Analyst Predicts Insurrection Act Invocation in 2025 Amidst Recurring Debates

A recent social media post by Alex Nowrasteh, Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, has drawn attention to the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act in 2025. Nowrasteh stated in a tweet, "> He’s going to invoke The Insurrection Act," signaling a prediction of significant domestic military deployment. This forecast comes amidst ongoing discussions and historical precedents regarding the controversial federal statute.

The Insurrection Act, a federal law dating back to 1807, grants the U.S. President authority to deploy military forces domestically to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or enforce federal laws under specific circumstances. It serves as a key exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military for civilian law enforcement. Historically, presidents have invoked the act to quell rebellions, enforce civil rights, and respond to major unrest.

Discussions surrounding the act gained prominence in 2020 when former President Donald Trump publicly threatened its use during nationwide protests. More recently, in 2025, Trump reportedly considered invoking the act in response to anti-deportation protests in Los Angeles in June, and again in October for other Democratic-led cities like Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois, citing concerns over crime and law enforcement. These considerations highlight recurring tensions between federal and state authorities regarding domestic security.

Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, is known for his extensive work on immigration and economic policy. His background provides a specific lens through which such predictions might be made, often engaging with issues of federal power and individual liberties. Nowrasteh has published numerous peer-reviewed studies and frequently appears in major media outlets to discuss policy matters.

The potential invocation of the Insurrection Act raises significant legal and constitutional questions, often leading to challenges from state governors and civil liberties advocates. Critics argue that the act is dangerously broad and susceptible to abuse, while proponents emphasize its role in maintaining federal authority and public order during extreme crises. The debate underscores the delicate balance between federal power and states' rights in times of domestic turmoil.