This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
President Donald Trump witnessed what U.S. forces were capable of in Venezuela, where he arrested that nation’s leader and brought him to New York on drug and weapons charges. Now, Trump is considering using the same military power to quell the unrest in Minneapolis. This represents a potentially startling escalation by the President in a deteriorating situation where a large portion of the public views his Administration as the instigators.
A more assertive Trump appears determined to exacerbate the situation in Minnesota, where protesters are opposing immigration raids that have spun out of control. A 37-year-old woman died after being shot in the face last week while driving away from officers, and a second man was also shot. On Thursday, Trump threatened to activate a rarely used 1797 law that enables a President to deploy troops on U.S. soil to suppress an insurrection or armed rebellion—tasks that military members are typically prohibited from participating in.
If Minnesota officials did not halt the protests, Trump stated that he would “implement the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and swiftly put an end to the travesty occurring in that once great State.”
It is not an overstatement to say that this is a moment with few historical precedents, at least not in recent memory. During her briefing on Thursday at the White House, press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that Trump’s predecessors have used Insurrection Act powers “sparingly,” but added that it remains a tool.
For those interested in history: we are currently in the longest period in U.S. history without the Insurrection Act being invoked.
The last time a U.S. President invoked the powers to suppress an insurrection was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush responded to the call from California’s Governor to help calm the streets of Los Angeles after a jury acquitted four police officers who were filmed beating Rodney King. Before that, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson each deployed troops to enforce Civil Rights protections. The last time the act was invoked without a state’s request was in 1965, when LBJ intervened to protect the Selma-to-Montgomery Civil Rights march in Alabama.
It is likely that if Trump were to activate his emergency powers, it would not be at the invitation of Minnesota, where residents are outraged by the situation and Gov. Tim Walz compared the moment to an “occupation” in a rare six-minute address on Wednesday night.
“What’s happening in Minnesota right now is beyond belief,” Walz said. “News reports simply do not convey the extent of the chaos, disruption, and trauma the federal government is inflicting on our communities.”
Despite Walz’s calls for a display “of decency, of justice, of community, and of peace,” the situation is worsening. Protests are spreading across the country, other blue states are preparing for retaliation, and immigrant communities are increasingly living in fear. In Minnesota, many schools are either canceling classes or switching to remote learning.
Meanwhile, Homeland Security officials are showing their toughness, with Secretary Kristi Noem暗示媒体镇压可能会升级，她讲台上的标语是：“我们中的一个，我们所有人的。”
撇开对公众权利、第一修正案保护和公共安全的影响不谈，这对特朗普来说没有明显的政治好处。事实上，恰恰相反；美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）的民意调查显示，只有26%的美国成年人认为对蕾妮·古德的枪击是合适的，雅虎-YouGov（27%）和昆尼皮亚克（35%）的调查结果也类似。CNN和雅虎的民意调查都表明，特朗普的大规模驱逐政策已经非常不受欢迎。CNN的民意调查发现，美国人认为移民和海关执法局（ICE）的突袭行动使情况“更不安全”，比例为51%对31%；雅虎报道称，这些行动“弊大于利”，比例为54%对34%。客观地说，这不是任何政治行为体想要的处境。
这一切似乎都没有在白宫引起重视，在那里，更加大胆的特朗普正陶醉于一项任务的成功，该任务抓获了委内瑞拉的独裁领导人并将其送往纽约，此外还有他试图夺取格陵兰岛引发的震动以及与伊朗迫在眉睫的紧张关系。
在特朗普的第一个任期内，顾问们曾劝阻他不要援引《叛乱法》。目前尚不清楚他周围是否有人提供这样的建议，这使得一位总统可能即将挑战中西部人的友善底线以及国家对暴力镇压 largely peaceful dissent的容忍度的好战姿态得以持续。
理解华盛顿的重要事务。.
