As the April 20 deadline approaches set by President Donald Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order, speculation mounts regarding his potential invocation of the Insurrection Act to federalize National Guard troops for deployment within the U.S. and pursue mass deportation.
Observers are alarmed at the possibility of such unprecedented actions, given that the president’s recent military directives and increasing domestic military presence have already raised eyebrows.
On April 11, Trump issued a memorandum titled “Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions,” a step many critics believe is unfounded, especially as he recently declared on Truth Social that the “Invasion of our Country is OVER.”
This contradictory messaging has raised red flags regarding the administration’s intentions.
If President Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act for mass deportations at the border or elsewhere in the country, it could undermine fundamental democratic principles and civil liberties, critics argue.
The use of the military in domestic affairs is a contentious issue rooted in the Constitution, which was drafted with the intent of constraining executive power, preventing the establishment of a standing army, ensuring civilian government, and safeguarding civil rights.
A core belief established by the Founders is a strong presumption against military enforcement of civil law—signaling that military troops should not engage in policing civilians unless in extraordinary situations.
Thus, even when Congress and the Founders have granted the president war and emergency powers, these powers come with limits, such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which makes it illegal to use federal military forces to execute civilian law unless explicitly authorized by the Constitution or by Congress.
This law effectively prohibits federal troops from conducting essential civilian law enforcement activities on U.S. soil, including surveillance, questioning, arrests, searches, and seizures among others.
In addition, civilian control of the military means that while troops must obey lawful orders from the president, those orders need to be undeniably legal to avoid putting military personnel at legal and ethical risk and degrading military cohesion.
The historical use of the military in domestic situations is rare and typically reserved for genuine crises—such as actual war or armed rebellion.
A notable exception occurred in 1958, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and protect the Little Rock Nine against violent segregationists.
Historically, the Constitution designates the federal government the responsibility of enforcing federal law during extreme crises while reserving police powers to individual states.
The National Guard typically operates under state control, where governors have the authority to activate troops for state-approved purposes, governed by state laws.
Federal legal frameworks guide domestic military deployments, notably Titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code.
Under Title 32, National Guard troops can be called into active duty to support federal or joint state-federal operations authorized by Congress or initiated at the request of the president or secretary of defense.
This function typically covers substantial humanitarian efforts or natural disaster responses; troops are federally funded yet remain under the governors’ command.
Moreover, while the president or secretary of defense may request National Guard deployments under Title 32, governors can decline such requests, and troop activities are still governed by state law and the U.S. Constitution.
Conversely, Title 10 deployments fall under federal military authority and can be activated by the president for federal purposes, with command resting solely with the federal government.
In this case, federal troops—both active duty and federalized National Guard—are prevented from undertaking direct assistance in civilian law enforcement by both the Posse Comitatus Act and explicit prohibitions established in Title 10.
Even though Trump has yet to invoke the Insurrection Act, his administration has already escalated military presence domestically.
Since his Inauguration Day declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, he has authorized a significant increase of federalized National Guard troops to the area under Title 10, marking one of the highest levels of domestic military deployment seen in recent history.
Thus far, such deployments have been limited to border operations, aiding in border wall construction and materials transportation, and supporting civilian agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
However, this increase in military presence has exacerbated already challenging conditions for civilians living in border communities.
Approximately 19 million people reside in proximity to the southern border, and residents are experiencing increased surveillance, aggressive federal policing practices, and border patrol checkpoints encroaching on their daily lives.
Alongside this, the environmental degradation related to border wall construction and documented incidents of excessive use of force by border patrol agents have contributed to a heightened sense of insecurity.
Amidst these developments, Trump issued a recent memorandum on April 11 granting the Defense Department use and jurisdiction over public civilian lands along the southern border, allowing military activities that may significantly impact everyday life for residents.
This memo includes directives for the military to identify actions imperative for securing military installations while designating areas as “national defense areas,” where civilians could face federal prosecution for inadvertent trespassing.
Critics argue that such maneuvers represent a significant escalation in militarizing communities close to the border, posing serious risks to residents who may encounter armed service members in densely populated areas.
Concerns abound as the military may not be adequately trained to operate in civilian environments, bringing the potential for violence and misuse of force to communities already living under stress from an extensive police presence.
Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act, but the administration may misuse wartime authorities and international norms. This includes discussions on drone strikes against drug cartels in Mexico, further raising safety concerns.
Calls for congressional oversight of the expanding military actions and regulations surrounding the use of force have emerged in light of these actions.
Continual U.S. military involvement in domestic affairs runs the risk of expanding the powers of the military while eroding civil liberties and domestic safety.
Many advocates believe that these developments, particularly the invocation of the Insurrection Act, would intensify an already tenuous situation, both legally and ethically.
Lawmakers are urged to act to enforce transparency and protections for border residents from increasing military control, which would ultimately exacerbate existing tensions and fears within these communities.
image source from：https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/trumps-expanded-domestic-military-use-should-worry-us-all
