The Insurrection Act Explained

The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.

FROM THE EXPLAINER – Last updated 3 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The Insurrection Act is a set of United States federal laws that grants the President limited authority to deploy active-duty military forces and federalize the National Guard to perform law enforcement duties within the country’s borders.

Rather than a single piece of legislation, the Act is a collection of statutes first passed between 1792 and 1871. They’ve been amended over time and are now codified in Title 10, Sections 251 through 255 of the U.S. Code.

Its fundamental purpose is to provide the federal government with a powerful tool to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion when state and local authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.

The Act’s authority originates in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, explicitly grants Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Through the Insurrection Act, Congress has delegated this immense power to the President.

This delegation is linked to the President’s own constitutional duties under Article II as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and the chief executive responsible to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

The Insurrection Act embodies a tension that has existed since the nation’s founding: the conflict between the need for a central government capable of maintaining order and the deep-seated American tradition of civilian control and aversion to military involvement in domestic affairs.

The idea of using soldiers to police citizens is viewed as inherently dangerous to liberty. It was a grievance listed in the Declaration of Independence against the British Crown. However, events like Shays’ Rebellion highlighted the need for a federal mechanism to enforce laws and maintain public order.

In This Article

• Purpose: The Insurrection Act lets the President deploy the military or federalize the National Guard to enforce laws when states can’t or won’t.
• Legal basis: It overrides the Posse Comitatus Act, grounded in the Constitution and presidential powers as Commander in Chief.
• Use cases: Deployment can occur at a state’s request, to enforce federal law, or to protect constitutional rights.
• History: Used in the Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, Reconstruction, civil rights desegregation (Little Rock, Ole Miss), and the 1992 L.A. riots.
• Controversies and reform: Recent debates (Hurricane Katrina, 2020 protests, border issues) highlight risks of abuse; reforms propose clearer rules, oversight, and judicial review.

So What?

The Act balances federal authority and state sovereignty, offering extraordinary power in crises while raising concerns about civil liberties and oversight.

The Default Rule: Posse Comitatus

To understand the power of the Insurrection Act, you must first understand the law it’s designed to override: the Posse Comitatus Act.

Enacted in 1878 and codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1385, the Posse Comitatus Act establishes the default rule for military involvement in civilian life. It makes it a federal crime for anyone to willfully use any part of the U.S. Army or Air Force to “execute the laws” (perform law enforcement duties) on American soil, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

While the text only names the Army and Air Force (the Air Force was added in 1956), Department of Defense regulations and policy have extended this prohibition to the Navy and Marine Corps. In 2021, the prohibition was formally expanded by statute to include the Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force.

The term “posse comitatus” is a Latin phrase meaning “power of the county.” In early English and American law, it referred to the common-law authority of a county sheriff to summon any able-bodied civilian to assist in keeping the peace or pursuing fugitives. The Posse Comitatus Act was so named because it specifically prohibits the use of federal soldiers as a domestic police force or as a sheriff’s posse.

Historical Context

The Act was passed in 1878 as part of a broader political deal that formally ended the Reconstruction era.

During Reconstruction, federal troops were stationed throughout the former Confederacy to enforce federal law, protect the civil rights of newly freed African Americans, and oversee elections. The Act was championed by those who sought to remove the federal military’s presence. This allowed state and local governments to reassert control and ultimately establish the system of racial segregation and disenfranchisement known as Jim Crow.

The Paradox

This history creates a complex and deeply paradoxical relationship between the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act.

The strict prohibition established by Posse Comitatus is precisely what makes the authority granted by the Insurrection Act so potent and exceptional. One law creates the firm rule. The other provides the primary, powerful exception.

The irony is profound. The Posse Comitatus Act, a law passed with the problematic purpose of ending federal protection for civil rights, coexists with the Insurrection Act.The most significant provisions of the Insurrection Act were enacted during Reconstruction for the exact opposite purpose – to empower the president to enforce those rights.

The 1871 amendment to the Insurrection Act, often called the Ku Klux Klan Act, was specifically designed to authorize military force to protect constitutional rights when states failed to do so.

When the Posse Comitatus Act was passed seven years later, it created a general ban on military law enforcement but deliberately left the Insurrection Act intact as an explicit exception.

This legal framework effectively forbade routine military involvement in state affairs but preserved the president’s ultimate authority to intervene in extraordinary crises, particularly those involving civil rights. In this way, the law that helped enable the rise of Jim Crow also created the legal framework that made the Insurrection Act the primary tool later used by presidents to dismantle it.

When Can the Act Be Used?

The modern Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy military forces in three ways: at a state’s request, to enforce federal law, or to protect constitutional rights.

Before any troops can be used under these authorities, a procedural step is required. The president must first, by proclamation, “immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.” This proclamation serves as a final warning before the deployment of military force.

At a State’s Request

This is the oldest and most straightforward provision of the Act, tracing its roots directly back to the Militia Acts of the 1790s. It can be invoked under two specific conditions:

• There is an insurrection against the government of a state
• The state’s legislature, or its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, formally requests federal assistance to suppress it

Under this section, the president acts in support of a state government, not against it. This provision has been the most frequently used part of the law throughout history.

The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots under this authority. California Governor Pete Wilson formally requested federal troops from President George H.W. Bush to help quell the widespread violence that had overwhelmed state and local police.

Enforcing Federal Law

This section marks a significant expansion of federal power. It allows the president to act unilaterally, without a state’s consent and even over a governor’s objection.

The president can act unilaterally if “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages” make it impracticable to enforce federal law in a state. This provision grants the president discretion to determine when enforcement is not possible through ordinary judicial processes.

The language here is deliberately broad. It grants the president the sole discretion to determine what constitutes an “unlawful obstruction” and when enforcing federal law has become “impracticable.”

This authority was added to the law in the lead-up to the Civil War, reflecting the federal government’s need to assert its authority in the face of secession and organized resistance to its laws. It could, for example, be used if a large-scale obstruction or organized movement physically prevented federal agents from executing their duties or enforcing federal court orders.

Protecting Constitutional Rights

The Act also allows unilateral action to protect constitutional rights. It applies if state authorities fail to protect rights guaranteed by the Constitution, or if state actions impede federal law enforcement.

It authorizes the president to use the military to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” if one of two conditions is met:

• The situation so hinders the execution of state and federal laws that a “part or class” of the people is deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution, and the state authorities are “unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right”
• The situation “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws”

This section is a direct product of the Reconstruction era, originating as part of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. It was specifically designed to give the federal government a tool to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection when states were either unwilling or unable to do so.

It was this authority that provided the legal foundation for Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy to send federal troops into the South to enforce desegregation orders during the Civil Rights Movement, overriding the explicit opposition of state governors.

The law explicitly states that when the first condition is met – the deprivation of rights – the state “shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”

Historical Uses

The Insurrection Act and its precursors have been invoked dozens of times throughout American history. Its history is a narrative of the federal government testing and defining the limits of its own power.

The Whiskey Rebellion (1794)

The first major test of federal power came in 1794. The federal government, under Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s guidance, had imposed an excise tax on distilled spirits to help pay off the national debt from the Revolutionary War.

This “whiskey tax” was deeply unpopular with farmers on the western frontier, particularly in Pennsylvania. For them, whiskey was a key economic product and medium of exchange.

Resistance escalated from protests to violent attacks on federal tax collectors. Determined to establish the authority of the new federal government, President George Washington invoked the powers granted by the Militia Act.

After receiving the required certification from Supreme Court Justice James Wilson that the situation was beyond the control of civilian authorities, Washington issued a proclamation ordering the rebels to disperse. When they refused, he federalized a militia force of nearly 13,000 men from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey and personally rode at their head to suppress the insurrection.

The overwhelming show of force worked. The rebellion collapsed without a major battle. The episode demonstrated unequivocally that the new national government had both the will and the ability to enforce its laws.

Civil War and Reconstruction (1860s–1870s)

The Civil War and its aftermath fundamentally reshaped the Insurrection Act. An 1861 amendment allowed the president to use the military in cases of “rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”

More significantly, the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act added the provisions now found in Section 253. This empowered the president to use federal troops to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and protect civil rights, particularly when states failed to do so.

President Ulysses S. Grant used these new powers vigorously. He invoked the Act to send troops to South Carolina and other Southern states to suppress the Klan’s campaign of terror against Black citizens and pro-Reconstruction officials.

This period cemented the Act’s role as a potent tool of federal supremacy.

Little Rock (1957)

Nearly a century later, the Reconstruction-era provisions of the Act were revived as the primary legal weapon to enforce desegregation in the face of “massive resistance” from Southern states.

In 1957, three years after the Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawed segregation in public schools, nine African American students, known as the “Little Rock Nine,” attempted to enroll at the all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus defied the federal court’s desegregation order and deployed the Arkansas National Guard to physically block the students from entering the school.

After weeks of failed negotiations, President Dwight D. Eisenhower determined that state authorities were actively obstructing a federal court order and depriving the students of their constitutional rights.

On September 23, 1957, he issued Proclamation 3204, the required order to disperse, citing his authority under the Insurrection Act. When the mob and the Guard didn’t stand down, Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10730 the next day.

He took two decisive actions. He federalized the entire 10,000-member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of Governor Faubus’s control. And he deployed 1,000 soldiers from the U.S. Army’s elite 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock.

Under federal command, the same Guardsmen who had blocked the school’s entrance now joined with Army paratroopers to escort the Little Rock Nine into Central High. The law was enforced over the explicit and armed opposition of the state’s governor.

Ole Miss (1962)

An even more violent confrontation occurred in 1962 when James Meredith, a Black Air Force veteran, sought to enroll at the segregated University of Mississippi, known as “Ole Miss.” Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett, a staunch segregationist, personally blocked Meredith’s admission, defying multiple federal court orders.

President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, initially hoped to avoid another Little Rock-style military deployment.\

But when federal marshals escorted Meredith onto the Oxford campus on September 30, a massive riot erupted. Thousands of students and outside segregationists besieged the marshals in the university’s Lyceum building. The campus descended into chaos.

Faced with a full-blown insurrection, President Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act, federalized the Mississippi National Guard, and mobilized a massive military force.

Ultimately, more than 30,000 troops were deployed to quell the “Battle of Oxford,” a response that marked the largest military deployment for a single domestic disturbance in U.S. history. The riot was suppressed, two people were killed, and James Meredith was successfully enrolled. But it took a direct and violent clash between federal power and state resistance.

Los Angeles Riots (1992)

The most recent invocation of the Insurrection Act occurred in May 1992. Riots erupted across Los Angeles following the acquittal of four white police officers in the brutal beating of Black motorist Rodney King.

The violence, looting, and arson quickly overwhelmed the Los Angeles Police Department and other local authorities.

In this instance, the invocation followed the model of Section 251. California Governor Pete Wilson, acknowledging that state and local forces couldn’t restore order, formally requested federal assistance from President George H.W. Bush.

President Bush invoked the Act, authorizing the deployment of thousands of federal troops from the 7th Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Division, alongside federalized members of the California National Guard, to help end the unrest.

The 33 years since the Los Angeles riots mark the longest period in American history without a domestic deployment of troops under the Act’s authority.

Modern Controversies

Despite its long period of disuse, the Insurrection Act has remained a subject of intense debate. Recent events have thrust this historically significant law back into the national spotlight.

Hurricane Katrina (2005)

In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, leading to a catastrophic breakdown of civil order in New Orleans. As the city flooded, law enforcement collapsed, and violence and looting became widespread. The White House actively considered invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty troops for law enforcement functions.

The arguments for invocation were compelling. Local and state authorities were clearly overwhelmed. The military was the only institution capable of restoring order and conducting massive logistical operations on short notice. President George W. Bush himself argued that a “challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority.”

But a major obstacle stood in the way: federalism. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, while requesting federal resources, was reluctant to cede state control, wanting federal troops to assist but not take over law enforcement from state forces.

This created a standoff. The Bush administration, though believing it had the authority to act unilaterally under other sections of the Act, was deeply hesitant to take the politically challenging step of overriding a state governor’s authority.

Ultimately, the administration chose not to invoke the Act. The decision was driven largely by concerns about the complexities of federal-state relations and Louisiana’s sovereignty.See also  City vs. Country: Why One-Size-Fits-All Government Doesn’t Work

The crisis exposed a critical gap in disaster response. Congress briefly amended the Insurrection Act in 2006 to explicitly include natural disasters as a potential trigger. This amendment was quickly repealed in 2008 after strong outcry from all 50 state governors who saw it as a federal power grab.

The 2020 Protests

The Insurrection Act re-entered the public consciousness in an even more dramatic fashion in summer 2020. Following the murder of George Floyd, protests against police brutality and racial injustice erupted across the United States. While the vast majority of these demonstrations were peaceful, some were accompanied by looting and property destruction.

On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump, concerned about the unrest, publicly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act and “deploy the United States military” to “quickly solve the problem” in states and cities that he felt were not taking strong enough action. Aides reportedly drafted a proclamation to do so.

The threat was to use the Act unilaterally to respond to protests, a move that would have been a radical departure from its modern usage.

The proposal was met with fierce resistance from within the administration. According to reports, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley argued strongly against the idea in tense Oval Office meetings.

They contended that the protests didn’t rise to the level of an insurrection, that civilian law enforcement was not overwhelmed, and that deploying active-duty troops against American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights would be a dangerous and damaging act that would politicize the military.

Esper later went public with his opposition. Faced with this pushback from the Pentagon and a broader public outcry, President Trump ultimately backed down and didn’t invoke the Act.

The episode served as a stark reminder of the Act’s immense, unilateral power and its potential for abuse. It sparked widespread calls for reform.

Immigration and Border Control

The potential uses of the Insurrection Act continue to be debated in new contexts. In recent years, some have suggested invoking the Act to address challenges at the U.S. southern border. Proponents of this approach frame the situation as an “invasion” or an “unlawful obstruction” to the enforcement of federal immigration law.

This could theoretically involve deploying the military for law enforcement tasks or federalizing a state’s National Guard against the will of its governor, as was debated during federal-state tensions over the U.S.-Mexico border.

In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order requiring the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to submit a report within 90 days about conditions at the southern border and recommendations regarding whether to invoke the Insurrection Act.

The report, delivered in April 2025, recommended against invocation. In June 2025, Trump again considered invoking the Act in response to protests in Los Angeles related to immigration enforcement, and in October 2025, he discussed the possibility for other cities including Portland, Oregon and Chicago, Illinois, despite opposition from local officials.

Such a use would be an unprecedented expansion of the Act’s application. It highlights its ongoing relevance in contemporary political and legal disputes.

Calls for Reform

The central criticism of the Insurrection Act is that it grants the president a breathtaking amount of power with almost no meaningful checks and balances.

The law is written in vague, archaic language that hasn’t been meaningfully updated in over 150 years. Critical terms that trigger its immense power – such as “insurrection,” “rebellion,” “domestic violence,” and “unlawful combination” – are left completely undefined in the statute.

This ambiguity is compounded by a foundational Supreme Court ruling from 1827, Martin v. Mott. In that case, the Court held that the authority to decide whether an emergency exists that justifies calling forth the military “belongs exclusively to the President, and… his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”

This precedent has been interpreted for nearly two centuries to mean that the president’s decision to invoke the Act is essentially unreviewable by the courts. While later court decisions have suggested that courts might intervene in cases of bad faith or actions that are manifestly unauthorized, the core deference to presidential discretion remains.

The result is a statutory scheme that gives the president the sole and virtually absolute power to determine when to use the U.S. military as a domestic police force.

Bipartisan Concern

The events of recent years have fostered a rare and broad bipartisan consensus that this 200-year-old law is dangerously outdated and vulnerable to misuse.

This has led to a significant push for reform from a wide array of legal scholars, civil liberties advocates, and think tanks across the political spectrum. This includes the Brennan Center for Justice, the American Law Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute, as well as members of Congress.

The motivation for this reform movement isn’t rooted in simple partisan politics. It’s a shared, institutional concern about the dangers of unchecked executive power.

Those concerned about civil liberties and constitutional rights may fear a president using the Act to suppress peaceful protests or target minority communities. Those concerned about federalism and limited government fear its use to trample on individual liberties and override state sovereignty.

The 2020 protests highlighted the former concern. Recent debates about federal-state tensions at the Texas border demonstrated to many observers how a president could potentially use the same power against a state’s interests.

This shared concern has created a unified desire to reassert legislative and judicial checks on an executive power that has grown for over a century without corresponding oversight.

Reform Proposals

These various groups have coalesced around a set of core reform principles, reflected in proposed legislation like the “Insurrection Act of 2025.”

Clarify and narrow triggers. The most crucial reform is to replace the Act’s archaic and vague terms with precise, modern definitions of the specific, extraordinary emergencies that would justify military deployment. Reformers urge that the law explicitly state that such a deployment is a last resort, to be used only when it’s proven that federal, state, and local civilian law enforcement authorities are truly overwhelmed and incapable of maintaining public order.

Introduce congressional oversight. To restore the balance of powers, proposals would require the president to consult with congressional leadership before invoking the Act. They would impose a strict time limit on any unilateral deployment – typically between seven and 14 days – after which the president would need to seek and receive explicit approval from Congress to continue the mission. This structure mirrors the checks placed on the president’s foreign war-making powers by the War Powers Resolution.

Enable judicial review. To counter the precedent of Martin v. Mott, reformers propose creating a clear statutory basis for judicial review. This would allow individuals, as well as state or local governments, to file a civil action in federal court to challenge the legality of the president’s invocation of the Act. This would force the executive branch to justify its decision before a judge.

Add explicit prohibitions. Finally, proposals seek to clarify what the Act does not authorize. This includes adding language to explicitly prohibit the use of the Act to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, impose martial law, or suppress peaceful protests protected by the First Amendment.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.