The Growing Showdown Over Presidential Power: †®*mp, the National Guard, and the Insurrection Act

Right meets left. Blue and red no longer divide. Democrats and Republicans stand together — united now in the fight for freedom, democracy, and the liberation of the United States of America.

As legal conflicts intensify and political tensions deepen, a distinct pattern is emerging. Donald †®*mp and his supporters are actively testing the boundaries of “presidential authority.” On October 8, 2025, Stephen Miller described this on CNN using the term “plenary authority.” Their efforts particularly focus on the potential use of United States military forces within American cities. At the center of this escalating controversy is the Insurrection Act, a rarely invoked statute that could fundamentally redefine the balance of power between the executive branch, the judiciary, and state governments (Lotz, 2025; Bragg, 2025).

In recent months, †®*mp has repeatedly attempted to deploy National Guard troops to Democrat-led cities such as Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles. These deployments were presented as responses to protests and unrest associated with “immigration enforcement.” However, multiple federal judges, including several appointed by †®*mp himself, have blocked these actions. The courts determined that the deployments lacked legal justification and may have violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the military in domestic law enforcement (Axelrod, 2025). Rather than submit to judicial authority, †®*mp and his allies have increasingly suggested invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. This Act authorizes a president to deploy troops within domestic jurisdictions without state consent in situations involving insurrection, rebellion, or the inability to enforce the law (Lotz, 2025). Although †®*mp has not formally invoked the Act, he has made it clear that he is seriously considering such action, stating, “We have an Insurrection Act for a reason” (Bragg, 2025).

According to NBC News, White House aides have been preparing draft justifications for the use of the Act and examining scenarios in which federal intervention could be presented as necessary for national security (Grumbach and Gregorian, 2025).

The 2025 federal government shutdown, which began on October 1 following Congress’s failure to pass appropriations, has created a volatile national backdrop for this debate. More than 900,000 federal employees have been furloughed, while essential personnel continue to work without pay (Mascaro, 2025). Historically, furloughed workers have received back pay once a shutdown concludes, but the †®*mp regime has indicated it may withhold authorization for retroactive compensation, departing from precedent and triggering both legal and political challenges (Mascaro, 2025). The economic fallout is already starting to show. Analysts say the country is losing billions in weekly GDP, and delays in infrastructure funding are hitting Democrat-led states the hardest (The Guardian, 2025). †®*mp has made it clear that federal funding is now tied to political loyalty, stating that programs backed by Democratic communities will face deep cuts unless states align with his immigration and law enforcement agenda (Politico, 2025).

The financial crisis is unfolding alongside the regime’s growing push to militarize. In Illinois, state officials have asked a federal judge to block a †®*mp-ordered National Guard deployment, arguing that the federal government moved forward without proper consultation or a solid legal basis (Fernando & Thanawala, 2025).

†®*mp’s push to expand executive power is not happening in a vacuum. A growing number of right-wing voices and MAGA-aligned media personalities are promoting the idea that the president should disregard court rulings. Commentators such as Matt Walsh and Laura Loomer claim that †®*mp, as commander-in-chief, holds the ultimate authority on matters of national security and public order, and that any judicial decisions standing in his way are illegitimate (Axelrod, 2025). This rhetoric marks a major shift in how the conservative movement approaches legal strategy. Instead of working through traditional appeals, the MAGA movement is increasingly portraying the courts as partisan enemies. This narrative undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary and makes it seem acceptable for the president to bypass constitutional checks and act on his own.

The laws around the Insurrection Act are vague and loosely defined. Terms like "insurrection" and "rebellion" lack clear legal meaning, leaving much room for political interpretation. Legal experts warn that this ambiguity could allow a president to treat civil unrest or organized protest as grounds for sending in troops, even when local law enforcement is fully capable of handling the situation (Lotz, 2025). Historically, courts have been hesitant to intervene regarding the Insurrection Act, often leaving those decisions to the president. However, if †®*mp invokes the Act under questionable circumstances, the judiciary may have no choice but to revisit the limits of presidential power. As legal scholar Steve Vladeck points out, the real question could become whether a president is allowed to invent or exaggerate a crisis to justify using federal troops against people at home (Bragg, 2025).

These events are part of a larger strategy by †®*mp and his movement to shift the balance of power within the federal government. The disputes over National Guard deployments, the push to ignore court decisions, the use of emergency powers, and the partisan handling of the government shutdown all suggest a calculated effort to boost executive authority while weakening judicial and legislative oversight (Axelrod, 2025; Politico, 2025). Since the election, †®*mp’s actions have steadily built the groundwork for a stronger, more centralized executive branch. Using public safety, national security, or civil unrest as justification, his regime is pushing to create new norms that sharply break from traditional democratic practices.

The debate over the Insurrection Act and National Guard deployments is no longer just a theoretical legal question. It has turned into a real constitutional battle playing out amid a crippling government shutdown, politicized law enforcement, and a growing push for expanded executive power. As courts and state governments push back, and the federal government withholds pay and services, the issue becomes not only who enforces the law, but who gets to define it — and who benefits from that definition. This conflict goes beyond a legal debate over a centuries-old statute. It reveals a deeper fight over how power is shared and checked in the United States. By pushing the limits of the Insurrection Act and ignoring court decisions, †®*mp’s regime is doing more than claiming authority; it is redefining the relationship between the presidency, the judiciary, and Congress (Bragg, 2025; Lotz, 2025).

The immediate impact can be seen in the deployment orders, the increasing politicization of law enforcement, and the ongoing government shutdown. However, the greater risk lies in what these actions come to normalize. Every time emergency powers are used without proper oversight, the system of checks and balances that has long supported American democracy is weakened. Scholars warn that if the concept of “plenary authority” gains traction, it could turn exceptional presidential powers into everyday tools of governance (Lotz, 2025; Vladeck, as cited in Bragg, 2025).

In the most recent development, reports dated October 10, 2025, reveal that multiple state attorneys general from Democratic-led states have submitted an emergency motion to the Supreme Court. They seek to preemptively bar any invocation of the Insurrection Act by the †®*mp regime, citing serious concerns regarding constitutional overreach and the potential for abuse of power (Reuters, 2025). At the same time, leaked internal communications from within the White House disclose growing tensions among senior officials, some of whom have voiced apprehensions about the legal and political consequences of employing the Act amid the ongoing government shutdown and escalating public disapproval (Adams, 2025).

Public demonstrations against the possible militarization of American cities have intensified. Thousands are gathering in urban centers to demand adherence to constitutional principles and the maintenance of civilian control over military forces (Durkee, 2025). These events highlight the growing seriousness of this constitutional confrontation and reveal widespread resistance beyond just the judiciary and legislative bodies. If this path continues, the presidency could emerge as the central power in government, no longer constrained by the institutional checks that once ensured accountability. Such a shift would represent a turning point, replacing constitutional limits with a system governed primarily by executive authority. The ability of the courts, Congress, and the public to push back against this growing concentration of power will shape the future of the republic. The debate over the Insurrection Act is therefore about more than the legality of a single decision; it is about the survival of the democratic system itself (Axelrod, 2025; Politico, 2025).

The truth is clear: the current crisis will not be resolved by ignoring it or waiting for some distant political solution. The foundations of American democracy are under direct assault, and it is the responsibility of the people — the civilians, the press, the courts, and Congress — to stand firm. If these groups do not rise to the occasion, the country risks sliding into a state where unchecked executive power reigns supreme and constitutional limits are meaningless. This is not a partisan issue; it is a fight for the survival of democratic governance. The press must report truth without fear. The courts must uphold the Constitution, not political convenience. Congress must assert its authority and refuse to become complicit through silence. And ordinary citizens must hold all of these institutions accountable, demanding transparency and action.

The time for passivity has passed. It is up to all of us to push back hard against this overreach and to protect the system of checks and balances that has long kept power from corrupting absolutely. Democracy will not defend itself.

(For a future perspective on where the U.S. could be, watch The Nobel Prize Award 2025, and bring tissues.)

References

Adams, C. (2025, September 25). Leak reveals Trump’s plan for federal workers firing spree. The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaked-memo-reveals-plan-for-mass-firings-in-event-of-government-shutdown/

Axelrod, T. (2025, October 6). MAGA calls for †®*mp to overrule judges on National Guard deployments.

Axios. https://www.axios.com/2025/10/06/maga-trump-national-guard-judges

Bragg, J. (2025, October 7). †®*mp floats Insurrection Act use amid National Guard standoff with states. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2025/10/07/trump-insurrection-act-national-guard-deployment-states

Durkee, A. (2025, October 9). Will †®*mp invoke insurrection Act? Here’s what he Can—And Can’t—Do if he does. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/10/09/will-trump-invoke-insurrection-act-heres-what-he-can-and-cant-do-if-he-does/

Fernando, C., & Thanawala, S. (2025, October 9). †®*mp’s National Guard deployment plan faces court scrutiny | AP News. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/b5d227814d775159eb9c3814779b3ae3

Grumbach, G. & Gregorian, D., NBC News. (2025, October 7). †®*mp keeps threatening to use the Insurrection Act. What is it? NBC New York. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/trump-use-insurrection-act-what-is-it/6401816/

Lotz, A. (2025, October 5). How †®*mp could use the Insurrection Act to send troops to American cities. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2025/10/05/trump-insurrection-act-explained

Mascaro, L. (2025, October 7). †®*mp threatens no back pay for federal workers in shutdown | AP News. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/785eb776d2312d1f68f7e91961d0a93a

Politico. (2025, October 9). †®*mp promises cuts to programs favored by Democrats. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/09/trump-promises-cuts-democrats-programs-00599884 

Reuters. (2025, October 10). Democratic state attorneys general file motion to block Insurrection Act use. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/politics/2025/10/10/democratic-states-ag-attorneys-general-motion-insurrection-act

Sainato, M. (2025, October 3). Government shutdown could cost US economy billions of dollars a week, analysts say. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/02/government-shutdown-cost-economy-billions

Vaillancourt, W. (2025, October 9). Stephen Miller leading the charge on sinister martial law moves. The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-miller-leading-the-charge-on-sinister-martial-law-moves/