Third Way: To Deploy Or Not To Deploy
RDNE Stock project
Military forces are utilized in a multitude of manners. Among them, being national defense and, in times of intense conflict, as peace keeping entities. There are, however, limitations to this method of enforcement that are set in place to protect citizens of a given city and prevent any legal infractions or missteps by the President.
One such limitation and the primarily used regulative method is that of the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act was created with the sole intent to be utilized by the President on rare occasions where rebellion, riot, and domestic violence could not be contained alone by law enforcement in a given area. It is not meant to be a catch all solution for condemning those who disagree with an administration's policies. The Insurrection Act is meant to ensure that those who are sent to aid in the maintenance of the city they occupy, as well as increase the level of safety for those who are affected, actually have a reason to be there. Despite the righteous intent of the act’s origins, its modern day interpretation seems to have taken a more self-interested purpose for certain administrations, such as the very one the American people exist under currently.
An additional resource within the federal government’s arsenal, is the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act restricts military forces from acting as civilian law enforcement and protects the American people from the interference of military enforcement without due cause. The creation of this act in 1878 marked a solution to concerns regarding the undemocratic threat of military control in civil society as well as civilian everyday life.
Early on in President Trump's second term in office, he attempted to deploy the National Guard to large, primarily Democratic cities such as Portland and Chicago without enacting the Insurrection Act. Because of this legal oversight, the supreme court ruled that he acted without cause and that the troops must be withdrawn. In these instances, the reasoning behind deployment was largely not an actual concern for the individuals living in these cities, but rather a desperate grab for power in areas where his authority was not entirely respected. This sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations’ employment of the Insurrection Act, as well as displaying quite clearly how the President plans to contest his opponents when they appear in masses. For an elected official to attempt to silence those who disagree with him through physical force is an outright embarrassment to the constitutional democracy of the United States and reinforces the image of instability and uncertainty that many other global superpowers view the U.S. as.
His deployment of troops to the aforementioned cities, however, was not his only attempt at controlling the United States largest Metropolitan areas. In January of 2026, President Trump threatened to enact the Insurrection Act in order to suppress citizens' ability to protest, and justify his ill-intended deployment of the National Guard to Minnesota to quell the growing conflict. With the upset in Minnesota and specifically the Twin Cities regarding ICE crackdowns and the senseless killings of civilians gaining more traction, it leaves one wondering whether Trump will make good on his threat or if he’ll elect instead to set aside his ego and make an attempt at utilizing common sense. Though perhaps that would be a more surprising shift in character for the American people than their current shock regarding his recent actions.
From a purely factual and constitutional perspective, the peaceful protests occurring in Minneapolis and its surrounding areas all fall well within the restrictions of the first amendment and the right to freedom of speech, self expression, and assembly. There is no want or need for aggressive control, especially when that is the very thing being protested. Many government officials in Minneapolis have spoken out condemning the President’s use of ICE, as well as his employment of such drastic tactics for controlling the American people. These concerns do not simply come from government officials either, but also from their law enforcement counterparts in the Minneapolis area, who have also spoken out, saying that they do not want federal law enforcement offices in their communities or patrolling their streets. If you remember, the Insurrection Act is meant to be enacted when a community is no longer able to control rebellion simply by utilizing their local law enforcement. So, in this case, any deployment of military or federal law enforcement would be an ill-made decision by the President and is likely to again be opposed by the Supreme Court.
The current administration’s use of military force in private sectors reads less like a “how to” guide on peace, and more like the dystopian literature taught to high school juniors. In any civil, democratic society it is paramount that those in charge endow a feeling of trust and mutual respect within their constituents. Without these factors, you are left with little more than anarchy poorly disguised as democracy. And there are few things more detrimental to due process and civil society than a leader who presides over his citizens with an iron fist and a clear disregard for their citizens and their country's betterment.