Speculation is growing that President Donald Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act after the fatal shooting by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers of a woman on a Minneapolis, street on Wednesday.
Newsweek has contacted the White House and the governor of Minnesota’s office for comment via email.
Why It Matters
Trump's prior deployments of federal troops and consideration of the act have already sparked legal and political pushback in several states. The specter of invoking the act following violent incidents, such as the ICE shooting in Minnesota, raises significant questions about the boundaries of federal authority, civil liberties, and the precedent it may set for responding to protests or unrest across the United States.
What To Know
Recent violence in Minnesota, including the high-profile shooting involving ICE, has reignited debate and speculation that Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces within the state.
While the precise circumstances surrounding the Minnesota ICE shooting remain under investigation, the event has intensified concerns among state and local officials about federal overreach.
Concerned statements from local leaders and calls from one member of Congress concerning the act reflect heightened political tension and legal uncertainty.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has publicly expressed worries that escalating confrontations may provide justification for federal intervention. The Democrat said in a news conference: “Minnesotans, do not take the bait. Do not allow them to deploy federal troops here.
“Do not allow them to invoke the Insurrection Act. Do not allow them to declare martial law. Do not allow them to lie about the security and decency of this state.”
Walz also said that he was preparing the Minnesota National Guard and warned that “we have soldiers prepared to be deployed if necessary”, adding: “These National Guard troops are our National Guard troops.”
Responding to Walz’s remarks, Republican Representative Mary Miller of Illinois wrote on X: “Invoke the Insurrection Act. Arrest Tim Walz.”
In 2025, Trump moved to federalize National Guard units in California, Illinois and Oregon over the objections of those states’ governors, saying the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property during immigration enforcement operations.
Legal challenges repeatedly stalled those efforts. In Illinois, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit blocked the Guard’s deployment in the Chicago area, finding the administration had not met Title 10’s requirements and rejecting claims of a “rebellion”; days later, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to lift the bar on deployment, noting the government had not shown a lawful basis under the Posse Comitatus Act.
Similar developments played out on the West Coast, with courts ruling deployments in Los Angeles and Portland unlawful.
What Is the Insurrection Act?
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a federal law that allows the president, in exceptional circumstances, to deploy federal armed forces domestically—such as to suppress insurrection, enforce federal court orders, or protect civil rights—sometimes at a state’s request and sometimes without it, when the law’s statutory triggers are met.
The act authorizes the president to use federal armed forces—including, when federalized, National Guard units—only under defined statutory conditions, such as suppressing insurrection or enforcing federal law when it is obstructed, rather than for general “public order” emergencies.
Historically, the law has been used sparingly—most notably in 1957 to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, and in 1992 during riots in Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict.
During 2025, Trump publicly contemplated invoking the Insurrection Act in response to protests and immigration‑related enforcement clashes, but in the Chicago and West Coast cases, he pursued deployments under Title 10 rather than formally invoking the Act.
However, experts and local officials have consistently challenged whether those situations met the legal thresholds defined by the statute.
In 2025, Trump had already employed his authority to federalize state National Guards over the objections of governors in California, Illinois, and Oregon, citing the need to protect federal assets and manage unrest linked to immigration enforcement and urban violence.
What Happens Next
Court challenges and political pushback continue to shape the trajectory of any federal intervention under the Insurrection Act. While the statute remains available to Trump, multiple court rulings have affirmed state challenges and limited federal authority, at least temporarily.
Conversation
Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness. Read our guidelines here
All Comments
Active Conversations
The following is a list of the most commented articles in the last 7 days.
A trending article titled "Donald Trump reacts after Republican senators vote to curb his war powers" with 94 comments.
Donald Trump reacts after Republican senators vote to curb his war powers
94
A trending article titled "Who is Jonathan Ross? ICE agent who shot Minneapolis woman" with 319 comments.
Who is Jonathan Ross? ICE agent who shot Minneapolis woman
319