No. Donald Trump has not declared martial law. During his second term he has federalized National Guard troops for domestic deployment, threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, and lost a Supreme Court case over one of those deployments, but none of that is martial law. Martial law would mean the military replacing civilian government and shutting civilian courts; the actions Trump has actually taken keep civilian authorities in charge and civilian courts open, which is why lawsuits against the deployments have proceeded and, in the Illinois case, succeeded.
What Trump Actually Did in 2025
On June 7, 2025, Trump issued a presidential memorandum authorizing the federalization of at least 2,000 National Guard personnel to protect ICE officers and federal immigration detention facilities.1The White House. Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions He did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, the memorandum relied on 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute that lets the president call the National Guard into federal service to suppress rebellion or execute federal laws. Legal analysts read the choice as a deliberate effort to avoid the political and legal weight of the Insurrection Act.2Brennan Center for Justice. Unpacking Trump’s Order Authorizing Domestic Deployment of Military
Troops went to Los Angeles in June 2025 in response to protests against immigration raids, and later to Portland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. The memorandum described protests against federal immigration enforcement as a “form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”1The White House. Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions On August 25, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Additional Measures to Address the Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia,” directing the Defense Department to create specialized National Guard units trained for domestic deployment and to establish a standing “quick reaction force” available nationwide.3CNN. Trump Executive Order National Guard Units Crime
None of these orders suspended civilian government, shut courts, or authorized military tribunals. They put uniformed troops on American streets to support federal agencies, which is legally and constitutionally different from martial law.
The Courts Pushed Back, and the Supreme Court Set a Limit
California, Oregon, and Illinois sued, arguing the deployments violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using the military for civilian law enforcement.
In September 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled the Los Angeles deployment illegal, finding the administration had “violated the Posse Comitatus Act willfully” as part of a “top-down, systemic effort” to use troops to execute federal drug and immigration laws. The Brennan Center called it the first time a court had ever issued an injunction to stop a Posse Comitatus Act violation.4Brennan Center for Justice. Court Finds Trump’s Use of Soldiers in Los Angeles Illegal Judge Breyer warned the president’s actions risked “creating a national police force.”5BBC News. Judge Rules Trump’s National Guard Deployment in LA Illegal An Oregon district court blocked the federalization of Guard members there, though a Ninth Circuit panel reversed in October 2025. In Illinois, the district court’s block held up on appeal.
On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. Illinois that the president had improperly federalized the Illinois National Guard. The majority held that “regular forces” in 10 U.S.C. § 12406 refers to active-duty military, meaning the president can federalize the Guard under that statute only after showing active-duty forces are insufficient to execute the laws. Because the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the military from executing laws without express authorization, the government could not simultaneously claim inherent authority to protect federal property while relying on a statute aimed at “executing the laws.”6U.S. Supreme Court. Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443
On December 31, 2025, Trump announced on Truth Social that he was withdrawing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, while warning he might return “in a much different and stronger form.”7Politico. Donald Trump National Guard Deployment
The January 2026 Insurrection Act Threat
Two weeks later the Insurrection Act came back into the conversation. On January 7, 2026, ICE agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three and U.S. citizen, in a Minneapolis neighborhood during a large-scale immigration operation involving more than 2,000 officers. Good had stopped her car to support immigrant neighbors targeted by the operation. The Department of Homeland Security said the officer fired after Good tried to use her vehicle as a weapon; bystander video circulated widely.8CNN. ICE Protests and Shootings in Minneapolis96abc. Minneapolis ICE Shooting
Protests spread nationwide under the “ICE Out For Good” banner, with more than 1,000 demonstrations in cities including Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Philadelphia, and Denver.10Vera Institute of Justice. The ICE Killing of Renee Nicole Good Is a Watershed Moment for Trump The administration deployed nearly 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents to Minnesota, and the Pentagon prepared 1,500 Army troops for possible deployment.11ACLU. Trump’s Threat to Invoke the Insurrection Act, Explained
On January 15, 2026, Trump posted on Truth Social: “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… and quickly put an end to the travesty.”12NPR. Minneapolis Insurrection Act Trump Threats Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he was “prepared to challenge that action in court.” Trump backed off the next day. “I don’t think there’s any reason right now to use it, but if I needed it, I’d use it,” he said at the White House on January 16, 2026.13The Hill. Trump Minnesota ICE Live Updates
Even had Trump followed through, invoking the Insurrection Act is not the same as declaring martial law. It authorizes troops to assist civilian authorities while those authorities remain in charge.
Martial Law and the Insurrection Act Are Not the Same Thing
Much of the confusion here comes from treating two very different legal ideas as interchangeable. Martial law means the military displaces civilian government entirely: courts shut down, military tribunals take over, and civilian law is suspended. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy troops to assist civilian authorities while those authorities keep running things. Under the Insurrection Act, constitutional protections stay in place and civilian courts remain open.14Brennan Center for Justice. The Insurrection Act, Explained
The Insurrection Act is a real federal statute, codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255, invoked roughly 30 times since 1807. The last invocation without a governor’s consent was in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson used it during the civil rights movement. The most recent invocation of any kind was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, at the request of the governor.12NPR. Minneapolis Insurrection Act Trump Threats
Can a President Declare Martial Law At All?
Martial law has no explicit basis in the Constitution or federal statute. No act of Congress defines it or authorizes the president to declare it. The Supreme Court has never directly held that the federal government has the power to impose it. Under the framework of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), legal scholars widely agree that a unilateral presidential declaration would be unconstitutional. Because Congress has legislated extensively on domestic military use through the Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act, and the Stafford Act, those statutes “occupy the field,” leaving no room for the president to act unilaterally in a way Congress has not authorized.15Brennan Center for Justice. Martial Law in the United States: Its Meaning, Its History, and Why the President Can’t Declare It
The federal government has not declared martial law since 1944, when it ended military rule in Hawaii that had been in place after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Supreme Court later ruled in Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946) that the military tribunals used during that period were unconstitutional.16FindLaw. Article II Annotations That remains the historical bar, and Trump has not come close to it. What he has done is push the limits of the statutes that fall well short of martial law, and the courts have already drawn one line at that lower level.