top of page
Search

The Insurrection Act, Then and Now: Trump’s Double Standard on Democracy

Updated: 3 days ago



On January 6, 2021, the world watched as the U.S. Capitol was stormed by a mob of angry, misinformed citizens waving flags not of the nation—but of Donald Trump. That violent insurrection left five dead, hundreds injured, and a stain on American democracy that history will never forget. Yet amid the chaos, one critical question went unanswered in the aftermath:


Why didn’t Donald Trump invoke the Insurrection Act to stop his own supporters from attacking democracy?


Fast-forward to June 2025, and Trump is once again at the center of a firestorm—this time as a returning figurehead with presidential ambitions. After a series of ICE raids in Los Angeles triggered widespread protests, Trump swiftly invoked federal authority to deploy the National Guard under Title 10. He labeled the protests an "insurrection," greenlit flash-bangs and tear gas, and sent troops to confront primarily Latino and immigrant communities. In essence: he had no problem invoking the full power of the state—so long as the targets were his political enemies.


Let’s examine this contradiction through the lens of the Constitution, historical precedent, and raw political intent.


📏 What Is the Insurrection Act?

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a federal law that allows the President to deploy U.S. military and National Guard troops within the United States in specific circumstances—to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion. It exists as a last resort when states are unable or unwilling to enforce federal law or protect constitutional rights.


Historically, it has been used sparingly and with extreme caution:

  • Eisenhower in 1957 to enforce desegregation in Arkansas

  • George H.W. Bush in 1992 during the LA riots following the Rodney King verdict

Each instance was grounded in a compelling need to restore public safety and protect civil rights.

But Trump’s two approaches—then and now—could not be more different.


January 6, 2021: When He Should Have Used It

On that cold January day, Trump had every legal and moral reason to invoke the Insurrection Act:


  • The Capitol was under siege.

  • Federal lawmakers were in danger.

  • The peaceful transfer of power was being interrupted.


But instead of deploying the National Guard, Trump did nothing for hours. His own acting Secretary of Defense restricted Guard deployment, and it took more than three hours before any backup arrived.

Why? Because the insurrectionists were his supporters. They wore his name on their shirts and echoed his lies about a "stolen election."

To invoke the Insurrection Act would have been to declare them enemies of the Constitution. To stop the attack would have meant stopping his own attempt to hold onto power.


So he waited.


And while he waited, windows were smashed, police officers were assaulted, and democracy teetered on the edge.


🌟 June 2025: When He Uses It as a Weapon

Now contrast that with what just happened in Los Angeles.

Following coordinated ICE raids that tore apart immigrant communities, protestors flooded the streets to object to federal overreach and the dehumanization of asylum seekers. Yes, some confrontations turned violent. But the majority were lawful assemblies protected under the First Amendment.

Still, Trump wasted no time.


  • He invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize the California National Guard.

  • He labeled the protest an "insurrection."

  • He positioned troops, tear gas, and tactical vehicles not to protect rights, but to suppress them.


All while California state leaders opposed the move.

In essence, Trump used the Insurrection Act as a bludgeon against his critics—wielding the law not to defend the Constitution, but to silence political resistance.


⚖️ The Constitutional Double Standard

So let’s be clear:


  • The Capitol riot was a real insurrection—Trump did nothing.

  • The LA protests are an expression of dissent—Trump brought in troops.


That’s not leadership. That’s authoritarianism by convenience.

The Constitution empowers the president to act in moments of national emergency. But it also demands restraint, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. Using military force selectively based on who is protesting—rather than what they’re protesting for—is a clear abuse of power.

And let’s not forget: Trump has now set a precedent where he can label any mass resistance as "insurrection" and call in military backup.

This should terrify anyone who believes in free speech, peaceful assembly, or the right to challenge power.


🚨 Final Word: We See the Playbook

The hypocrisy isn’t subtle.

In 2021, Trump let democracy burn when it suited him. In 2025, he brought the fire to the people trying to stop it from burning again.

The Insurrection Act was never meant to be a political weapon. But in the hands of a man obsessed with loyalty and control, it has become one.

So don’t be fooled by the spin. Don’t buy the "law and order" line. And above all, don’t stay silent.


Because if resistance can be rebranded as insurrection, then none of us are safe from what comes next.



Yorumlar

bottom of page