In times of political unrest, statutory language becomes more than a legal framework—it becomes a reflection of power, vulnerability, and contested authority. Two federal statutes stand at the center of this tension: the Insurrection Act, reorganized in 1907 and codified as 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255, and 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which criminalizes rebellion or insurrection against the United States. Though distinct in purpose, these laws converge in their capacity to authorize force and define dissent.
The Insurrection Act, first enacted in 1792 and amended through Reconstruction, was formally reorganized in 1907 to consolidate federal authority over domestic military deployment. It permits the President to use federal troops or state militias to suppress insurrection, enforce federal law, or protect constitutional rights when state governments are unable or unwilling to act. Its language is expansive:
“The President may use the militia or the armed forces to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if it hinders the execution of U.S. laws” (10 U.S.C. § 252).
“The President may act if insurrection or domestic violence deprives people of constitutional rights and state authorities cannot or will not protect those rights” (10 U.S.C. § 253).
These provisions temporarily suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, which ordinarily prohibits federal military involvement in civilian law enforcement. While the Insurrection Act requires a presidential proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse (10 U.S.C. § 254), it does not require judicial review or congressional approval before deployment. This lack of oversight has raised concerns among legal scholars and civil rights advocates, particularly when invoked in politically charged contexts (Nunn, 2025).
Complementing this executive authority is 18 U.S.C. § 2383, a criminal statute that targets individuals who incite or participate in rebellion against U.S. authority:
“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof… shall be fined… imprisoned… and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States” (18 U.S.C. § 2383, 1948).
Unlike the Insurrection Act, which empowers the President to respond to unrest, § 2383 is prosecutorial in nature. It has been rarely used, in part because its application requires clear evidence of intent to overthrow or resist federal authority—not merely protest or civil disobedience. Prosecutors often rely instead on related statutes such as seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) or obstruction of an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512), which offer more precise thresholds and are less vulnerable to First Amendment challenges (Levin, 2022).
Recent threats to invoke the Insurrection Act—most notably by President Donald Trump in response to civil unrest in cities like Portland and Chicago—have reignited public scrutiny of both statutes. Governors and attorneys general responded with lawsuits and public statements, citing constitutional violations and the risk of federal overreach (Garrison, 2025; Pritzker, 2025; Woodward, 2025). These events underscore the urgent need for civic literacy and statutory clarity.
As a social work macro practitioner specializing in policy practice and community engagement, I view these statutes as lenses through which we must examine the intersection of law, power, and public accountability. They invite critical questions: When does protection become suppression? When does authority become overreach? And how do we, as policy advocates, ensure that statutory language is not weaponized against the communities we serve?
Citizens are not without recourse. Legal remedies include petitioning Congress for oversight and reform, filing suit in federal court to challenge unauthorized deployments, and seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court when constitutional rights are at stake. Public education and advocacy also play a vital role in demystifying these laws and resisting their misuse.
In advocacy, clarity matters. So does vigilance. The Insurrection Act and 18 U.S.C. § 2383—reorganized and codified over a century ago—remain active instruments of governance. They remind us that law is not static. It is activated by context, shaped by power, and challenged by those who dare to speak truth to it.
Intellectual Property Statement
This original work was authored by DeMecia Wooten‑Irizarry, MSW, MPA, Doctor of Social Work Candidate (Policy Practice), Licensed Social Worker. All rights reserved. No portion of this content may be reproduced, republished, or distributed without express written permission from the author. Attribution must reflect the author’s full credentials and intent. This work reflects a policy practice and community engagement lens rooted in macro social work values and statutory interpretation.
References
Garrison, J. (2025, October 6). Trump says he would invoke the Insurrection Act ‘if it was necessary’. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/06/trump-invoke-insurrection-act-if-necessary/86555308007/
Levin, D. (2022). Insurrection, protest, and the First Amendment: Legal thresholds and prosecutorial discretion. Georgetown Law Journal, 110(3), 601–634.
Nunn, J. (2025, June 10). The Insurrection Act explained. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained
Pritzker, J. B. (2025, October 6). Trump is trying to cause chaos in American cities before invoking Insurrection Act. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-chicago-insurrection-act-jb-pritzker-b2840484.html
U.S. Code. (1907). Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim
U.S. Code. (1948). Rebellion or insurrection, 18 U.S.C. § 2383. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383
Woodward, A. (2025, October 6). Trump threatens to invoke Insurrection Act in Portland. MSN News. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-threatens-to-invoke-insurrection-act-in-portland/ar-AA1NYDCa
Social Work Policy Practice 
Leave a comment