De-Escalation Through Strength: Trump Must Invoke the Insurrection Act

The Insurrection Act is not a partisan political tool. It is an essential part of the American system of governance and vital for the rule of law. The Act allows the President to deploy the American military to suppress insurrection, when he finds that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State.” ICE operations are lawful exercises of federal authority. Yet, in recent months, protesters have deliberately interfered with these operations—blocking agents, disrupting raids, and creating environments that make enforcement effectively impossible in certain areas. This has led to two deaths as protestors put themselves in harm's way. Under the plain language of the statutes, such intentional obstruction of federal law enforcement provides clear grounds for invoking the President’s authority and justification to act.

It is the best option for the President at this moment. It is essential to de-escalate the situation. I do not want the Act invoked to escalate violence; I want it invoked to prevent future violence. I am not driven by any ecstatic vision of apocalypse; quite the opposite—I am motivated by a sincere desire to avoid civil war, bloodshed, and restore peace.

The trajectory of events in Minneapolis is clear: if the Act is not invoked to quell the unrest, there will be more violence and more shootings. This is because protestors have adopted a strategy of obstruction and confrontation called “de-arrest,” which puts them directly between law enforcement and illegal aliens. They are directly intervening to stop law enforcement operations with vehicles and their bodies. They have guides and manuals online to train themselves and others on how to do so that they created for anti-Israel demonstrations and have since adapted to challenge ICE.

In addition, members of the Democratic Party, including those in the Minnesota government, are coordinating activities that directly work against federal authority. Their goal is precisely to “make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States” in Minneapolis. I could discuss at length their ideological motivations, such their believe that “no one is illegal on stolen land,” which is an attack on the very legitimacy of the United States, or their decision to ignore the democratic mandate the President received to perform mass deportations, or of how the language of “legal observers” is an attempt to creat fictional authority, or that some in the state, including the Mayor, have seemingly considered deploying their police forces against ICE. But none of this is essential. It is also important not blow any of this out of proportion. The Democratic Party and local officials are surely involved in some activities and have facilitated them, but the real threat is the motivated radicals among the protestors, often but not always “antifa,” who are adopting tactics that are designed to obstruct law enforcement.

It is vital that the President not tolerate this act of obstruction or allow others to be inspired to adopt these tactics.

Not invoking the Act is an abdication of the President’s responsibility. If protestors are allowed to continue to block arrests, and if radicals are allowed to promote tactics like “de-arrest,” more people will be killed. These “de-arrests” are dangerous escalations that leave law enforcement with little recourse but self-defense, as mobs charge at them or motivated radicals intervene. That is precisely what happened in the second shooting. A new vocabulary of revolt is amplifying the risk. The language of “de-arrest” and “legal observer” creates in the minds of some motivated radicals a fictitious permission to intervene in law enforcement operations. This is why the first shooting happened. The tactics of obstruction will further inflame tensions and, if tolerated, inspire more people in other cities to adopt these practices when ICE operations begin. They are an extension of “sanctuary city” policies. And indeed, they are a consequence of tolerating sanctuary cities; after all, if cities can choose not to work with federal law enforcement, why can’t citizens of these cities ignore, or even challenge, federal law enforcement? Their own police will not arrest them, after all.

What allows this strategy to work is tolerance for obstruction. Invoking the Act enables the President to deploy significant military forces to Minneapolis rapidly, order people into their homes, and continue ICE operations in the city. I am not envisioning a battle, but an overwhelming show of force, combined with an order to keep people in their homes. This will prevent radicals from using these tactics, which rely on large crowds to succeed, and which have gotten two people killed.

Invoking the Act would deploy overwhelming, lawful federal force—not to provoke, but to separate the parties, protect federal personnel carrying out their legal duties, deter further attacks, and create breathing room for calm. It would halt the momentum toward chaos and reestablish the conditions for normal law enforcement. The Act has been invoked thirty times in history by over a dozen Presidents. Trump’s invocation of the Act would be both appropriate and normal. It is not extreme. It is what the President is expected to do in emergencies. And it is essential to prevent more violence in the future.

The strategy the administration is pursuing now is not working. The President is deploying additional forces from multiple agencies to quell the unrest and bolster law enforcement. This has allowed ICE operations to continue, but has a counterproductive effect: as the number of personnel in the city increases, the number of interactions with motivated radicals increases too, thus increasing the likelihood of things going wrong, including shootings or confrontations involving vehicles. The problem is not a lack of manpower, but the obstruction by motivated radicals within the protest groups. More men cannot solve this problem. More men add fuel to the rebellious fire. So, what he must do is douse the flame: order people into their homes. He must make the obstruction impossible by obstructing large crowds from forming, which gives motivated radicals the courage and opportunity to intervene in law enforcement.

Not invoking the Insurrection Act is an irresponsible mistake that will allow obstruction to continue, leading to unnecessary death and violence, and inflaming tensions. The administration must show that these obstructionist tactics will be met with total overwhelming authority. Should President Trump refrain from invoking the Insurrection Act, the disorder will only intensify and spread. Democrat officials will feel further emboldened to coordinate obstruction of law enforcement. In a very real sense, that is rebellion, that is insurrection. This will further undermine public support for ICE operations. If these obstructions are tolerated, there will be far more violence in the summer and far larger protests. It’s critical to act decisively now and follow up with a crackdown on the radical groups pushing these obstructionist tactics — which are rapidly spreading via Signal and Instagram — to prevent widespread chaos and unrest in major cities across the United States in 2026.

“Tender-handed stroke a nettle, And it stings you, for your pains: Grasp it like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains.”

A Warning:

Curiously, the most pressing question in the country, as it was in the 19th century before the Civil War, is the presence of large numbers of non-citizens who serve as a labor force and increase the representation of certain states in Congress, while not having representation themselves.

Both Trump and Andrew Jackson rose to prominence on the backs of working-class white men, whose livelihoods were imperiled by a detached elite and the importation of non-citizen laborers. Trump’s affinity for Jackson is no secret. There’s a tragic irony at play—if he fully embodies the Jacksonian archetype, he might preside over a nation fracturing along the same fault line of non-citizens, much as his predecessor did. History does not repeat; it rhymes, and some poetry is a lament.

The responsible choice is not inaction, but the measured use of constitutional authority to prevent catastrophe. The goal is de-escalation through strength before the situation spirals further.