Amidst preparations for his second presidential term, Donald Trump’s ambitions to employ military force on U.S. soil have resurfaced, raising complex questions about legality, ethics, and historical precedent. His administration appears poised to use federal troops to curb civil protests and enforce sweeping deportations, leveraging both the Insurrection Act and the Alien Enemies Act—two centuries-old statutes that empower the president to deploy the military in specific contexts. Despite laws restricting the military’s role in domestic affairs, recent Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity may open avenues for Trump’s administration to expand the military’s reach within the U.S., stirring public debate.
Trump’s intentions regarding military deployment within the U.S. were first signaled in his approach to 2020’s civil unrest, when protests against systemic racism erupted nationwide following George Floyd’s death. Trump urged Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to invoke the Insurrection Act and dispatch federal troops to restore “law and order.” Esper and other military officials resisted, opting for National Guard deployment rather than active-duty troops, arguing that civil law enforcement should handle domestic protests. Now, Trump’s allies have outlined plans to use the military to address what he calls “crime dens” in cities like Chicago and New York, as well as “chaos at the border.”
Fox News questioned Trump on “outside agitators” during Election Day, to which he responded, “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” adding that “radical left lunatics…should be very easily handled by…National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.” For critics, this signals Trump’s willingness to use the military as a tool to counter dissent, a move ACLU executive director Anthony Romero called an attempt to “shut down mass protests…particularly in blue-state jurisdictions.”
The Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act represent legal guardrails that limit the president’s authority to deploy federal troops domestically. Enacted in 1807, the Insurrection Act enables a president to use federal forces only in specific emergencies, typically under request from state officials or when states are unable to uphold federal law. The last presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act was in 1992 during the Los Angeles uprising following the acquittal of police officers in the Rodney King case.
Given recent developments, constitutional scholars warn against a broad interpretation of the Insurrection Act. A bipartisan group, including Bob Bauer of NYU Law and Harvard’s Jack Goldsmith, has called for reforms to restrict presidential power under the Act. They recommend consulting with state officials, limiting deployment periods to 30 days unless renewed by Congress, and requiring swift congressional reporting. While these reforms gain traction, Congress has yet to pass them, leaving Trump relatively unrestricted if he seeks to invoke the Insurrection Act for deportation purposes or protest suppression.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, enacted during heightened national tensions, permits the president to detain and deport non-citizens from hostile nations. Trump’s intent to leverage the Act to deport millions, however, faces significant legal hurdles and moral objections. Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU, voiced concerns about military involvement in deportations, predicting this term would be “much worse” than Trump’s prior administration, which saw controversial family separation policies.
Critics argue that large-scale deportations would devastate communities and violate human rights. FWD.us president Todd Schulte highlighted the human cost of these policies, warning that “mass raids of American families…harken back to some of the worst things our country has done.” Many cite the Alien Enemies Act as antiquated and unsuitable for modern immigration issues, especially when deployed with military backing.
NationofChange, a progressive news platform, surveyed readers to understand public concerns around Trump’s policy ambitions. Respondents overwhelmingly expressed anxiety about potential abuses of military power, calling for increased transparency and legal safeguards. Many fear that using the military to quell protests or conduct deportations would lead to widespread civil rights violations. There is strong sentiment among readers for investigative reporting on Trump’s use of executive power, with respondents urging coverage of ethical issues surrounding the deployment of troops within the U.S.
Anthony Romero from the ACLU emphasized the legal and ethical complexities soldiers would face if ordered to deploy domestically, noting that they have both “a right, and a duty, to refuse illegal orders.” Trump’s threats to use military force domestically add another layer of tension to an already polarized political climate, with many calling for judicial review to check the president’s use of the Insurrection Act and ensure adherence to democratic principles.
In Congress, Sen. Richard Blumenthal introduced a bill to modernize the Insurrection Act, proposing provisions for judicial review. However, efforts to reform the Act have faced opposition from legislators concerned about curtailing presidential power. Some Republican leaders, like Rep. Joe Wilson, support Trump’s proposals as necessary for securing the border and combating organized crime, indicating the partisan divide in responses to military use on American soil.
Blumenthal criticized Trump’s perspective on the military, asserting that it “illuminate[s] Donald Trump’s total misunderstanding of the United States military as a force for national defense, not for his personal preferences.” Military officials have also expressed concern, with former Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley cautioning against deploying troops against American citizens.
As Trump’s inauguration approaches, civil rights advocates are preparing for legal battles over domestic military deployment. Organizations like the ACLU and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) are drafting legal challenges, emphasizing the need to uphold the Posse Comitatus Act and prevent erosion of democratic freedoms. “Soldiers have not only a right, but a duty, to refuse illegal orders,” said Kathleen Gilberd of the National Lawyers Guild, underscoring the moral imperatives that military personnel face.
The coming months will likely test the boundaries of presidential authority, with activists and legal experts watching closely for signs of potential overreach. As the nation faces renewed questions about executive power, the public’s role in demanding accountability remains paramount. According to Anthony Romero, the public must “push back” against policies that threaten civil liberties, a task that advocates say is essential to preserving the core values of American democracy.
COMMENTS