President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he could invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota to stop &#8220;professional agitators and insurrectionists&#8221; from attacking federal immigration agents.
Trump said the Insurrection Act, which would allow him to deploy the military and federalize the National Guard, would quickly &#8220;put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State.&#8221; The president has threatened to use the act in the past, but his comments on Thursday morning mark the first time he has said the move is a possibility following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent, which sparked massive protests in Minneapolis.
&#8220;If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State. Thank you for your attention to this matter!&#8221; Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump&#8217;s threat comes just hours after the Department of Homeland Security <a href="https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2011632198000976086">said</a> a federal agent shot an illegal immigrant on Wednesday night. According to DHS, a federal agent was ambushed and attacked by three people while attempting to detain a suspected Venezuelan illegal immigrant. The suspects attacked the federal agent with a snow shovel and a broomstick, according to Homeland Security.
During the scuffle, the agent fired a defensive shot, which struck a subject&#8217;s leg, according to Homeland Security, which added that both the agent and the subject were transported to the hospital, and the two other alleged attackers were arrested.
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O&#8217;Hara confirmed that a scuffle between a federal agent and another person took place. He did not confirm the federal government&#8217;s account that the officer was ambushed and attacked by multiple people. Protesters descended on the area near the shooting shortly after the incident and shouted at law enforcement. Some of the agitators threw fireworks at police officers, according to O&#8217;Hara.
Following the second ICE shooting in Minneapolis in a week, Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz said he was &#8220;angry,&#8221; adding, &#8220;What Donald Trump wants is violence in the streets.&#8221; In a recorded address that was initially plagued by technical difficulties, Walz urged residents to &#8220;remain an island of decency, of justice, of community, and of peace&#8221; and told Minnesotans, &#8220;Don’t give [Trump] what he wants.&#8221;
Minneapolis Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey also addressed the ICE shooting on Wednesday night and said that ICE and Border Patrol agents are &#8220;creating chaos&#8221; in the Twin Cities area, and said that residents are asking the Minneapolis Police Department &#8220;to fight ICE agents on the street.&#8221;
&#8220;We cannot be at a place right now in America where we have two governmental entities that are literally fighting one another,&#8221; he added.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/live-updates-ice-agent-fatally-shoots-agitator-as-chaos-erupts-in-minneapolis?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Daily+Wire&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=LIVE+UPDATES%3A+Minnesota+Dems+Angry+After+Second+ICE+Shooting%2C+Protesters+Throw+Fireworks+At+Police">LIVE UPDATES: Minnesota Dems Angry After Second ICE Shooting, Protesters Throw Fireworks At Police</a>
Trump has suggested numerous times that the anti-ICE demonstrations in Minneapolis are organized and carried out by &#8220;professionals.&#8221; In at least one protest last week, organizers with the AFL-CIO told demonstrators that they were &#8220;moving out&#8221; after they hit their &#8220;goal time,&#8221; The Daily Wire <a href="https://x.com/breccastoll/status/2009307731690172804">reported</a>.
President George H.W. Bush was the last president to invoke the Insurrection Act during the Los Angeles riots in 1992, following the acquittal of police officers who were accused of beating Rodney King. The federal intervention helped restore order within days, but significant destruction had already occurred.

Donald Trump, Minneapolis

Trump Threatens To Use Insurrection Act In Minnesota If ‘Professional Agitators’ Are Not Stopped

Donald Trump

Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

insurrection

Minneapolis

Minnesota

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) doubled down on the viral video he made with five of his colleagues, saying that he had no intention of backing off despite a pending inquiry into his comments.
Kelly addressed the issue during an appearance on &#8220;Jimmy Kimmel Live,&#8221; telling the late-night host that he stood by what he&#8217;d said in the video, which he claimed was intended to caution members of the military to follow only lawful orders from President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
🚨 BREAKING: Seditious Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly has cooked himself even FURTHER, running to Jimmy Kimmel and telling Pete Hegseth and President Trump he’ll KEEP pushing for rebellion
“I’m NOT backing down!” 🤯
Court-martial this traitor. Enough.
<a href="https://t.co/aoUDgjLyYg">pic.twitter.com/aoUDgjLyYg</a>
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1993653787442266433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I mean, you can&#8217;t keep track of this guy and what he says,&#8221; Kelly said, apparently referring to Trump. &#8220;I&#8217;ll tell you this though: I&#8217;m not backing down.&#8221;
The audience cheered, and Kelly continued, &#8220;I mean, we said something very simple. Members of the military need to follow the law. We wanted to say that we have their backs.&#8221;
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
What Kelly left out was the fact that in the video, clearly implied in their admonitions to &#8220;only obey lawful orders,&#8221; was the notion that President Trump either already had or would certainly issue one or more orders that were not lawful — and that they should be actively looking for them.
War Secretary <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pete-hegseth-unloads-on-insurrection-video-a-politically-motivated-influence-operation">Pete Hegseth</a> referred to it as &#8220;a politically-motivated influence operation&#8221; and argued that it was designed to sow doubt in the minds of service members and plant the seeds of insurrection. He, along with others, noted that Kelly was the only one of the &#8220;Seditious Six&#8221; who had retired from military service and was still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and could therefore be returned to active duty to face repercussions for his actions. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/politics/call-for-rebellion-stephen-miller-scorches-dems-for-pushing-insurrection-against-trumps-military-orders/">described</a> it as &#8220;insurrection.&#8221;
Kimmel, only too happy to carry Kelly&#8217;s water, lamented the fact that the Arizona senator would now have to take time away from serving the people of his state to hire attorneys and deal with the consequences of his actions.
&#8220;[You have to] consult with lawyers, and have to deal with this when you&#8217;re first of all working for the people of Arizona, the people of the United States,&#8221; Kimmel said. &#8220;Now you actually have to spend your time — are you actually, like, worried about this?&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;ve been through a lot more challenging things than this,&#8221; Kelly said, waving away the concern. &#8220;What I&#8217;m worried about is the reaction and what this transmits to the military and the public, which is basically, &#8216;Shut up, and listen to that guy.'&#8221;
Kelly continued down that same path, noting that service members swear an oath to the Constitution while insinuating that President Trump — who also swore such an oath — was likely to violate that and order them to do the same.

Jimmy Kimmel

Surprise! Jimmy Kimmel Throwing His Support Behind The ‘Seditious Six’

Surprise! Jimmy Kimmel Throwing His Support Behind The 'Seditious Six'

Mark Kelly

Media

Pete Hegseth

Politics

War Secretary Pete Hegseth gave an earful to a small group of Democrats — most of whom were veterans of the United States Armed Services — who created a video that appeared to be actively encouraging current service members to disobey orders from President Donald Trump.
In the video in question, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/despicable-reckless-and-false-hegseth-coins-new-nickname-for-dems-pushing-military-insurrection">six Democrats</a> — former CIA analyst and Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) along with Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) — called on members of the military to seriously consider whether or not orders coming from the White House were “lawful&#8221; and clearly insinuated that they might not be.
Hegseth laid into the six lawmakers in a post on Tuesday, pointing out that even though civilians might not think anything of the things they&#8217;d said, military service members should know better.
&#8220;The despicable video urging @DeptofWar troops to &#8216;refuse illegal orders&#8217; may seem harmless to civilians — but it carries a different weight inside the military,&#8221; Hegseth explained. &#8220;This was a politically-motivated influence operation: It never named a specific &#8216;illegal order&#8217;; It created ambiguity rather than clarity; It used carefully scripted, legal-sounding language; It subtly reframed military obedience around partisan distrust instead of established legal processes.&#8221;
&#8220;In the military, vague rhetoric and ambiguity undermines trust, creates hesitation in the chain of command, and erodes cohesion,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;The military already has clear procedures for handling unlawful orders. It does not need political actors injecting doubt into an already clear chain of command. As veterans of various sorts, the Seditious Six knew exactly what they were doing — sowing doubt through a politically-motivated influence operation. The @DeptofWar won’t fall for it or stand for it.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The despicable video urging <a href="https://twitter.com/DeptofWar?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DeptofWar</a> troops to “refuse illegal orders” may seem harmless to civilians — but it carries a different weight inside the military.
This was a politically-motivated influence operation:
☑️ It never named a specific “illegal order.” 
☑️ It created…
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth/status/1993304935874592932?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 25, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
After noting on Monday that Senator Kelly — the only one of the six who retired from the military — was still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Hegseth sent a memorandum on Tuesday to the Secretary of the Navy asking for a full review of Kelly&#8217;s comments on the video. He said that he&#8217;d expect a brief on the Navy Secretary&#8217;s review no later than December 10.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://t.co/42TxcjdJiK">pic.twitter.com/42TxcjdJiK</a>
— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeptofWar/status/1993436056008507865?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 25, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Pete Hegseth – Dan Caine holds a joint press conference in DC

Pete Hegseth Unloads On Insurrection Video: ‘A Politically-Motivated Influence Operation’

Democrats

Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) threatened members of the U.S. military on Monday, warning that there would be &#8220;consequences&#8221; if they went along with the War Department&#8217;s plan to investigate Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) over his participation in a video that appeared to encourage insurrection.
Gallego spoke with CNN host Kasie Hunt on Monday&#8217;s broadcast of &#8220;The Arena with Kasie Hunt,&#8221; where he defended the video in which Kelly and several others called on members of the military to refuse &#8220;unlawful orders&#8221; — while clearly insinuating that President Donald Trump either would or had already issued such orders. He then lashed out at the War Department for calling out Kelly, who, as a retired Navy commander, is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and promised retribution to any who went along with it.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
MORE THREATS: Ruben Gallego promises legal retaliation over military&#8217;s investigation into Mark Kelly:
“Donald Trump&#8217;s going to be gone in a couple of years.&#8221;
&#8220;If you&#8217;re part of the military that is going after sitting Senators&#8230;and part of the weaponization of government —… <a href="https://t.co/QJwq2v6GLe">pic.twitter.com/QJwq2v6GLe</a>
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1993083556067946837?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 24, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hunt asked what was Gallego&#8217;s &#8220;level of trust in the U.S. military justice system, if it were to get that far, to handle this?&#8221;
The Arizona Senator said that he did trust the system, but that if it were to go too far, members of the military who aided in any such action against Kelly would do well to remember that someday Trump would no longer be in office and could not &#8220;protect&#8221; them.
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
&#8220;Donald Trump is going to be gone in a couple years. And if you’re part of the military that is going after sitting senators, sitting members of Congress, and part of the weaponization of government, there will be consequences, without a doubt,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;I think there’s going to be a lot of officers that are part of this potential tribunal, if they want to call it that, that will be looking over their shoulders,&#8221; he claimed. &#8220;Because they know that Donald Trump will be gone, and they will not have that protection. They’re going to have to do the safest thing possible, which is follow the Constitution of the United States, and you’ll be fine.&#8221;

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023

Dem Senator Doubles Down On Insurrection Video, Threatens Military Over Plan To Go After Kelly

Military

War Secretary Pete Hegseth called out the members of Congress involved in making a now-viral video that openly encouraged members of the United States military to undermine the orders of their Commander in Chief, President Donald Trump.
Hegseth labeled the six lawmakers the &#8220;Seditious Six&#8221; in a post on X — in which he shared plans for the War Department to investigate one of them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The video made by the “Seditious Six” was despicable, reckless, and false. Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of “good order and discipline.” Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in… <a href="https://t.co/UvLXChZnmF">https://t.co/UvLXChZnmF</a>
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth/status/1993008532187148582?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 24, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The video in question featured Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), and Sen. Mark Key (D-AZ) calling on members of the military to seriously consider whether or not orders coming from the White House were &#8220;lawful.&#8221; All but Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, previously served in the military.
&#8220;The video made by the &#8216;Seditious Six&#8217; was despicable, reckless, and false,&#8221; Hegseth wrote. &#8220;Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of &#8216;good order and discipline.&#8217; Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in danger.&#8221;
&#8220;Five of the six individuals in that video do not fall under @DeptofWar jurisdiction (one is CIA and four are former military but not &#8216;retired,&#8217; so they are no longer subject to UCMJ),&#8221; he continued. &#8220;However, Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ—and he knows that. As was announced, the Department is reviewing his statements and actions, which were addressed directly to all troops while explicitly using his rank and service affiliation—lending the appearance of authority to his words. Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.&#8221;
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
In an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/war-department-reviewing-serious-allegations-against-sen-mark-kelly-after-dem-military-message">earlier statement</a>, the Department of War announced plans to &#8220;review&#8221; allegations against Kelly, who is still subject to the UCMJ because he is a retired Naval officer.
The statement explained, &#8220;The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.&#8221;

President Trump Holds Cabinet Meeting At The White House

‘Despicable, Reckless, And False’: Hegseth Coins New Nickname For Dems Pushing Military Insurrection

Several elected Democrats got together to make a video last week in which they openly encouraged members of the United States military to take matters into their own hands and subvert their Commander in Chief – but the real problem, as far as legacy media outlets are concerned, is that President Donald Trump didn&#8217;t take it quietly.
For those who don&#8217;t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week&#8217;s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.
The media personalities and members of Congress who appeared across Sunday morning&#8217;s political talk shows spent the majority of their time discussing Trump&#8217;s reaction to a video that featured Democrats — who had previously served in either the military or the intelligence community — wanting current service members that they could, and should, disobey any order from Trump that was &#8220;unlawful.&#8221; And although the video was light on specifics, it was heavy on the obvious insinuation that Trump either had or would issue such an order.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrats-urge-military-to-disobey-orders-from-trump-admin-trigger-accusations-of-insurrection">Trump&#8217;s response</a> to the video was entirely predictable: he <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582703277798715">lashed out</a> via his Truth Social platform, and the Democrats highlighted his reaction as proof that he might do exactly as they&#8217;d warned.
<blockquote>This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!</blockquote>
Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Jason Crow (D-CO), appeared in the video — and several of them made the rounds on Sunday morning to talk about Trump&#8217;s reaction.
On ABC&#8217;s &#8220;This Week,&#8221; host Martha Raddatz began with the fact that Slotkin had been on the receiving end of death threats — and she immediately interpreted that as a reaction to Trump&#8217;s social media posts rather than to Slotkin&#8217;s participation in a video that, by multiple accounts, actively encouraged insurrection.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who appeared in a video telling veterans and national security specialists to “refuse illegal orders,” responds to President Trump’s social media posts accusing her and others of “seditious behavior, punishable by death.” <a href="https://t.co/66zaLl3hl4">https://t.co/66zaLl3hl4</a> <a href="https://t.co/Evo4BpF5cE">pic.twitter.com/Evo4BpF5cE</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1992601694731993358?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
When pressed, Slotkin did ultimately concede that Trump had not given an illegal order that she knew of — yet — but she maintained the warning was justified because the Trump administration&#8217;s actions against narco-terrorists had involved some degree of &#8220;legal gymnastics.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Slotkin tells Martha Raddatz that she is “not aware” of illegal orders made, but says that “there are some legal gymnastics that are going on” in the Trump administration’s recent moves in the Caribbean and Venezuela. <a href="https://t.co/0rBn756p75">https://t.co/0rBn756p75</a> <a href="https://t.co/eJMELd3Cx9">pic.twitter.com/eJMELd3Cx9</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1992606362124136570?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Raddatz pointed to a concern voiced by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who argued that making the video had been unwise: &#8220;You owe that to the men and women of the military to be specific about what you&#8217;re talking about &#8230; What theses senators and House members did was unnerving, and it was unconscionable to suggest that the President of the United States is issuing unlawful orders without giving an example.&#8221;
&#8220;It makes me incredibly nervous that we&#8217;re about to see people in law enforcement … get nervous, get stressed, shoot at American civilians,&#8221; Slotkin pushed back.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Slotkin says her “primary concern” is military use within the United States: “It makes me incredibly nervous that we&#8217;re about to see people in law enforcement … get nervous, get stressed, shoot at American civilians.” <a href="https://t.co/MFiqhccKmQ">https://t.co/MFiqhccKmQ</a> <a href="https://t.co/5UVWurZgi5">pic.twitter.com/5UVWurZgi5</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1992606620132499524?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), an Army Ranger veteran, also got death threats and blamed President Trump on the CBS News Sunday morning staple &#8220;Face the Nation&#8221;: &#8220;It’s very disturbing stuff. When you have the President of the United States threatening to execute and to hang and to arrest using this rhetoric, people listen to it.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Rep. Jason Crow says he is taking “seriously” the “very disturbing” death and bomb threats he, his family, and his office have received in the wake of President Trump’s rhetoric over the video to U.S. troops some Democratic lawmakers released.
“It’s very disturbing stuff. When… <a href="https://t.co/u42HpdcVTq">pic.twitter.com/u42HpdcVTq</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1992644625698279426?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Crow defended the video by suggesting that even if an illegal order were to be issued, members of the military might not be ready to defy the Commander in Chief if Democrats did not take decisive action to groom them ahead of time.
&#8220;If we wait until the moment that he gives a manifestly unlawful order to a young soldier, then we have failed them. We have to start that conversation now and get people thinking about the distinction, which is what we did,&#8221; he explained.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
“These, unfortunately, are some of Trump&#8217;s core supporters who are rallying behind the president, and they know better,” Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) says of the video released by House Republicans countering the one released by Democratic lawmakers telling U.S. troops they can refuse… <a href="https://t.co/N5y49Ky3BO">pic.twitter.com/N5y49Ky3BO</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1992646525437333857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) ignored the weight of his words — and the words of the others on the video — and claimed that Trump&#8217;s words attacking them carried such &#8220;weight&#8221; that he should hold his tongue.
&#8220;His words carry tremendous weight, more so than anybody else in the country, and he should know that,&#8221; Kelly said, also suggesting that Trump&#8217;s reaction to the video was the main concern.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) says President Trump’s rhetoric in response to the Democratic lawmakers’ video to U.S. troops is “very serious,” arguing the president should “understand what political violence is.”
“His words carry tremendous weight, more so than anybody else in the… <a href="https://t.co/X3AVXTVvex">pic.twitter.com/X3AVXTVvex</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1992647577641066902?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) also pointed the finger at Trump, saying his words were, &#8220;reckless, inappropriate, irresponsible.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Republican Sen. Rand Paul condemns President Trump’s social media rhetoric over the Democratic lawmakers’ video to U.S. troops, calling it “reckless, inappropriate, irresponsible.”
“It’s not something that is helping the country heal wounds. I think it stirs things up, and… <a href="https://t.co/iGN6rs70rU">pic.twitter.com/iGN6rs70rU</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1992655240638677141?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On NBC&#8217;s &#8220;Meet the Press,&#8221; Kristen Welker pressed Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) — who was not a part of the video — on whether or not she knew of a specific &#8220;illegal&#8221; order.
Klobuchar&#8217;s reply was vague: &#8220;If [a National Guard] commander were to tell [troops], hey, go out on the streets and do this and that, that&#8217;s not following the order that is in law. So I just use that example.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Welker: &#8220;Do you know what the specific illegal acts are that your Democratic colleagues were referring to?&#8221;
Klobuchar: &#8220;If [a National Guard] commander were to tell [troops], hey, go out on the streets and do this and that, that&#8217;s not following the order that is in law. So I… <a href="https://t.co/viCkHoAxMJ">https://t.co/viCkHoAxMJ</a> <a href="https://t.co/Qht2S09sNg">pic.twitter.com/Qht2S09sNg</a>
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1992703489378586890?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Spin Cycle: Democrats Calling For An Insurrection Wasn’t A Problem Until Trump Didn’t Like It

Spin Cycle: Democrats Calling For An Insurrection Wasn't A Problem Until Trump Didn't Like It

ABC News

CBS News

NBC News

Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum cornered Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) over a video he made with a number of other elected Democrats — most of whom had either served in the military or as part of the intelligence community — encouraging members of the military to refuse obedience to &#8220;unlawful orders.&#8221;
The implication, clearly, was that President Donald Trump either had already issued such an order or was likely to do so, and they collectively called on military service members to recognize that and stand down if and when that were to happen. On Wednesday&#8217;s broadcast of &#8220;The Story,&#8221; MacCallum pressed Crow  — an Army Ranger veteran who took part in making the video — asking several times what specific &#8220;unlawful order&#8221; had provided the basis for the video.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Democrat Rep. Jason Crow is asked FOUR TIMES what &#8220;illegal orders&#8221; he and his Democrat colleagues are referring to in their video calling for an insurrection.
He can&#8217;t answer — because they are lying. <a href="https://t.co/vNQGGOegEQ">pic.twitter.com/vNQGGOegEQ</a>
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1991264276191838608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;&#8230; what law are you talking about that&#8217;s being broken? And then you said he&#8217;s &#8216;implying&#8217; that he might do something that they wouldn&#8217;t want to uphold or follow through with in the future,&#8221; she began. &#8220;What are you talking about specifically?&#8221;
&#8220;I appreciate you asking,&#8221; Crow replied. &#8220;Number one, the protests at Lafayette Square in the first Trump administration where he said, &#8216;Can&#8217;t you just shoot them? Can&#8217;t you just shoot them in the legs or something?&#8217; That&#8217;s a direct quote. And of course —&#8221;
MacCallum, apparently baffled by Crow&#8217;s response, pointed out, &#8220;That was not a military order, that was a comment. That&#8217;s not a military order.&#8221;
Crow attempted to argue that it was a &#8220;request&#8221; and that because President Trump had been the one to make the &#8220;request,&#8221; it should be interpreted as a de facto order.
&#8220;I&#8217;m asking, specifically, right now, what you&#8217;re talking about,&#8221; MacCallum tried again.
&#8220;Number two,&#8221; Crow forged ahead undeterred. &#8220;Yeah, number two, he&#8217;s also threatened to send the military into Chicago and other cities to, quote, &#8216;go to war&#8217; with those cities. That is a very, very disturbing thing. Number three, he&#8217;s also alluded to sending troops to polling stations, which is actually a violation of U.S. law, U.S. criminal law prohibits troops from going to polling stations &#8230; he&#8217;s alluded to that.&#8221;
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
&#8220;You&#8217;re talking about allusions, you&#8217;re not talking about actual policy,&#8221; MacCallum pushed back, noting that he hadn&#8217;t mentioned a single thing that service members had actually &#8220;been asked to do.&#8221;
&#8220;What exactly are [you] talking about? Are [you] talking about not allowing gunboats to make it to the United States carrying drugs?&#8221; she asked, referencing the Trump administration&#8217;s efforts to target narco-terrorists before they arrived on American shores. &#8220;Is that what you&#8217;re talking about?&#8221;
&#8220;Martha, here&#8217;s a novel idea,&#8221; Crow said, his tone sarcastic. &#8220;How about we actually prevent things from happening before they become a problem.&#8221;
MacCallum, still talking about the drug boats, shot back, &#8220;I think that&#8217;s what they&#8217;re trying to do!&#8221;
Crow then attempted to claim that he was simply &#8220;preparing&#8221; service members for the potential problems that could be on the horizon, prompting MacCallum to try one last time: &#8220;What specific order from the Commander in Chief, that we are asking our military to carry out, are you objecting to?&#8221;
&#8220;Martha, Donald Trump has made a series of very disturbing comments &#8230;&#8221; Crow&#8217;s response was the same as it had been throughout.

Walker Hayes Visits “The Story With Martha MacCallum”

Martha MacCallum Schools Democrat Over Video Pushing Military Insurrection

Fox News

Martha MacCallum

A group of six Democrats, comprised of two senators and four members of the House, released an incendiary video in which they called for members of the military and intelligence community to disobey orders they receive from the Trump administration.
Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), along with Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Jason Crow (D-CO), all former members of the military, encouraged military members to “refuse illegal orders.”
“The administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” they claimed. “Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, right now.”
The Democrats accused the Trump administration of violating the Constitution, continuing, “The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”
“Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders,” they pronounced, reiterating, “You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
“We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they insisted. &#8220;But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back, because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don’t give up. Don’t give up the ship.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.
The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.
Don’t give up the ship. <a href="https://t.co/N8lW0EpQ7r">pic.twitter.com/N8lW0EpQ7r</a>
&mdash; Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorSlotkin/status/1990774492356902948?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller immediately responded, “Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection. <a href="https://t.co/HwJB9nGFXA">https://t.co/HwJB9nGFXA</a>
&mdash; Stephen Miller (@StephenM) <a href="https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/1990872986967326840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“There’s nothing graver than you can possibly say as a United States senator than encouraging, urging, directing members of the armed forces of the United States or the clandestine services of the United States to defy their president, to defy their chain of command, defy their superiors,” he added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
BOOM!!! Stephen Miller just exposed the entire Democrat operation LIVE. They weren’t “criticizing” Trump… they were actively PRESSURING the military &amp; intelligence community to IGNORE a sitting President. That’s not politics. That’s INSURRECTION. Miller lays it out perfectly:… <a href="https://t.co/yQR3SJvsJj">pic.twitter.com/yQR3SJvsJj</a>
&mdash; QThestorm (@17QStorm) <a href="https://twitter.com/17QStorm/status/1991256507992649996?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
President Trump, as per usual, <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582451169685243">bluntly addressed the situation</a>, writing, “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” He <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582703277798715">added</a>, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
The irony, of course, is that previous Democratic administrations have routinely violated the Constitution with not a peep heard from their party.
As The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/08/5th-circuit-ruling-covid-content-moderation/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">noted</a> in September 2023, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Friday ruled that the Biden White House, top government health officials and the FBI likely violated the First Amendment by improperly influencing tech companies’ decisions to remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections.&#8221;
In 2021, <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/paxton-sues-biden-administration-unconstitutional-vaccine-mandate?utm_source=chatgpt.com">various</a> entities, including <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/daily-wire-v-occupational-safety-and-health-administration/">The Daily Wire</a>, sued the Biden administration for its illegal and unconstitutional vaccine mandate imposed on private businesses.

President Trump Meets With The Crown Prince And Prime Minister Of Saudi Arabia At The White House

Democrats Urge Military To Disobey Orders From Trump Admin, Trigger Accusations Of Insurrection

Congress

U.S. Military

Ever since Donald Trump took office, federal judges have undertaken a concerted effort to suspend the power of the Executive Branch, unlike anything else that&#8217;s ever happened in this country. The words &#8220;judicial coup&#8221; do not begin to describe what&#8217;s been going on. In every case — whether they&#8217;re blocking the Trump administration from deleting trans propaganda on federal websites, or from terminating federal employees, or from deploying the National Guard — these individual, unelected federal judges have determined that the president of the United States had somehow overstepped his authority under the Constitution. 
This is obviously an unsustainable situation. If judges are going to overturn every single significant decision the president makes, then the judges have effectively become president. Eventually, something has to give. That&#8217;s why a lot of commentators, myself included, have called on the White House to simply ignore these rulings. Other than impeaching and removing judges — which is impossible, given that Democrats have too many votes in the Senate — ignoring courts that go rogue seems like the only real option. Andrew Jackson did it before, and Donald Trump (who happens to be a big fan of Andrew Jackson) can do it again.
But there is actually one additional approach that the Trump administration could take, before we decide to simply do away with the court system altogether. And based on recent reports, it looks like the White House is seriously considering this particular route. I&#8217;m talking about invoking the Insurrection Act, the federal law that permits the president to federalize the National Guard and deploy U.S. troops for law enforcement purposes in U.S. cities.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1671-it-s-time-to-crush-the-leftist-insurrection-once-and-for-all?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-976065 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
When the Insurrection Act is discussed in the press, of course, it&#8217;s described as the mother of all power grabs. Democrats pretend it hasn&#8217;t been invoked more than two dozen times in this country&#8217;s history, most recently to suppress the L.A. riots. They don&#8217;t want to talk about the fact that several presidents — including some of their heroes, like JFK and FDR — all invoked the law, mainly to enforce racial integration.
On the other side of the political spectrum, Republicans point out, correctly, that the Insurrection Act is necessary to put down lawlessness in cities like Portland and Chicago — lawlessness that&#8217;s reached almost comical levels of absurdity, as police supervisors have made it clear that their officers should not assist federal agents who are being actively attacked. 
Here&#8217;s audio from the Chicago police scanner, to give just one example. 
Dispatchers told officers not to assist federal agents who were being surrounded by a mob. Listen:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
PLAY THE TAPE.
STOP protecting criminals:
“They were requesting the police—we’re not sending.”
Not only did Chicago’s leaders refuse to send support to federal law enforcement officers in danger, now they’re lying about it.
Disgusting. <a href="https://t.co/7hz1dZOv1B">pic.twitter.com/7hz1dZOv1B</a>
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) <a href="https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1975623141725474964?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @DHSgov/X.com
“They were requesting the police—we’re not sending.” That&#8217;s the decision that&#8217;s been made by local law enforcement in Chicago (or, more accurately, by the Democrats who run the city). It is an admission — which they also put in writing, by the way — that local police are unable or unwilling to maintain law and order. That is, and has always been, a valid justification for invoking the Insurrection Act and sending in the U.S. military. I don&#8217;t need to recount all of the scenes of violence and anarchy because you&#8217;ve probably seen hours of it at this point.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 JUST IN: COUNTLESS anti-ICE “protestors” have now taken over the streets of Chicago
Maybe CHICAGO should be the next city I visit to expose 🤔 <a href="https://t.co/ucucexyOSq">pic.twitter.com/ucucexyOSq</a>
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) <a href="https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1976095784169836607?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @nicksortor/X.com
ICE officers are being shot at. They&#8217;re being ambushed on the streets, run off the road, boxed in, pelted with objects, and so on. Rioters are blocking federal vehicles on the roadways. Mobs are parading through the streets, preventing people from going where they need to be. The mayor of Chicago, meanwhile, is establishing &#8220;ICE-free-zones,&#8221; in a clear effort to interfere with federal law enforcement:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson just announced he signed an executive order creating &#8220;ICE Free Zones&#8221; to ban ICE agents from city property.
This is SICK. He is aiding and abetting criminal illegal immigrant killers, rapists, traffickers, and gang bangers. <a href="https://t.co/LaMbxaqePP">pic.twitter.com/LaMbxaqePP</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1975210976728518974?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @RapidResponse47/X.com
The red line has always been: state and local governments can decide not to actively assist federal officials, but they can&#8217;t decide to actively interfere with federal officials, either. That&#8217;s how federalism works. It&#8217;s how our whole constitutional system works. But the city of Chicago, and many other cities, have decided to break this covenant. They aren&#8217;t hiding their intentions. As a result, no reasonable person can deny what&#8217;s happening or that the Insurrection Act is the only available remedy to stop the mayhem, as many conservatives have said.
But there is one other major benefit of invoking the Insurrection Act, which a lot of people aren&#8217;t talking about. It would finally force federal judges to openly declare their rebellion against the Executive Branch. The Chicago Police Department has just explicitly declared its own rebellion, as you just heard. And if a single federal judge tries to stand in the way of Donald Trump&#8217;s invocation of the Insurrection Act, then the judiciary would be doing the exact same thing. The judges couldn&#8217;t hide behind legalese or strained interpretations of the law in order to justify their fraudulent decisions. If they attempt to overturn Donald Trump&#8217;s use of the Insurrection Act, the only way they can do it is by admitting that they&#8217;re waging open warfare on a duly elected branch of government.
Here&#8217;s why. The Insurrection Act, by design, leaves no room for judges or lawmakers to intervene. The law is based on the president&#8217;s constitutional authority to act as commander-in-chief of the military, as well as his responsibility to ensure domestic security. 
Article 1, <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C15-1/ALDE_00001077/">Section 8</a> of the Constitution states, &#8220;[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.&#8221; 
And with the Insurrection Act, Congress awarded the president the unilateral authority to decide when an insurrection exists, and how to deal with it. 
You can <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-13">pull up the law</a> and read it for yourself. Here&#8217;s the relevant portion.
<blockquote>Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.</blockquote>
That&#8217;s it. There are no qualifiers. There&#8217;s no provision that the president&#8217;s declaration of insurrection has to be &#8220;reasonable&#8221; in the eyes of Congress, or anyone else. There&#8217;s no provision that puts a time limit on the president&#8217;s authority. There isn&#8217;t even a definition of the word &#8220;insurrection.&#8221; It&#8217;s completely up to the president.
If you&#8217;re a blue-haired professor at Berkeley Law School, you might hyperventilate about this. Surely, you might say, there have to be &#8220;checks and balances&#8221; somewhere. But actually, no, there don&#8217;t have to be checks and balances. At some point, one branch of government has to be supreme over the others. There&#8217;s no way to avoid that. It&#8217;s as inevitable as the laws of physics. And the Founders understood that. Yes, they created an intricate system of government, in which the three branches of government serve as a &#8220;check&#8221; on each other&#8217;s power. That&#8217;s the ideal situation. That&#8217;s how things should work. But the Founders also understood that, if things break down, and one branch of government decides to &#8220;check&#8221; another branch into oblivion in an attempt to destroy the entire country and our democratic system of government, then there has to be a failsafe. There has to be a &#8220;break glass in case of emergency&#8221; type of safeguard. And the Insurrection Act — which again, is based very closely on the Constitutional text — is that safeguard. The Insurrection Act says, if things get really, really bad, then the elected president of the United States — who has more of a democratic mandate than any court, or any lawmaker in Congress — can use the military to restore order.
To be clear, undoubtedly, Left-wing judges would try to issue injunctions anyway. I&#8217;m not denying that. But the point is that, like the Chicago police department, they&#8217;d have to be very, very transparent about what they were doing. The Insurrection Act doesn&#8217;t give them any room to weasel out of it. They&#8217;d have to state, essentially, that they don&#8217;t care about the Constitution, or laws passed by Congress, and that they&#8217;re declaring open warfare against the Executive Branch.
Additionally, many of these judges — and all of the Left — are on the record already stating that January 6 was an &#8220;insurrection.&#8221; Several courts, including the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado, attempted to kick Trump off the ballot in the last election, on the theory that he had committed an &#8220;insurrection.&#8221; So they&#8217;ve already gone out of their way to declare, in no uncertain terms, that a group of old ladies wandering around the Capitol for a few hours constitutes an &#8220;insurrection.&#8221; Their standard is that, if a few windows are broken, and someone sits on Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s desk and steals her lectern, then an &#8220;insurrection&#8221; has taken place.
If that&#8217;s the standard, then there is no conceivable way, morally or logically, to argue that cities like Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles aren&#8217;t in a state of open insurrection against the United States. If a mob loitering inside the Capitol for a few hours counts as an &#8220;insurrection,&#8221; then coordinated and violent attacks on law enforcement, endorsed by state and local officials, certainly qualify as well. They have boxed themselves into this corner. There&#8217;s no way around it. 
That&#8217;s why the arguments from the Left are growing increasingly frantic and incoherent. On social media at the moment, various left-wing figures are doing their best to stoke outrage because they suspect a declaration of insurrection is coming. 
Here&#8217;s Robert Reich, for example. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Trump wants to invoke the Insurrection Act to punish anyone who opposes him, and he’s following a four point plan to do it.
Here’s what you need to know about it — and some thoughts on how to respond. <a href="https://t.co/QZZOSM4aON">pic.twitter.com/QZZOSM4aON</a>
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) <a href="https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1976053389143179695?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @RBReich/X.com
This is what their argument is going to be. They&#8217;re claiming that Trump wants to round up his political opponents and anyone else he doesn&#8217;t like. Of course, that&#8217;s precisely what Joe Biden&#8217;s administration did. They jailed every Trump aide — and ultimately Trump himself — in order to prevent a democratic election from taking place. And Joe Biden didn&#8217;t need the Insurrection Act to do any of that.
What people like Robert Reich won&#8217;t do, even though it would solve the whole problem, is admit what they&#8217;re really interested in. In the first Trump administration, the argument from the Left was that he &#8220;put kids in cages&#8221; and &#8220;separated families&#8221; or whatever. That argument never made any sense — families are separated all the time when the parents commit crimes — but it&#8217;s what they went with. This time around, their argument is even more tenuous. They&#8217;re saying that ICE agents are the modern-day Gestapo because they&#8217;re rounding up illegal aliens while wearing masks and making lawful arrests in public places. They say ICE is arresting &#8220;American citizens,&#8221; even though there isn&#8217;t a single case of ICE deporting an actual American citizen, anywhere. (There is a case of an illegal alien taking her children with her, as she was deported, which is obviously a completely different scenario.)
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a></h3>
What&#8217;s really going on here, although no one on the Left wants to say it, is that the Democrat Party demands open borders. They do not want any federal immigration enforcement of any kind. That is their platform. But they never say it out loud, explicitly, because they understand how unconvincing and unpopular it is. So Leftist judges hide behind various legalese, while Democrat activists make outlandish claims with no basis in fact. That&#8217;s what they&#8217;re forced to do. That&#8217;s what&#8217;s been happening for the last 10 months.
As a result, we have arrived at the absolute limit of &#8220;checks and balances&#8221; in our system of government. And if the courts and local governments want to keep pushing things, they will rapidly find out that, under our Constitution, they will lose any one-on-one battle with the Executive Branch. That is how our Constitution was structured. It&#8217;s how the Insurrection Act was structured. In an ideal situation, of course, this failsafe wouldn&#8217;t be necessary. We shouldn&#8217;t have to rely on a final line of defense like this. But at the moment, we do. Democrats are daring the administration to invoke the constitutional response to their lawlessness and depravity. In response, the administration has no other choice but to follow the guidance of the Founders and send in the military to quell an insurrection that has rapidly spiraled out of control.

National Guard To Be Deployed In Portland, Oregon

It’s Time To Crush The Leftist Insurrection Once And For All

Chicago

Deportations

Federal Government

illegal immigrants

Judges

Opinion

Portland

In yet another attempt to impede Donald Trump from gaining the presidency, on Thursday, The Hill ran an <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opinion piece</a> by two lawyers, one of whom had served as president of the New York City Bar, in which they urged Congress to reject the Electoral College vote in order to stop Donald Trump from being inaugurated as president.
Evan Davis, who once served as editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and later served as counsel to New York Democrat governor Mario Cuomo, and David Schulte, who had served as editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, later became a friend and <a href="https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/felsenthal-files/august-2013/schulte/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">financial supporter</a> of Barack Obama, and is now an investment banker, quoted the 14th Amendment, which states:
<blockquote>
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
</blockquote>
“Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government,” the authors write. “The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.”
The authors cite Trump’s second impeachment trial, in which Democrats sought to impeach Trump just before he left office. After the House passed the article of impeachment, citing “incitement of insurrection,” on January 13, 2021, by a 232–197 vote, with all 222 Democrats voting in favor, an argument ensued over whether the Senate, which was in pro forma sessions until January 19, could take on the matter. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi transmitted the article of impeachment to the Senate on January 25, five days after Trump had left office. Supporters of the impeachment argued that the Constitution permitted disqualification from holding future office. Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 13; 57 senators voted in favor of conviction and 43 voted against.
The authors then cite “the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing where the court ‘found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.’” After the verdict was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court, it was sent on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which did “not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection,” the authors admitted.
The authors finally cite the House Select Committee that investigated January 6. They argue that evidence from witnesses leads to “the inescapable conclusion &#8230; that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution.”
The authors cite the amended Electoral Act stating that one ground for objection to an electoral vote is if a vote of one or more electors was not “regularly given.” They then offer this supposition: “A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words ‘not regularly given.’ Disqualification for engaging in insurrection is no different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements such as age, citizenship from birth and 14 years’ residency in the United States.”
They conclude their argument by stating:
<blockquote>
To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president. 
</blockquote>

Conservatives Gather In Phoenix For Annual AmericaFest

Dem Lawyers Urge Congress To Ignore Electoral College, Stop Trump, Make Kamala President

Electoral College

Impeachment

Kamala Harris

Menu