On January 15, 2026 President Donald Trump warned he would invoke the Insurrection Act to restore order in Minneapolis after violent confrontations between residents and federal immigration agents followed two recent ICE shootings. The escalation came after one of the incidents resulted in the tragic death of Renee Nicole Good and another left a man wounded, sparking weeks of protests and confrontations in the city. With communities on edge and federal agents under attack, the president publicly signaled he would act where local officials would not.
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley appeared on Hannity and bluntly told viewers that, under the law, the president does have authority to use the Insurrection Act when state leaders fail to protect federal officers and enforce federal law. Turley’s legal take is not political theater; it’s a sober reminder that the Constitution vests certain emergency powers in the executive to keep Americans safe. For conservatives who prioritize law and order, that ruling of law over chaos is exactly what we should expect from a commander-in-chief.
Minnesota’s Democratic leadership—Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey—has publicly condemned the federal operations and urged de-escalation while accusing federal agents of unconstitutional behavior, but their rhetoric has done little to stop the attacks on ICE personnel. When state leaders comfort lawlessness instead of protecting law enforcement, they force the federal government into an impossible choice: stand down and let chaos continue or assert federal authority to protect officers and the public. The president’s threat was, at its core, a demand that governors do their constitutional duty or cede enforcement back to the federal level.
The Insurrection Act is not some novel, unchecked power; it is a narrowly defined legal tool Congress has used in past domestic crises to ensure the rule of law when states are unwilling or unable to act. It has been invoked at critical moments in American history to quell violent disturbances, and its very existence preserves federal supremacy when local officials fail to defend citizens and federal agents. Conservatives should welcome a sober, lawful response rather than ceding our streets to masked agitators and professional troublemakers.
Those on the left and much of the legacy media are already playing the slippery-slope game, charging overreach while downplaying other violent episodes they once labeled insurrection. As Turley has argued before, the legal definitions politicians fling around are often elastic when convenient, and the selective outrage from the political class reveals that this is more about scoring partisan points than defending the Constitution. If Jan 6 could be debated in the courts and in op-eds, then so too can the use of lawful executive authority when cities are burning and federal officers are under siege.
This moment demands clarity and courage from conservatives: defend the men and women enforcing our laws, back a president who will not allow an unraveling of public safety, and hold local officials accountable for any failure to protect their citizens. Washington cannot outsource order to mobs and then feign shock when disorder follows; sometimes federal intervention is the last line between civilization and chaos. America’s patriots should stand firm for the rule of law, for the brave agents doing a dangerous job, and for a government that will act decisively to keep our streets safe.
