Connect with us

News

Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act (again). What is it?

Published

on

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

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.)

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“ While it seems very broad on its face, it’s not a blank check,” she said.

News

Video: Trump Struck Iran. Now Farmers Are Paying the Price.

Published

on

Video: Trump Struck Iran. Now Farmers Are Paying the Price.

“When I saw the new fertilizer price, I’m like, holy crap. Talk about a kick to the gut.” Spring is here, which means it’s planting season in Iowa. For corn farmers preparing to sow their fields, the war with Iran couldn’t have come at a worse time. “So this is the fertilizer. So how much did the price of it go up after the war in Iran erupted?” “It went up about $250 a ton in my neck of the woods.” Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical transit point for a third of the world’s fertilizer, sent the price soaring. The cost of two widely used nitrogen fertilizers shot up by 20 and 50 percent in the first few weeks of the war. A decade of inflation, low commodity prices and tariffs have squeezed Jolene Riessen’s profit margins. She’s now facing her toughest year yet as a farmer. “Every year is a risk when you farm. But this has kind of been compounding. Our prices have been low. And yet our input costs continue to ratchet up.” With the price of fertilizer already higher than last year, she put off buying until last month, hoping the price would go down. Then the war started and the opposite happened. With the window to plant closing, she had little choice but to buy at a high price. “For the amount of fertilizer I was going to buy, it had gone up about $13,000 in two days. What pot does that come out of? Fertilizer price, we can’t control. Fuel price, we can’t control. Where is it all going to end up? We don’t know.” “This is like the worst I’ve ever seen it. Gambling what our futures are going to look like.” Farmer Lance Lillibridge has been representing Iowa corn growers for 14 years. “The current conflict in Iran is hurting farmers everywhere in Iowa and across the country. If we’re not able to sustain our land with the nutrients that’s needed to grow a crop, then our yields are going to go down. Eventually going to drive up the price of corn, which is what we use to feed chickens, pigs and cattle, amongst other things. And eventually that is going to go back to the consumer at the grocery store.” While it may take some time for shoppers to see the price increase reflected in their groceries, Jolene’s costs continue to climb higher than what she makes for her corn. “This is the corn that we’ve been talking about.” “Yep.” At today’s price of corn, she could lose roughly $110 per acre across her 530 acres. “We just did the math. And so maybe looking at losing $58,000. So what am I going to do to negate that? I have never lost quite that much before.” Still, she has hoped the price of corn will go up this year to offset at least some of that loss. She keeps a close eye on its every move in the market. “Time to check the markets.” “How many times a day are you checking the prices?” “Sometimes you — Half-dozen times a day. And sometimes that isn’t enough. Now you know that at closing at 2 o’clock, they were, they were up 4 cents and now they’re down 2 cents. Which means that was a 6-cent move in the market. Crazy.” “And today, I’m promising to request additional farm relief for our great patriots in the next funding bill.” Last month, the Trump administration lifted sanctions on fertilizer sales from Belarus and Venezuela to try to ease the price surge and promised more aid to farmers. Still, Jolene is making hard calculations to stay on the farm that has been in her family for 85 years. “Those income sources could very well be selling some equipment. There’s a chance that there could be some ground sold. And then what are you left with? For some farmers, it’s a legacy. That’s my legacy that I’m selling. If it was up to me, the war would be done yesterday.”

Continue Reading

News

ICE detention deaths are on a record pace. One Texas facility bears the brunt

Published

on

ICE detention deaths are on a record pace. One Texas facility bears the brunt

Entrance to Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas.

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR

EL PASO, Texas — A long paved road, flanked by desert sand, leads to the big white tents usually housing some 3,000 immigrants with beds for up to 2,000 more.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detention center is located on the grounds of the U.S. Army’s Fort Bliss military base and is known as Camp East Montana.

Opened in August 2025, it’s currently the largest immigrant detention center in the U.S. and one of the facilities with the most detainee deaths. Out of 25 people who died in ICE detention since October, 3 were at Camp East Montana.

Advertisement

Concerns are rising among immigration advocates, lawmakers and former detainees about the company that initially ran the detention center, Acquisition Logistics, which had never run a center before securing a $1.3 billion federal contract. Advocates and multiple members of Congress are calling for the facility to be shut down.

“When they say in the news that this is the worst facility in the country, they damn right,” said Owen Ramsingh, a man from the Netherlands who was detained at Camp East Montana for more than four months before being deported in February.

He called the living conditions, food, bathrooms, and treatment by the facility’s staff “horrible.”

Ramsingh said he saw detainees battling mental health crises due to being detained for long periods in large cells that could house up to 72 men. He says they were served small portions of food, and suffered in cramped quarters with foul excrement odor emanating from the bathrooms in the cells.

ICE inspectors in February found 49 violations to detention standards at the facility, including inadequate medical care and failure from staff to “accurately document required checks to prevent significant self-harm and suicide.”

Advertisement

More than 45 people interviewed by the ACLU at Camp East Montana “reveal alarming conditions of confinement and repeated instances of coercion, physical force, and threats against immigrants facing third-country deportations, in violation of agency policies and standards, as well as statutory and constitutional protections,” the civil liberties group said in its December letter to ICE.

Multiple detainee deaths raise big concerns

In December, Francisco Gaspar-Andres, a Guatemalan man, died of kidney failure after being hospitalized for two weeks, DHS said.

A month later, Cuban national Geraldo Luna Campos died while in detention. Initially, DHS said he died after experiencing “medical distress.” The agency said he had become “disruptive while in line for medication” and was placed in segregation.

However, an autopsy conducted by the El Paso County Medical Examiner’s Office ruled his death a homicide. The report said he died from “asphyxia due to neck and torso compression.” No one has been charged in his death.

A third death happened on Jan. 14, according to DHS. Victor Manuel Diaz, a national of Nicaragua died by suicide, DHS said in a statement.

Advertisement

But Diaz’s family do not believe that to be true.

“When we talked to Victor after he had been detained by ICE in Minnesota and brought to Camp East Montana at Fort Bliss Army Base in El Paso, we were not worried because Victor would just be returned to Nicaragua to us. It was a very brief call,” the family said in a statement to NPR. “Little did we know it was the last time we would ever hear his voice.”

Attorney Randall Kallinen holds a photo of the burial of Victor Manuel Diaz, a Nicaraguan man who died while in detention at Camp East Montana.

Attorney Randall Kallinen holds a photo of the burial of Victor Manuel Diaz, a Nicaraguan man who died while in detention at Camp East Montana.

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán/NPR

The family’s attorney, Randall Kallinen, told reporters last month Diaz’s autopsy was performed by the Army’s medical examiner.

“It was said that he died in a room by himself, in a clinic room. And we haven’t received word of why he was in the clinic,” Kallinen said. “Because they’re not saying he he tried to commit suicide somewhere else and then went to the clinic room — they’re saying he was in the clinic. That’s what their story is.”

Advertisement

In a statement to NPR, the Department of Homeland Security said “When there are signs of a detainee self-harming, staff abides by strict prevention and intervention protocol to ensure the detainee’s health and wellbeing is protected.”

The agency said ICE conducts mental health intake screenings for detainees within 12 hours of their arrival to any detention facility.

Lack of nutrition, mental health crises

45-year-old Owen Ramsingh has lived in the U.S. since 1986, when he came to Omaha, Nebraska with his mother when he was just five years old.

When he was a teenager, Ramsingh was convicted of possession of crack cocaine. He served 25 months in prison, part of that time in a state penitentiary.

After his release, Ramsingh said he “changed my life around.” He worked in construction for 15 years, had kids, later worked in security and even started his own power washing business.

Advertisement

Ramsingh had been a permanent resident all of these years, and he renewed his green card multiple times over the years. He says he often visited the Netherlands without any issues. But in March 2025, when he returned from Europe, he was detained at the Chicago O’Hare Airport by immigration agents. He said they told him he was being detained due to his nearly three decades old conviction.

Ramsingh was eventually transferred to Camp East Montana.

He said he saw at least one detainee collapse.

“We were beating on the windows,” he said, adding he yelled at the guards, “‘You guys are killing us!’ And they just laughed at us.”

Talking from his father’s home in the Netherlands, after being deported in mid-March, Ramsingh told NPR he also heard guards betting on which detainee was going to die by suicide.

Advertisement

“This is so screwed up that you’re trying to bet on our lives, you know, with these other officers thinking this s- – – is funny,” Ramsingh said. For him it was personal — he told NPR he talked three detainees out of killing themselves.

Acquisition Logistics LLC, the private company in charge of the detention center when Ramsingh was there, did not respond to NPR’s questions about this incident or its past management of the facility. DHS said in a statement that the agency inherited the contract from the Department of War.

The agency pointed out Ramsingh’s past conviction as the reason for his removal. “A green card is a privilege, not a right, and under our nation’s laws, our government has the authority to revoke a green card if our laws are broken and abused,” DHS said.

A woman who was detained at Camp East Montana told NPR she lost 35 pounds in her months-long detention there. The woman asked NPR for anonymity because she fears retaliation from immigration authorities.

“It was a horrible experience,” the woman said.

Advertisement

She told NPR the food was often inedible, and that the portions provided were very small. Detainees had to ration their food by hiding fruits and crackers under their shirts.

She said most of the women in her pod had stomach issues “because nobody wanted to eat.” People would eat a tortilla with water to feel full because they didn’t want to eat the food, which the woman said tasted bad.

The woman said she had trouble sleeping. She told NPR when she or others would get sick, the medical staff would most of the time tell them to drink water and offer acetaminophen.

An inexperienced company

Public complaints surfaced soon after Camp East Montana was opened in August 2025.

Several measles and tuberculosis outbreaks sparked multiple lockdowns.

Advertisement

Imelda Maynard, the legal director of the immigration legal clinic Estrella de El Paso, told NPR her team has repeatedly encountered roadblocks since the opening of the facility.

“We’ve always run into hiccups here and there, but with this camp in particular, there’s been issues from the get go on just trying to establish baseline communication with people there,” Maynard said.

Advocates have placed much of the blame on Acquisition Logistics, LLC, A Virginia-based small company that secured a $1.3 billion contract with the federal government to run Camp East Montana. However, the company had never operated a detention facility before.

“At that facility … it really does feel like one side doesn’t know what the other side is doing and everyone’s just kind of doing their own thing,” Maynard said. “It doesn’t seem like there’s coordinated efforts, and I really feel like that’s a management problem, and I think that’s on the contractor side of things.”

DHS replaced Acquisition Logistics’ contract last month. The company did not reply to NPR’s request for comment.

Advertisement

A new, $453 million contract was given to Amentum Services, a company that was working as a subcontractor for Acquisition Logistics. Amentum Services didn’t respond to NPR’s request for comment.

“ICE is always looking at ways to improve our detention facilities to ensure we are providing the best care to illegal aliens in our custody,” a DHS official said.

DHS said in a statement Amentum Services has been a partner of ICE in managing Camp East Montana. The contract, the agency said, “will allow Camp East Montana to continue abiding by the highest detention standards WITH the ability to provide MORE medical care on-site. This contract also allows more on-site staff and a PRECISE quality assurance surveillance plan.”

The agency said ICE will have “even more oversight of the contractors at this facility,” although it didn’t provide details of what that entails.

“Far from closing, Camp East Montana is upgrading,” DHS said.

Advertisement

But immigrant rights activists and members of Congress have called for the facility to shut down.

Congresswoman Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, called Acquisition Logistics LLC’s contract and the complaints from the detainees “very troubling.”

“These people are playing with the taxpayer dollars of hardworking Americans,” Escobar, who has visited Camp East Montana multiple times, said. “It’s unacceptable.”

She wants the Department of Justice to investigate the contract issued to Acquisition Logistics LLC.

“It’s not enough to just switch contractors,” Escobar said. “Acquisition Logistics needs to be investigated.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Trump does not have to turn over presidential records, Justice Department says

Published

on

Trump does not have to turn over presidential records, Justice Department says

The Justice Department has issued a legal opinion arguing that President Donald Trump does not have to turn over his presidential records to the National Archives at the end of his administration.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 requires presidential documents be sent to the National Archives and Records Administration. In an opinion released Thursday, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel found the law “is unconstitutional for two independent but interlocking reasons.”

Advertisement

It exceeds Congress’ powers and it does so at the expense of the autonomy of the presidency, T. Elliot Gaiser wrote in the opinion, noting that Congress can’t order the papers of Supreme Court justices to be sent to the archives.

The president “need not further comply with its dictates.”

If the Trump administration chooses to follow the opinion from the office, which offers legal advice to the executive branch but does not set law, he could face outside legal challenges should he violate the Presidential Records Act in the future.

The determination is a signal that the president will not turn over his documents to the archives. Trump was accused violating the Presidential Records Act by refusing to turn over documents he kept after leaving office following his first term.

According to federal prosecutors, Trump willfully retained national defense documents at his private home in Mar-a-Lago, obstructed justice and concealed materials, including a classified military map reportedly shown to unauthorized individuals. The case was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon in 2024 before he won re-election.

Advertisement

A memo by the special prosecutor’s office later released found that the president kept a document that was previously accessible by only a few people at his home.

“Trump had in his possession some highly sensitive documents — the type of documents that only presidents and officials with the most sensitive authority have,” the memo said.

Trump has long argued he did nothing wrong. Shortly after he took office, he dismissed the head of the National Archives, following through on a vow to change the leadership atop the agency, which was involved in the criminal case against him.

The office of legal counsel serves as a quasi-judicial office within the executive branch. It was once involved in the George W. Bush- era memos authorizing the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding against terrorism suspects.

Axios first reported details of the opinion. Gaiser, who previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, was part of Trump’s 2020 campaign team, and was named in testimony before the Jan. 6 committee in which former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany named him as someone she “really trusted on the matters of election integrity.”

Advertisement

McEnany said that Gaiser advised that the vice president had a “substantive” role to play in the election certification process, the type of view which gave Trump supporters hope that Mike Pence could overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Responding to written questions during his nomination process, Gaiser declined to discuss his views in detail, and wrote that his “ethical duties as an attorney include a duty of confidentiality regarding the advice I provided to a former client.”

The Presidential Records Act, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 following the Watergate scandal, requires official records of the president and vice president, created or received after January 1981, to be made public, and for the National Archives to manage a president’s records after the individual leaves office.

The act requires that the president “take all practical steps” to keep presidential records separate from personal records, and it allows the president — once the archivist weighs in — to dispose of records that no longer have “administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value.”

The act also states that presidential records are automatically transferred into the legal custody of the archivist as soon as the president leaves office.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending