“We are taking prudent steps to prepare active-duty Army forces,” an official told ABC News.
Active-Duty Soldiers on Standby for Deployment
ABC News reports Active-Duty Soldiers on Standby, 2 Defense Officials Say
Some 1,500 active duty Army paratroopers have been put on alert for a potential deployment to Minnesota, according to two defense officials.
The soldiers are from the 11th Airborne Division, based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, one of the Army’s premier infantry formations and a frontline force in the U.S. military presence in the Pacific, positioned to help deter China. The division is also the military’s leading formation for Arctic warfare.
One official said the president had not made a final decision on whether to deploy two battalions. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“We are taking prudent steps to prepare active-duty Army forces,” the official said. “This doesn’t mean they will deploy; we are preparing options.”
The 11th Airborne troops were recalled to base on Friday, amid the long holiday weekend, to stand by as a so-called quick reaction force, a rapid-deployment force, according to an internal notice to the unit’s leadership, reviewed by ABC News.
Trump Is Threatening to Invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported Trump Is Threatening to Invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota
The 19th-century law would allow Trump to deploy the military inside the U.S. It would be the first use of the emergency federal power for domestic law enforcement in over three decades.
What is the Insurrection Act?
The Insurrection Act is a law that authorizes the president to use military force for civilian law-enforcement in the U.S. in a narrow set of circumstances. It is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act that typically places strict limits on how federal forces can be used on U.S. soil.
It permits calling in federal forces whenever the president “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States” make it impossible to enforce laws through normal judicial procedures.
It also allows Trump to use the military when an insurrection or similar action deprives someone of a constitutional right and state authorities don’t remedy the situation. He can also send in federal forces, the law says, when such a group “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
The law as written is extremely broad, and many of the terms it uses don’t have concrete definitions, said Laura Dickinson, a professor at George Washington University’s law school.
Nevertheless, she said, it has been interpreted by both parties for centuries as a final-resort emergency option to be used only when law and order has completely broken down.
“If it were invoked now, we would be in uncharted waters,” Dickinson said.
It was most recently used by President George H.W. Bush in 1992—at the request of California’s governor—to aid with civil unrest over the acquittal of four Los Angeles police officers in the beating of Rodney King, the center said.
Could it be challenged in court?
Any invocation of the act will almost certainly be challenged in court.
It will raise several questions, including how much deference the courts should give to the president’s interpretation of the situation on the ground. While the act is historically understood as a last-ditch tool for absolute emergencies—such as when law cannot be carried out because courts have been forced to close—the Trump administration is likely to argue, as it has in similar cases, that the courts don’t have the authority to second-guess the president’s judgment.
The law’s vague language will also play a key role, said Dickinson, the law professor. Some experts say the lack of a clear definition for terms like “rebellion” will grant the president wide discretion. Others say that invoking it under these conditions so deeply contradicts the act’s principles that it is unlikely to survive legal scrutiny.
Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor, said a use of the act in these circumstances so plainly violates the idea of the law that any ambiguity in the wording wouldn’t be enough for the Trump administration to prevail.
“The entire thing is antithetical to the history and tradition of the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court cares so much about,” he said.
Does this mean federal troops will police Americans?
While the act suspends Posse Comitatus, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the National Guard or armed forces would involve themselves directly in law-enforcement. The military hasn’t been trained to police Americans, and traditionally has been vehemently opposed to the idea of doing so.
Why Hasn’t Trump Invoked the Insurrection Act Yet?
That’s a good question and that answer isn’t clear.
5 Possible Reasons Trump Has Held Off
- Trump’s legal team thinks the Supreme Court would squash it.
- Trump would prefer a more violent reaction in Minneapolis than what’s happened so far.
- The US military would be more professional and better trained than Ice.
- Trump’s Military experts advise against doing this.
- Ranking Military leaders advise against doing this.
I suspect it is some combination of those but it’s impossible to weight accurately.
Meanwhile, Trump Hits European Nations With Tariffs Until Deal Reached to Buy Greenland
If you need another reason IEEPA tariffs are idiocy, you have one.
