News
Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act (again). What is it?
Law enforcement officers stand amid tear gas at the scene of a shooting Wednesday in Minneapolis.
Adam Gray/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Adam Gray/AP
President Trump on Thursday threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to suppress protests in Minnesota, a week after an ICE agent fatally shot a 37-year-old Minneapolis woman.
The shooting death of Renee Macklin Good sparked protests nationwide against ICE’s continued presence in Minnesota and across the country.
Protesters were further incensed on Wednesday evening when ICE agents in Minneapolis shot a Venezuelan immigrant in the leg during an attempted arrest.
Writing on Truth Social, Trump said: “If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State.”
The act is one way the president can send troops to states to restore law and order. But unlike in Trump’s National Guard deployments in 2025, the Insurrection Act would allow armed forces to carry out law enforcement functions, such as making arrests and conducting searches.
The law could open the door to significantly expanding the military’s role in quelling protests, protecting federal buildings and carrying out immigration enforcement, which some of Trump’s aides have suggested he do.
Since Thomas Jefferson signed it into law in 1807, the Insurrection Act has only been invoked about 30 times. The last instance was over three decades ago. During his second term, Trump has repeatedly brought up the idea of invoking the statute.
“If people were being killed and courts were holding us or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure I’d do that,” he told reporters back in early October.
Trump has also erroneously claimed that nearly half of all U.S. presidents have invoked the law and that it was invoked 28 times by a single president, as he said during an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes in late October.
In reality, only 17 out of 45 presidents — or 37% — utilized the law, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy organization that in 2022 tracked all Insurrection Act invocations. The group also did not find a president who invoked the emergency powers more than six times, as Ulysses S. Grant did during the Reconstruction era.
The White House did not release a statement on the president’s threat.
Here’s what to know.
How would the Insurrection Act get used?
There are three ways that the president can invoke the Insurrection Act, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The first is at the request of a state’s legislature or governor facing an “insurrection.” The law itself does not elaborate on what qualifies as an insurrection, but legal scholars generally understand the term as referring to a violent uprising of some kind.
In the second path, the president does not need a state’s consent to deploy troops when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” makes it “impracticable” to enforce federal laws.
The third path also does not require the affected state’s support. In this case, the president can send in the military to suppress an insurrection that “hinders the execution of the laws” or “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
Before invoking the Insurrection Act, the president must first order the “insurgents” to disperse within a limited amount of time.
How would troop deployments differ under the Insurrection Act?
So far during Trump’s second term, National Guard troops have been called into Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, Ore., under a statute known as Title 10, which places the force under federal control. The operations in Memphis and Washington, D.C., were authorized under Title 32, meaning they were under state command. (The situation in D.C is unique since the federal district is not a state and therefore does not have a governor.)

Under these deployments, Guard forces are subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits federal military personnel from acting as police on American streets. It’s rooted in one of the nation’s founding principles, which opposes military involvement in civilian affairs.
The Insurrection Act, however, is a key exception to the law.
The controversial emergency powers were last used during the 1992 Los Angeles riots after the acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King.
Former President George H.W. Bush invoked the law at the request of then-California Gov. Pete Wilson, who was worried that local law enforcement could not quell the unrest alone.
But that deployment also showed the risks of using military personnel as law enforcement. In an infamous moment, LA police officers asked a group of Marines to “cover” them as they approached a house. The Marines interpreted their request as asking them to open fire, while the police officers actually wanted them to stay on guard.

“The Marines then lay down suppressing fire. The police were completely aghast,” Mick Wagoner, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, told NPR earlier this year.
How much power does the Insurrection Act give the president?
Some of the Insurrection Act’s power comes from what’s not actually in it.
Terms like “insurrection,” “rebellion” and “impracticable” are loosely defined and give broad deference to the president, according to William Banks, professor emeritus of law at Syracuse University and an expert in national security and emergency powers.
“It’s incredibly open-ended and grants him a dramatic amount of discretion to federalize an incident,” he added.
The law also does not mention time constraints on the troop deployments. Nor does it involve Congress in the process to maintain checks and balances, Banks added.
The Insurrection Act has also been rarely tested in the courts. Trump himself described the Insurrection Act as providing legal cover.

“Do you know that I could use that immediately and no judge can even challenge you on that. But I haven’t chosen to do it because I haven’t felt we need it,” he said during the October 60 Minutes interview.
Despite its broad language, legal experts argue that historical precedent matters when it comes to the Insurrection Act.
If Trump were to invoke the law to address crime or enforce immigration laws, it would represent a sharp departure from past uses and would likely face legal challenges, according to Laura A. Dickinson, a professor at The George Washington University Law School who focuses on national security.
“ While it seems very broad on its face, it’s not a blank check,” she said.
News
How the federal government is painting immigrants as criminals on social media
Getty Images, Dept. of Homeland Security and The White House via X/Collage by Emily Bogle/NPR
Two days after At Chandee, who goes by Ricky, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the White House’s X account posted about him, calling the 52-year-old the “WORST OF WORST” and a “CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN.”
Except that the photo the White House posted was of a different person. The post also incorrectly claimed Chandee had multiple felony convictions — he has one, for second-degree assault in 1993 when he was 18 years old. He shot two people in the legs and served three years in prison.
At “Ricky” Chandee with his wife, Tina Huynh-Chandee.
Via the Chandee family
hide caption
toggle caption
Via the Chandee family
Chandee, who came to the U.S. as a child refugee, was ordered to be deported back to his home country, Laos. But Laos had not been accepting all of the people the U.S. wanted it to, so the federal government determined that it was likely infeasible to deport him, his lawyer Linus Chan told NPR. Chandee therefore was granted permission to stay in the U.S. and work so long as he checked in with immigration authorities periodically. He has not missed a check-in in over 30 years and has not had another criminal incident.
People who know Chandee do not see him as “worst of the worst.”
After Chandee completed his prison sentence, he finished school and became an engineering technician. He worked for the City of Minneapolis for 26 years, became a father, and his son grew up to join the military.
In his free time, Chandee enjoys hiking and foraging for mushrooms, Minnesota Public Radio reported.
“We are proud to work alongside At ‘Ricky’ Chandee,” said Tim Sexton, Director of Public Works for the City of Minneapolis in a statement. “I don’t understand why he would be a target for removal now, why he was brutally detained and swiftly flown to Texas, or how his removal benefits our city or country.” Chandee is petitioning for his release in federal court.
Chandee’s case is not unique
Social media accounts from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and other immigration agencies have spent much of the past year posting about people detained in the administration’s immigration crackdown, typically portraying them as hardened, violent criminals. That’s even as over 70% of the people detained don’t have criminal records according to ICE data.
NPR’s research of cases in Minnesota shows that while many of the people who have been highlighted on social media do have recent, serious criminal records, about a quarter are like Chandee, with decades-old convictions, minor offenses or only pending criminal proceedings. Scholars of immigration, media and criminal law say such a media campaign is unprecedented and paints a distorted picture of immigrants and crime.
A year into President Trump’s second term, the X accounts of DHS and ICE have posted about more than 2,000 people who were targets of mass deportation efforts. Starting late last March, DHS and ICE began posting on X on a near daily basis, often highlighting apprehensions of multiple people a day, an NPR review of government social media posts show.
Among the 2,000 people highlighted by the agencies, NPR identified 130 who were arrested by federal agents in Minnesota and tried to verify the government’s statements about their criminal histories.
In most of the social media posts, the government did not provide the state where the conviction occurred or the person’s age. Public court records do not tend to include photos so definitive identification can be a challenge.
NPR derived its findings from cases where it was able to locate a name and matching criminal history in the Minnesota court and detention system, in nationwide criminal history databases, sex offender databases, and in some cases, federal courts and other state courts.
In 19 of the 130 cases, roughly 1-in-7, public records show the most recent convictions were at least 20 years ago.
Seventeen of the 19 cases with old convictions did include violent crimes like homicide and first-degree sexual assault. ICE provided some of those names to Fox News as key examples of the agency’s accomplishments. “It’s the most disturbing list I’ve ever seen,” said Fox News reporter Bill Melugin on X, highlighting the criminal convictions of each person on the list.
For seven people, their only criminal history involved driving under the influence or disorderly conduct.
ICE agents approach a house before detaining two people in Minneapolis on Jan. 13.
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
Six of the 130 Minnesota cases highlighted by the administration involved people with no criminal convictions. The government’s social media posts for those six instead rely upon the charges and arrests as evidence of their criminality, even though arrests don’t always lead to charges and charges can be dismissed.
In yet another case, the government highlighted a criminal charge even while noting it had been dismissed. (The person did have other existing convictions.)
For 37 of the 130 people, NPR was unable to confirm matching criminal history after consulting the databases and news coverage. Some of the names turned up no criminal history at all. The government said these people committed crimes ranging from homicide and assault to drug trafficking, and cited one by name to Fox News. NPR tried to reach out to all 37 people and their families for comment but did not receive a response from any.
In a statement to NPR, DHS’s chief spokesperson Lauren Bis did not dispute NPR’s findings or provide documentation where NPR wasn’t able to confirm matching criminal history.
“The fact that NPR is defending murderers and pedophiles is gross,” Bis wrote. “We hear far too much about criminals and not enough about their victims.” before listing four of the people with old convictions of homicide and sexual assault, underlining the date of deportation order for three of them.
Images designed to trigger emotion
The stream of social media posts with photos of mostly nonwhite people are meant to draw an emotional response, says Leo Chavez, an emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine. They “have been used repeatedly over and over to get people to buy into, really drastic, drastic and draconian actions and policies,” he said.
Chavez, whose most recent book is The Latino Threat: How Alarmist Rhetoric Misrepresents Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation, recalls how political campaigns in past decades presented images of Latinos — often men — without context. “Just by showing their image, showing brown people, particularly brown men, it’s supposed to be scary.”
The fact that the government’s social media posts come with statements about criminal history as well as photos reinforces that emotional response, Chavez said. DHS has previously acknowledged inaccuracies on their website. But even if the department issues corrections, Chavez said, “the goal was actually achieved, which was to reinforce the criminality and the visualization.”
CNN’s analysis of DHS’s “Arrested: Worst of the Worst” website showed that for hundreds out of about 25,000 people posted on the website, the crimes listed were not violent felonies. Instead, DHS listed people with records that included traffic offenses, marijuana possession or illegal reentry. DHS said the website had a “glitch” that it will fix but also that the people in question “have [committed] additional crimes.”
“I’ve never seen anything like this when it comes to immigration enforcement in the modern era,” said Juliet Stumpf, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School who studies the intersection of immigration and criminal law. She said the drumbeat of social media posts focused on specific individuals was like “FBI’s most wanted posters” or “like reality TV shows.”
Then-DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Madison Sheahan (left), and Acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference at ICE Headquarters, in Washington, D.C., on May 21, 2025.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Stumpf drew a parallel with an incident from the 1950s when the U.S. government deported two permanent residents suspected of being communists. “The government was kind of proclaiming and celebrating their deportation because getting rid of these communists was making the country safer,” said Stumpf, “Maybe that’s comparable to something like [this].”
An analysis by the Deportation Data Project shows a dramatic increase in arrests of noncitizens without criminal records during President Trump’s current term compared to President Biden’s term.
“If you look at research, immigrants actually tend to commit fewer crimes than even U.S. citizens do. And that’s true of immigrants who have lawful status here and immigrants who don’t,” said Stumpf. “If we have a number of social media posts that are painting immigrants as the worst of the worst…it’s actually really putting out a distorted version of reality about who immigrants actually are.”
Some claims are disputed by other authorities
In some posts, DHS and ICE have also used photos of people and statements about their criminal histories to burnish the federal government’s accomplishments, defend their agents and criticize states like Minnesota. State and local authorities have in turn pushed back, and some of the federal government’s claims about the people it has detained have been met with setbacks in the courts.
DHS accused Minnesota’s Cottonwood County of not honoring detainers, written requests by ICE to hold prisoners in custody for a period of time so ICE can pick them up. In one post, the agency identified a person who was charged with child sexual abuse, writing “This is who sanctuary city politicians and anti-ICE agitators are defending.”
The Cottonwood County sheriff’s office said DHS’s post “misrepresented the truth” in their own post on Facebook. According to their account, the county did honor the detainer but ICE said it was unable to pick up the person before the order expired and the county had to release the suspect.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections wrote in a blog post that dozens of people DHS listed on its “Worst of the Worst” website were not arrested as DHS described, but were transferred to ICE by the state because they were already in state custody. The Corrections Department has since launched a page dedicated to “correct the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) repeated false claims.”
The “Worst of the Worst” website has some overlap with the department’s social media posts, but it contains a much larger number of people — over 30,000 nationally. It included a Colombian soccer star who was extradited to the U.S., tried in Texas, convicted of drug trafficking and served time in federal prison. The website incorrectly describes him as being arrested in Wisconsin. The soccer player, Jhon Viáfara Mina, recently finished his sentence early and returned to Colombia, according to Spanish newspaper El Diario Vasco.
In some instances, DHS and ICE wrote about incidents where they ran into conflict when carrying out arrests. In those posts, they named the arrestees and posted their photos. But in one case where the incident went to court, the government’s account of the events shifted. After a federal agent shot Julio C. Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis in January, DHS claimed he was lodging a “violent attack on law enforcement.” Assault charges against Sosa-Celis fell apart in court as new evidence surfaced, and the officers involved were put on leave.
Despite the fact that the charges were dropped, DHS’s post profiling Sosa-Celis remains online.
News
Bill Clinton to testify before House committee investigating Epstein links
Former president Bill Clinton is scheduled to give deposition Friday to a congressional committee investigating his links to Jeffrey Epstein, one day after Hillary Clinton testified before the committee and called the proceedings “partisan political theatre” and “an insult to the American people”.
During remarks before the House oversight committee, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, insisted on Thursday that she had never met Epstein.
The former Democratic president, however, flew on Epstein’s private jet several times in the early 2000s but said he never visited his island.
Clinton, who engaged in an extramarital affair while president and has been accused of sexual misconduct by three women, also appears in a photo from the recently released files, in a hot tub with Epstein and a woman whose identity is redacted.
Clinton has denied the sexual misconduct claims and was not charged with any crimes. He also has not been accused of any wrongdoing connected to Epstein.
Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times during the early years of Clinton’s presidency, according to White House visitor records cited in news reports. Clinton said he cut ties with him around 2005, before the disgraced financier, who died from suicide in 2019, pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor in Florida.
The House committee subpoenaed the Clintons in August. They initially refused to testify but agreed after Republicans threatened to hold them in contempt.
The Clintons asked for their depositions to be held publicly, with the former president stating that to do so behind closed doors would amount to a “kangaroo court”.
“Let’s stop the games + do this the right way: in a public hearing,” Clinton said on X earlier this month.
The committee’s chair, James Comer, did not grant their request, and the proceedings will be conducted behind closed doors with video to be released later.
On Thursday, Hillary Clinton’s proceedings were briefly halted after representative Lauren Boebert leaked an image of Clinton testifying.
During the full day deposition, Clinton said she had no information about Epstein and did not recall ever meeting him.
Before the deposition, Comer said it would be a long interview and that one with Bill Clinton would be “even longer”.
News
Read Judge Schiltz’s Order
CASE 0:26-cv-00107-PJS-DLM
Doc. 12-1 Filed 02/26/26
Page 5 of 17
and to file a status update by 11:00 am on January 20. ECF No. 5. Respondents never provided a bond hearing and did not release Petitioner until January 21, ECF Nos. 10, 12, after failing to file an update, ECF No. 9. Further, Respondents released Petitioner subject to conditions despite the Court’s release order not providing for conditions. ECF Nos. 5, 12–13.
Abdi W. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 26-CV-00208 (KMM/SGE)
On January 21, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents, within 3 days, to either (a) complete Petitioner’s inspection and examination and file a notice confirming completion, or (b) release Petitioner immediately in Minnesota and confirm the date, time, and location of release. ECF No. 7. No notice was ever filed. The Court emailed counsel on January 27, 2026, at 10:39 am. No response was provided.
Adriana M.Y.M. v. David Easterwood, et al., Case No. 26-CV-213 (JWB/JFD)
On January 24, 2026, the Court ordered immediate release in Minnesota and ordered Respondents to confirm the time, date, and location of release, or anticipated release, within 48 hours. ECF No. 12. Respondent was not released until January 30, and Respondents never disclosed the time of release, instead describing it as “early this morning.” ECF No. 16.
Estefany J.S. v. Bondi, Case No. 26-CV-216 (JWB/SGE)
On January 13, 2026, at 10:59 am, the Court ordered Respondents to file a letter by 4:00 pm confirming Petitioner’s current location. ECF No. 8. After receiving no response, the Court ordered Respondents, at 5:11 pm, to immediately confirm Petitioner’s location and, by noon on January 14, file a memorandum explaining their failure to comply with the initial order. ECF No. 9. Respondents did not file the memorandum, requiring the Court to issue another order. ECF No. 12. On January 15, the Court ordered immediate release in Minnesota and required Respondents to confirm the time, date, and location of release within 48 hours. ECF No. 18. On January 20, having received no confirmation, the Court ordered Respondents to comply immediately. ECF No. 21. Respondents informed the Court that Petitioner was released in Minnesota on January 17, but did not specify the time. ECF No. 22.
5
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT