The Fake & Fraudulent Prophets Around the President
September 4, 2026 |
Daniel Henderson
“We have an insurrection act for a reason. If I had to enact it I would do that,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, adding, “if people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure I would do that.” (Monday, Oct. 6)
In September 2025, Trump suggested using “dangerous cities” as “training grounds” for the military to combat what he called an “enemy from within.” Trump has specifically called out cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oregon, often citing crime rates to paint them as dangerous and lawless.
He threatens to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 as justification to nationalize troops from various states and send them into Democratic controlled cities. His rationale is that “crime is out of control” in those cities.
Trump’s focus on crime in Democratic cities is an obvious political strategy and not a Constitutional one. By amplifying fears about crime, he aims to portray himself as a “tough-on-crime” president and frame urban issues as a failure of Democratic leadership. It is political sleight of hand.
The charge of cities being “out of control” ignores the reality that the four cities with the highest violent crime rates in the country are in Republican run states: Jackson, Mississippi; Birmingham, Alabama; St Louis, Missouri, and Memphis, Tennessee. Trump, instead of dealing with the obvious most serious problem areas, targets cities in blue states even though they have lower per-capita crime rates: Chicago, Illinois, Portland, Oregon; Washington DC; and Baltimore, Maryland.
The racial component is also hard to miss. Civil rights advocates including those from the ACLU and NAACP, have argued that Trump’s rhetoric echoes racially charged narratives used by conservatives for decades to target urban areas, especially those with majority-minority populations.
What if Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act? Oh, the irony when you consider January 6th, but let’s consider the Insurrection Act of 1807. What does it allow a President to do, and what are the parameters? Which Presidents have used it in the past and under what circumstances? And does Trump’s charge of “violence out of control” hold water? As usual, history can be a great guide in difficult waters.
This law allows a President to deploy U.S. military forces domestically for three reasons: to enforce federal law, suppress rebellion, or protect civil rights when local authorities cannot or will not act. It is grounded in the Constitution:
Article II, Section 3 says a President must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
And, Article IV, Section 4 (the Guarantee Clause) indicates that the United States government must protect states from “domestic violence” upon request.
The Insurrection Act is balanced with a later law, the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which otherwise restricts the use of the military for civilian law enforcement. This law, stemming from the Reconstruction era, was passed to limit the use of federal troops to enact policies or engage in law enforcement such as occurred during the Reconstruction era. The core principle remains that the military cannot act as a domestic police force without specific legal authority which would normally come from Congress or upon request by a state.
There have been eleven instances in United States history where a President has invoked the Insurrection Act. The question becomes, does the current situation in the Democratic controlled cities that Trump has targeted bear any resemblance to these earlier events? In other words, do these examples give Trump a justification to invoke that Act?
George Washington (1794)
When farmers in western Pennsylvania violently resisted a federal whiskey tax. President Washington invoked the Militia Act (precursor to the Insurrection Act) to federalize militia from several states—about 13,000 troops. The incident was known as the Whiskey Rebellion.
Thomas Jefferson – Aaron Burr Conspiracy (1807)
The former Vice President, Aaron Burr, allegedly plotted to form a separate western nation in the Kentucky region. President Jefferson used the newly enacted Insurrection Act of 1807 to authorize military forces to intercept Burr’s group. The rationale was to protect the Union and enforce treason and conspiracy laws.
Andrew Jackson – South Carolina Nullification Crisis (1833)
South Carolina declared federal tariffs null and void in 1833 and even threatened secession should they be forced to pay high tariffs. President Jackson prepared to use the military based on the Force Bill (based on the Insurrection Act). The Force Bill gave him authority to enforce tariff collection. Jackson was committed to preserving federal supremacy and enforcing constitutional law against secessionist defiance.
Abraham Lincoln – Civil War (1861)
Okay, this one is obvious. When southern states seceded from the Union and organized resistance, President Lincoln cited the Insurrection Act to call up militias and expand federal forces. His reasoning was to suppress rebellion and preserve the Union under Article II and the Guarantee Clause.
Ulysses S. Grant – Reconstruction & KKK Violence (1871–1872)
During Reconstruction, southern white supremacist violence against freedmen and officials grew rampant. President Grant invoked the Ku Klux Klan Act as an extension of the Insurrection Act, to send troops into South Carolina and suspend habeas corpus. His reasoning was to enforce the new 14th and 15th Amendments’ guarantees of equal protection and voting rights.
Grover Cleveland – Pullman Strike (1894)
When a nationwide railroad strike disrupted mail and interstate commerce. Cleveland sent federal troops to Chicago without the governor’s request. Cleveland based his actions on the need to enforce federal court injunctions and protect commerce and mail service. The Constitution grants the federal government authority over interstate commerce.
Woodrow Wilson – 1919 Race Riots & Labor Unrest
During the post-World War I unrest, race riots occurred in Chicago and Washington, D.C. President Wilson deployed troops under the Insurrection Act to restore order. Wilson signaled he wanted to protect lives and enforce federal law when local authorities failed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower – Little Rock School Integration (1957)
The Arkansas governor defied federal court orders to integrate Central High School. Therefore, Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent the 101st Airborne to force the integration of the school and protect the lives of the students. Eisenhower pointed to the need to enforce federal court orders and protect civil rights under the 14th Amendment.
John F. Kennedy – Civil Rights Crises (1962–1963)
Southern governors resisted desegregation at the University of Mississippi (1962) and the University of Alabama (1963). Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act both times to federalize National Guards and deploy troops. He used the same rationale as Eisenhower did to enforce federal court desegregation orders and protect civil rights.
Lyndon B. Johnson – Urban Riots (1967–1968)
There were major civil disturbances or riots, in Detroit (1967) and Washington, D.C. after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination (1968). President Johnson deployed federal troops under the Insurrection Act when states requested help and could not control violence.
George H. W. Bush – Los Angeles Riots (1992)
Major riots broke out after acquittal of LAPD officers in the Rodney King beating. California Governor Pete Wilson requested federal help; President Bush invoked the Insurrection Act and sent U.S. Marines and Army units. They were to restore order at the state’s request under §251 and protect civil rights.
These eleven instances reflect key constitutional distinctions in the use of the Insurrection Act:
Trump’s deployments and threats come nowhere close to these Constitutional parameters. His actions operate outside the Act’s legal framework, target domestic political protest, and reflect a politicization of military power not seen since Reconstruction.
In short, the answer is no. Resoundingly. But let’s consider the data. An analysis of crime trends over the last four years shows four things.
First, violent crime rates in America’s big cities have been falling over the last two years, and at an even greater rate over the last six months. The decrease in violence in America is unprecedented.
Second, the FBI’s crime data unit in August of this year, reported that the United States had a homicide rate of about 4.6 per 100,000 residents in 2024. It is the lowest figure since 2014, and very close to the generational lows of 4 to 4.5 per 100,000 last experienced in the early 1960s.
The 2024 homicide rate in the US decreased by about 15%, one of the largest drops in American history. Most of that decrease can be attributed to declines in the largest cities, including Chicago.
Third, both Chicago and Baltimore implemented or expanded antiviolence programs in 2022 using American Rescue Plan funding – much of which has been cut under Trump. Baltimore’s homicide rate has fallen about 40% since 2020, and in 2025 is pacing a 50-year low to date. Evidence-based policing programs work.
Fourth, the murder rates for the largest 50 cities in the US found that cities in blue states had the lowest rate, with just 7.8 murders per 100,000 people. The cities in red states have a much higher murder rate of 12.9. Cities in swing states sit in the middle, with a murder rate of 10.2. The charge that Democratic controlled cities are out of control is simply untrue. In other words, it’s a lie.
Another way to understand the decrease in violent crime in the United States is to look at long term trends and aggregate data from multiple sources. It is sort of like a “lifetime batting average” only in this case you want to see the average go down. By going back to 1993, and using that year as an index (100), we can see a straight line drop in the following chart:
On this graph, it is clear that the overall violent crime rate compared to 1993 to 2023 has dropped by about 50%. (Source: FBI/BJS/Pew synthesis) Although it is harder to notice the changes in the short term, the truth is, we are living in a relatively non-violent period. The violent crime that still exists is usually isolated in pockets in various neighborhoods of cities. The mass shootings that occur get vast media attention which can blow their magnitude out of proportion.
There are still too many guns, and too many shootings, but comparatively speaking we are not seeing violence that is out of control…anywhere. The only violence that is being provoked now is the presence of military troops in places where they have no business being.
But the bottom line is, Trump’s claim of “violence out of control” has no data or evidence to support it. There is no Constitutional or legal reason for Trump to send troops into American cities or to invoke the Insurrection Act. His chance to do that passed on January 6, 2021.
