I came across this article on a blog I read sometimes and thought it was interesting. I didn't realize there were so many steps and requirements for the Insurrection Act to actually be invoked, I thought it was at the Presidents' discretion.

It seems that President Trump was aware of these steps and timelines and had planned for it by issuing two EOs last year that most people didn't realize could be setting up the use of the IA. Based on the article, the timeline required has passed and now if there's another event that's bad enough, he could give the "dispersal order" that starts a 72 hour window for compliance before deployment could occur.

I wanted to see what the board thinks about this on a few topics.

1. What do you think it would take to trigger a dispersal order (considering yesterday wasn't bad enough)?
2. Do you think there would be compliance?
3. If not, what do you think would happen if the military were deployed?
4. Do you think there will be any consequences for the politicians involved in the resistance?


Feel free to add any other comments or discussion points.

Link and a couple of excerpts below, it's worth a read.


The Insurrection Proclamation

The Insurrection Proclamation: Trump issued it eight months ago. Governors called it an immigration order. When you review the eight-month timeline you recognize what most 'experts' miss. The April 28 EO satisfied every Section 334 requirement. It designated sanctuary conduct as insurrection. It provided formal notification. It established consequences. It granted eight months to comply. Compliance never arrived. California and New York passed laws shielding criminal networks. Illinois officials threatened to prosecute ICE agents. Multiple states coordinated legal defenses against federal authority. Courts blocked every standard enforcement attempt. They certified that ordinary measures have become impracticable.


The next triggering event, another federal agent detained, another governor proclamation shielding criminal networks, launches the formal dispersal order under Section 334. The 72-hour window begins. When obstruction continues, federal troops move under the Insurrection Act. Constitutional authority. Historically unreviewable under Trump v. United States.

The Supreme Court will (correctly) uphold any challenges to this,

Popcorn.GIF

Sid Farkas said:

---

The Supreme Court will (correctly) uphold any challenges to this,

---

The article implies that the SC said that he couldn't federalize the NG because he hadn't tried to protect federal property and personnel with the military beforehand.

Decision from December 2025

From Kavanaugh:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the judgment. To protect federal personnel and property in Illinois, the President federalized about 300 National Guard members. The State of Illinois sued, and as relevant here, the District Court barred the President from deploying the Guard. After the Seventh Circuit declined to stay the District Court's order, the Government applied to this Court for a stay. I agree with the Court's decision to deny the Government's application for a stay, but I would do so on narrower grounds. To federalize the National Guard, the President first must determine that he is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."

In my view, the statutory term "regular forces" likely refers to the U. S. military, not to federal civilian law enforcement officers. On the current record, however, it does not appear that the President has yet made the statutorily required determination that he is "unable" with the U. S. military, as distinct from federal civilian law enforcement officers, to ensure the execution of federal law in Illinois. (The President of course would have great discretion to make that determination, as the State itself acknowledges. See Supp. Letter Reply Brief for Respondents 7; Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U. S. 518, 529530 (1988).)

Nobody has any opinions on this? I'm not trying to start **** I just thought it was an interesting article with a lot of points I'd never considered before.

Edit: there are several ongoing topics directly related to this.

TLDR

The Supreme Court ruling a day before Christmas that forced the withdraw of National Guard troops from several cities was generally called out as a blow to the administration and advertised as invalidating their use of the National Guard, but in reality it ruled the administration lacked authority to send in the NG without being unable to use "regular forces" (U.S. military) first, a condition not (yet) met.

Said more simply, they Court said the administration must first try to use the military for the intended purposes, where the Executive has far more autonomy.

Trump very nearly slips and says "with the military" in the Sunday presser on Air Force One when he says:

Quote:

---

"...but we pulled out. We had a Supreme Court decision. We can go back. We're allowed to go back in, but we'll go back in with...when the crime starts. Look [handwave] the crime will soon start because they now know that we're out and at the appropriate time, we'll go back in and we may, you know if we're allowed to, the most powerful thing we have we haven't used, the Insurrection Act....[sic]...I have always considered using it, but we haven't needed it anywhere. Forty-eight percent of the presidents of this country have used it. Bush (HW) used it, I think, 22 times or something."

---

(Time 22:58)

Oh, and increased ICE funds approved in the BBB last July surged new hiring of agents, who are just now starting to finish their 6 months of training. Force numbers are going to start dramatically going up.

Pair this with the Insurrection Act and particulars mentioned above, and the inside baseball becomes pretty clear with the US military being used to protect ICE and quell dissident sanctuary city governments.

Pinochet said:

---

TLDR

---

Yep guess so, oh well. It was interesting at least.

Best case scenario it doesn't need to be discussed in the future.


Edit: see above post.

Thanks, this was pretty much the point of my post. Seems like it deserved some attention and discussion.

I've never bothered to read the language of the Insurrection Act until just now, but found it interesting that the wording throughout is the President "may" use a variety of responses if deemed necessary, but there is a use of the word "shall" which the legal eagles here will point out is a mandatory obligation of the office.

Same here, that's why I thought it was an interesting read. Hopefully some of those legal eagles can chime in.

[No need to be disrespectful to other posters -- Staff]

We live in fascinating times. I don't like where any of this is going. This seems an odd application of the Insurrection Act to me with its purpose being to force states to comply with federal law as supreme to state and local law. We're watching the federal government be combative with state leaders in a way we haven't seen since the 60's. Ironically it was Democrats in the 60's that didn't want to protect minorities in compliance with the Civil Rights Act and now it's Democrats who don't want to protect Americans in their states. That an entire major party has chosen to prioritize illegals over citizens is fascinating to me. That there are citizens cheering them on is simply incredible.

This all has the ability to go very, very badly for everyone.

Seems like even if he COULD do this, he probably shouldn't. We're getting things done without it, and inviting violence just to own the libs isn't a great plan.

The US only very narrowly defended POTUS' right to use National Guard in that case, as well, which contributed to the specific loss on that point at SCOTUS. Really, all it would require even with the Trump v. Illinois decision is a determination by POTUS that the national guard is needed, to support ICE operations etc, not the full Insurrection Act Proclamation per the dissent.

I don't know why Sauer/Bondi etc decided to litigate on such a narrow basis the president's right to activate the Nat'l Guard, but they did, and I don't think the precedent is really all that big a deal, despite the headlines saying otherwise. It was also only about a few hundred troops. Trump still has the ability to (a) make the determination he needs those resources, (b) use the military (regular troops), and (c) make an Insurrection Proclamation. The Democrats (and Singham/Soros proxy rioters) are making it easier and easier for him to do the latter.

Note, the AEA and Insurrection Act determinations/invocations are also further legally buttressed now by the Maduro arrest/charges/case:

Interesting. . . Trump Administration now has the Maduro indictment to support their Alien Enemies Act claims. pic.twitter.com/akwRwAgZ6O

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 9, 2026

The Judicial Resistance/Sedition branch is going to keep losing ultimately, imho.

Well now I really hope he does this.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Seems like even if he COULD do this, he probably shouldn't. We're getting things done without it, and inviting violence just to own the libs isn't a great plan.

---

Yes, that's it. The Trump administration is inviting violence.

I suppose if you step in front of a punch, you invited it to hit you. Not worth talking about the one throwing the punch...

So based on the SC decision, if resources are needed in the future it sounds like he can't federalize the NG and he has to use the IA, is that correct?

That seems backwards to me but I'm not a lawyer.

pic.twitter.com/U4nJpFp20h

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 15, 2026

🚨 BREAKING: Minneapolis rioters successfully BROKE OPEN a weapons locker in a federal vehicle and STOLE A RIFLE and ammunition before fleeing

I captured the thief’s face and license plate on the getaway vehicle.

PLEASE SHARE and HELP IDENTIFY this POS.

I have forwarded this… pic.twitter.com/7rwfIsN7v6

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 15, 2026