes and jobs for an extended period this summer. The duration of their service depends largely on you.” These historical precedents suggest that the use of domestic military powers has traditionally been limited and temporary.
When I think of these historical precedents, I shudder. Eisenhower and Kennedy used the military to uphold constitutional rights, not to suppress them. That is a fundamental difference we should not forget. What concerns me is that we are in the process of normalizing the use of extraordinary powers in situations that, while serious, do not pose the same existential threats as forced desegregation or violated civil rights. It’s as if we’re sliding down a slippery slope where each new abuse of power seems less shocking than the last, until we forget what the norm was in the first place.
Section 5: The Implications for the 2026 Elections
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_38c83a4cd58a5f5a-optimized-madmax-mkdqhpqz.jpg)
Increased Polarization of the Electorate
The potential use of the ICE shooting as a pretext to deploy troops ahead of the midterm elections could have profound consequences for the American political landscape. Thomas Whalen, an associate professor of American politics at Boston University, told Newsweek that the possibility of Trump sending troops into cities ahead of the midterms should be taken “seriously.” “Trump is generally at his worst when he thinks he’s going to lose. And it looks like he—or at least his party—is going to lose big in the midterms,” he said.
Experts suggest that such a strategy could have unpredictable effects on the electorate. On the one hand, a visible military presence could discourage voter turnout among groups that tend to vote Democratic, particularly communities of color and immigrants. On the other hand, it could also provoke the opposite reaction by motivating those same communities to turn out in greater numbers to vote against what they perceive as voter intimidation. Calvin Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University in Texas, told Newsweek that this scenario was “largely a fevered dream of the left” and that “the main flaw in such a plan—as made clear by what we saw in Minneapolis this week—is that a show of force by the Trump administration around the elections would be far more likely to drive Democratic voters into the streets and to the polls than to intimidate them.”
That is the great paradox of this strategy. By seeking to suppress voter turnout among one group, Trump could actually boost it. American history is full of examples where attempts at voter suppression have ended up mobilizing voters even more. What fascinates me is that Trump and his advisors seem to believe that this time will be different, that the lessons of history do not apply to them. It is this arrogance—this conviction that the normal rules do not apply—that concerns me the most. Because when political leaders start to believe they can rewrite the rules of the game at will, that’s usually when the problems begin.
The Risks to American Democracy
The use of military forces for political purposes poses an existential threat to the democratic norms that have guided American politics for generations. The American tradition has always been to clearly separate the military from domestic law enforcement, with the National Guard serving as a bridge controlled by state governors. Breaking this separation, even temporarily, could have lasting consequences for how Americans perceive the military’s role in their society.
Furthermore, normalizing the use of the Insurrection Act to resolve domestic political conflicts would set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, whether Republican or Democratic. Once the door is opened to the use of extraordinary military powers for political purposes, it becomes increasingly difficult to close it again. This is why so many constitutional experts and retired military leaders have expressed concern about the Trump administration’s intentions. They recognize that democratic norms are fragile and must be protected—even from those who seek to exploit them for short-term political gain.
What truly terrifies me is normalization. Not the event itself, but the way we might grow accustomed to things that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. It’s as if we were frogs in water that’s slowly heating up. At first, we notice the heat. Then we get used to it. Eventually, we stop noticing at all that the water is boiling. It’s this slow erosion of norms that keeps me awake at night. Because unlike the sudden coups we see in other countries, the death of democracy can come gradually, imperceptibly, until one day we wake up and discover that we no longer live in the same country.
Section 6: International Reactions
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_b324fb1da1d39369-optimized-madmax-mkdqhshu.jpg)
America’s Image Around the World
The ICE shooting and the Trump administration’s potential response also have implications for the United States’ standing on the international stage. The United States has long presented itself as a model of democracy and the rule of law for the rest of the world, but these events are undermining that image. Authoritarian governments such as China and Russia have already begun to use these developments to criticize what they describe as American hypocrisy regarding human rights and democratic governance.
Traditional U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere have also expressed concerns about the direction of U.S. domestic policy. European diplomats have said in private that developments in the United States make it difficult to defend American democracy in international forums. This erosion of U.S. credibility could have long-term consequences for the United States’ ability to lead on the world stage and promote its democratic values abroad.
When I think about how the world views us, I feel a deep sense of shame. Not shame at being American, but shame at what we are becoming. For decades, we told the world how to organize their societies, how to respect human rights, how to build democracies. And now, we can’t even uphold our own standards. It’s as if we’ve been preaching morality while we ourselves have been violating those very principles. What hurts me the most is thinking about all those who have looked to America as a beacon of freedom, and who must now question that belief.
The Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy
Internal divisions in the United States also have practical consequences for U.S. foreign policy. A government preoccupied with domestic unrest has less capacity to engage coherently on the international stage. Furthermore, the use of military force for domestic purposes could set precedents that weaken U.S. opposition to the similar use of military force by other governments against their own citizens.
Analysts suggest that U.S. rivals such as China and Russia could use these developments to justify their own repressive actions, arguing that the United States is doing the same thing. This would create an international environment in which norms against the use of military force against citizens would be further eroded, with potentially serious consequences for human rights defenders around the world.
There is a cruel irony in all of this. America, by withdrawing from the world and focusing on its own divisions, is creating a vacuum that other powers are ready to fill. And these powers do not share our democratic values. They use our own divisions as weapons against us, as proof that our system is failing. What concerns me is that we are losing the battle of ideas without even realizing it. Every day that we are preoccupied with our own internal conflicts is a day when our rivals advance their interests around the world, often at the expense of the very values we claim to defend.
Section 7: An Uncertain Future
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FU.S._Flag-optimized-madmax-mkdqhvl0.jpg)
Possible Scenarios
As the November 2026 midterm elections approach, several scenarios are possible regarding the use of the ICE shooting as a political tool. The most optimistic scenario is that the Trump administration decides not to invoke the Insurrection Act and not to deploy troops to Democratic cities, recognizing that the political costs of such an action would outweigh the potential benefits. In this scenario, the elections would proceed as normal, albeit in an atmosphere of intense polarization.
A bleaker scenario would be for Trump to actually invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy federal troops to several Democratic cities before the election. This would almost certainly trigger immediate legal challenges from the governors and mayors concerned, as well as massive protests across the country. The result would be a period of political instability unprecedented in modern American history, with unpredictable consequences for the election and for American democracy as a whole.
When I consider these scenarios, I wonder which one is most likely. And honestly, I don’t know. Trump has demonstrated time and again that he is willing to take risks that other politicians would not dare to take. He seems to believe that the conventional rules of politics do not apply to him. And perhaps he is right. Perhaps we have already entered a new political era where the old norms no longer mean anything. It is this uncertainty that paralyzes me. How can we plan, how can we prepare, when we don’t even know what rules of the game will apply tomorrow?
The Role of Democratic Institutions
Faced with these challenges, American democratic institutions will be put to the test as never before. The courts, Congress, the media, and even the electoral system itself will have to resist political pressures and maintain their integrity. The ability of these institutions to function independently of political pressures will determine whether American democracy survives this tumultuous period intact.
Journalists and the media will play a particularly crucial role in providing factual coverage and holding those in power accountable for their actions. Federal judges will have to decide how to apply the Constitution to unprecedented situations. Lawmakers will have to decide whether they are willing to defend democratic principles even when that means opposing their own party. And finally, voters themselves will have to decide whether they are willing to defend democracy even when that means voting against their short-term political interests.
This is where we stand. We all depend on these institutions to protect us. But what concerns me is that these institutions are only as strong as the people who lead them. If judges are partisan, if the media is captive, if lawmakers are cowards, then no constitution can save us. Democracy is not a document. It is a practice. It is something we do every day—in our interactions, in our votes, in our willingness to accept results we don’t like. And I fear we have forgotten this fundamental lesson.
Conclusion: A Moment of Truth for America
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FThe_American_flag_is_waving_in_the_wind-optimized-madmax-mkdqhyo6.jpg)
The Choices Ahead
The ICE shooting in Minneapolis and the Trump administration’s potential response represent a moment of truth for America. We are faced with fundamental choices about the kind of country we want to be. Do we want a country where the federal government uses the military against its own citizens for political gain? Or do we want a country where political differences are resolved through free and fair elections rather than military force?
These choices are not abstract or theoretical. They will have real consequences for millions of Americans who depend on a functioning government to protect their rights and freedoms. The decisions we make in the coming months will shape the course of American history for generations to come. We have weathered difficult times in our past, and we have always managed to return to our founding principles. The question is whether we are capable of doing the same today.
When I reflect on this moment, I feel a heaviness in my heart—not despair, but a certain melancholy. We’ve been through so much together as a nation: wars, depressions, scandals, assassinations. We’ve always overcome these trials—sometimes with difficulty, sometimes imperfectly—but we’ve always moved forward. What concerns me today is that I’m not sure we have the same collective resilience we once had. We’re so divided, so angry with one another. We don’t even seem to agree on the basic facts anymore. And without that common ground, how can we build a shared future?
Collective Responsibility
Ultimately, the fate of American democracy does not depend on a single leader, a single party, or a single institution. It depends on all of us—ordinary citizens who must decide whether we are willing to defend the democratic principles that have made this country great. Responsibility begins with educating ourselves about the issues, but it doesn’t stop there. It requires that we actively engage in the democratic process—that we vote, that we speak out, that we resist attempts to manipulate our fears and divisions.
The events in Minneapolis remind us that democracy is never guaranteed. It must be constantly defended, protected, and renewed by every generation. This moment of truth is an opportunity to rediscover what unites us rather than focusing on what divides us. It is an opportunity to renew our commitment to the principles of government of the people, by the people, and for the people that have guided this country since its founding.
So here we are. We’re at a tipping point. No one knows exactly what’s going to happen. No one can predict the future with certainty. What I do know is that every day, we have choices. Small choices, big choices. How we speak to one another. How we treat those with whom we disagree. How we vote. How we live. These choices, taken together, ultimately define who we are as a people and as a nation. And at this crucial moment, these choices have never been more important. The future is not written. It is up to us to write it.
Sources
Primary Sources
Newsweek, “How Trump Could Use ICE Shooting To Impact 2026 Midterms” by Kate Plummer, published January 13, 2026, accessed January 14, 2026. CNN, “Fatal ICE Shooting Could Result in Another Messy Battle for Control of the National Guard” by Andy Rose, published January 9, 2026, accessed January 14, 2026. Wikipedia, “Killing of Renee Good,” updated January 13, 2026, accessed January 14, 2026.
Secondary Sources
Brennan Center for Justice, “The Insurrection Act: A Presidential Power That Threatens Democracy,” accessed January 14, 2026. League of Women Voters, “What You Need to Know About the National Guard, the Insurrection Act, and Martial Law,” accessed January 14, 2026. Associated Press, “Trump’s showy immigration enforcement leads to violent confrontations” by Ted Hesson and Kristina Cooke, published January 10, 2026, accessed January 14, 2026.
This content was created with the help of AI.
