When the founders wrote laws granting presidents the authority to quell rebellion, they likely couldn’t imagine armored vehicles rolling down American streets in peacetime. Yet that’s the image many Americans now associate with the Insurrection Act – a centuries-old statute that is deemed either a safeguard of national order or a blank check for federal overreach.
Recent political debates have brought discussion of utilizing it to respond to rising crime or civil unrest, legal scholars, civil rights groups, and even military officials are raising a common question: Is the Insurrection Act being accurately used – or is it fueling the broader militarization of policing?
Insurrection
First passed in 1807, the Insurrection Act gives the president power to deploy federal troops on U.S. soil when “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” hinders the execution of federal laws (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255, OUSD Policy). It’s been invoked only about 30 times in American history (Brennan Center for Justice, Guide to Invocations of the Insurrection Act, 2022). Most famously to enforce desegregation in the South during the 1950s and 1960s, and again during the 1992 Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King verdict.
Traditionally, the Act was used sparingly, but today, some political figures argue it should be applied more aggressively, framing it as a tool to combat urban crime, protests, or perceived disorder. Experts reported the Insurrection Act was never meant to serve as a political response to local policing issues.
The Act’s language is famously vague, using terms like “unlawful assemblage” and “domestic violence” without defining clear thresholds. The ambiguity gives presidents enormous discretion, opening the door to politically motivated uses. It blurs the line between dissent and disorder.
Militarized Policing
Even without troops, America’s police forces have already absorbed many military tactics and tools – a trend that some scholars call the “soft militarization” of domestic law enforcement (ACLU, War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing, 2014). Programs like the Pentagon’s 1033 initiative have transferred billions of dollars in surplus military equipment to local police departments since the 1990s (U.S. Department of Defense, 1033 Program Data Summary). Armored vehicles, tactical rifles, and riot gear have become common sights at protests– often in communities of color.
Research shows these tactics don’t make communities safer. A 2018 Princeton University study by political scientist Jonathan Mummolo found no evidence that militarized policing reduces crime or increases officer safety, but it does erode public trust – particularly among Black and brown residents who already feel overpoliced (Mummolo, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018). The logic of occupation replaces the logic of protection. Using the Insurrection Act today could merge these two trends– militarized policing and executive overreach – into something far more dangerous. Once federal troops are deployed domestically, the distinction between military and civilian law enforcement is unclear (Congressional Research Service, RS22266, 2020).
Constant proposals for reforms are called for which include clarifying the Act’s vague language, requiring congressional oversight before deployment, and reaffirming the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using the military as police.
How much force is acceptable in the name of safety?
For communities already affected by police violence, the answer feels personal. The sight of camouflage uniforms and rifles on American streets can revive painful histories– from Selma to Ferguson. If the Insurrection Act becomes a shortcut for political control rather than a last-resort safeguard, experts warn the nation risks normalizing a permanent state of emergency.