Martial Law &
Deploying Troops Domestically
Deploying federal troops to U.S. cities for civilian law enforcement in response to completely fabricated “emergencies” is an outrageous violation of American democracy and the rule of law.
On September 27, 2025, the Trump/Vance administration declared they were ordering troops to Portland – calling the Oregon city “war ravaged” – and named Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Oakland and Philadelphia as cities they also intended to target. They did this even though violent crime in Portland decreased during the first half of 2025, including a 51 percent drop in homicides compared with the same period in 2024; Baltimore had the fewest homicides in the first half of 2025 than in any year since 1975; in August 2025 the Chicago Police Department reported a 23 percent decline in violent crime compared with the year before; homicides were down 32 percent last year in Oakland and dropped 21 percent in the first half of 2025 (equaling a 29 percent decrease in violent crime overall); Philadelphia is on track to have the fewest homicides it has had in almost 60 years; and the murder rate in Louisiana is almost four times higher than that of California (Louisiana had 19.3 homicide deaths per 100,000 people to California’s 5.1).
Why are they doing this? Well, unfortunately in this case, it has nothing to do with reducing crime or making our streets safer. It’s about scaring people so they can control them.
Crime and violence are scary, no doubt. Although the homicide rate was 17 percent lower in the first half of 2025 than the year before in 30 major cities, crime persists in many areas, causing plenty of Americans to feel unsafe. Because people already feel vulnerable and afraid, crime and violence are the perfect topics to weaponize – a tactic the Trump/Vance administration has taken to an artform, portraying predominately Democratic cities and states as lawless, depraved, and out-of-control… expertly exploiting anger and fear to intensify the growing divide between progressives and conservatives.
Don’t believe us? Then why did President Trump (who said “our once-great cities” have “blood-soaked streets” and that our “cities are rotting” and are “cesspools of blood”) deploy National Guard troops from the red-states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia to patrol perfectly safe areas of Washington, D.C. (a place he characterizes as a “rat-infested, graffiti-infested shithole”), even though Memphis, Tennessee has a murder rate roughly twice as high as our nation’s capital and cities in Texas, Ohio and Missouri also have higher rates of violent crime than Washington?
After many people made this exact point, President Trump announced that he would be sending the National Guard to Memphis after all. We guess he figured out that Memphis is actually the ideal place for him to stage the next act of his political fake drama since it has all the necessary ingredients: a majority black population, a black Democratic mayor, and is a blue city in a dark red state.
The actions of the Trump/Vance administration – which are being done against the wishes of state governors and without congressional authorization – corrodes civil liberties, destabilizes communities, stokes instability, escalates tensions, and erodes public trust. It is also highly damaging to our military, which has a long-standing history of being non-political and certainly non-partisan. Using the military as pawns in political games hurts morale and drives out experienced service members.
THIS CAN NOT BE NORMALIZED. Police states aren’t created overnight. They are created by citizens almost sleepwalking into them by slowly and quietly conceding their freedoms.
Judges around the nation obviously get this. In a harsh ruling against the Trump/Vance administration, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer pointed out that they are using “a top-down, systemic effort” to “create a national police force with the president as its chief.” Judge Breyer didn’t stop there. He also said that Trump/Vance officials “knowingly” and “willingly” violated the Posse Comitatus Act when they sent National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles in June 2025. Although the Trump/Vance administration claimed they federalized the California National Guard to “ostensibly quell a rebellion and ensure that federal immigration law was enforced,” Judge Breyer made clear the evidence didn’t support those claims in any way. After carefully reviewing the evidence, he concluded that “there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”
In Oregon, Judge Karin Immergut saw it much the same way. Judge Immergut eviscerated the Trump/Vance administration’s claims, saying that there was “substantial evidence that protests at the Portland ICE facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days – or even weeks – leading up to the president’s directive.” She continued, “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.” Judge Immergut concluded with this: “This country has a long-standing and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. … This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”
Over in Illinois, Judge April Perry made clear that the Trump/Vance administration had a “credibility” problem, as their “perception of events are simply unreliable. I have seen no credible evidence that there is danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois. Deportations are up. Arrests are up… the courthouse remains open and always has. Federal laws are being executed… there is no evidence that the president is unable, with the regular forces, to execute the laws of the United States.”
Creating crises out of thin air and abusing emergency powers in the name of cracking down on crime is not what healthy democracies do. It’s what authoritarian autocrats like President Trump’s new buddy president of El Salvador Nayib Bukele do. These guys turn the military on its own people to suppress dissent, empower corruption, and violate civil liberties in egregious ways.
That’s why one of the most fundamental – and critical – hallmarks of American democracy is that the United States military cannot, except under very narrow exceptions, be deployed on our own soil. Under the power of the U.S. Constitution, the president is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces, but the U.S. Congress is the branch of government in control of the military’s domestic activities (thank God once again for the separation of powers!).
MARTIAL LAW
Martial law is the temporary suspension of ordinary law and civilian government in favor of military rule and control, typically enacted during a crisis like war, insurrection, widespread civil unrest, or emergencies like natural disasters. Martial law may also be declared in instances of military coups d’état.
It’s extremely important that every American understand that, under martial law, civilian legal processes and civil liberties can be suspended in deference to military powers. A key hallmark of marital law is that the military enforces the law, sometimes trying civilians in military tribunals (but only if civilian courts are not functional) and potentially suspending rights like habeas corpus (i.e., your right to demand that a judge review the legality of your detention, forcing whoever is detaining you to provide a valid reason for your arrest) – and this can either continue for a specified amount of time, or indefinitely.
Martial law has been declared at least 68 times in the United States. In the nine times it’s been declared since World War II, five of those were designed to counter resistance to federal desegregation decrees in the South.
There is a ton of confusion around martial law, mainly because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention it and no act of Congress defines it.
The authority surrounding marital law is complex, with limitations based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings that require it to be an absolute last resort where civilian courts are unable to function. The last time the Supreme Court addressed it was the case Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946) and even in that case the decision was vague.
1787’s interpretation is that under current law, the president lacks the authority to unilaterally declare martial law. Congress may be able to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law, but this seems to be inconclusive. State officials do have the power to declare martial law, but their actions and decisions must adhere to the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.
POSSE COMITATUS ACT
In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), which prevents members of the federal armed forces from participating in civilian law enforcement activities unless they have been “expressly authorized” by Congress. However, there are two exceptions to this: the Insurrection Act and the president’s authority over the National Guard.
INSURRECTION ACT
The Insurrection Act authorizes the U.S. president to use the military domestically to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” These terms are not defined in the statute, unfortunately, which leaves them far too ambiguous – and open to far too broad interpretations.
In the 1827 U.S. Supreme Court case Martin v. Mott, the Court held that the president alone decides when to invoke the Insurrection Act because he is “presumed to act in obedience to his duty.” Because the president is the final decision on whether an emergency has arisen domestically, Congress is given no formal role in this process and there are no time restrictions on the deployments.
THE NATIONAL GUARD
The National Guard is the only branch of the U.S. military that has both state and federal responsibilities. Therefore, the Guard can be controlled by either state or federal leaders, depending upon their deployment status. In the District of Columbia, the National Guard is always under the command and control of the president. Therefore, the president can deploy the D.C. Guard for law enforcement purposes anytime.
The National Guard has three deployment types:
State Active Duty (SAD) status: The National Guard carries out state-defined missions at the state’s expense and serves under the command and control of the state or territory’s chief executive. With SAD, governors are given broad authority to use the Guard forces as they see fit, and they are generally used in the case of emergencies and civil disturbances
Title 32 (i.e., “hybrid”) status: This status is generally used for training exercises. Examples of Title 32 being used in non-training activities include post-9/11 airport security, conducting relief operations after Hurricane Katrina, and providing support to U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Title 10 status: Under Title 10 status, National Guard units are called into federal service, or “federalized,” by the U.S. president and placed under federal command and control just as if the Guard personnel were members of the regular armed forces. As such, federalized National Guard personnel are governed by the Posse Comitatus Act.