UPDATE June 3, 6:46pm: Since the original story was written, Secretary Mike Esper has backtracked and announced that he will not "return active-duty troops deployed near DC to home bases." The article has been updated.
On Monday, President Donald Trump threatened to use the United States military against citizens of the U.S. on U.S. soil.
Many asked if it was a possibility. A quick review of federal law drew attention to legislation from 1807.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is:
"An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections"
"Be it enacted by... That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect."
President Trump would not be the first to invoke the law. The last to use the Insurrection Act was the late President George H. W. Bush in 1992 in response to the riots in Los Angeles after the acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Black motorist Rodney King.
The ties to 1992's massive protests in Los Angeles illustrate that the divide between law enforcement and people of color has not improved.
However, President Trump is not seeing full support for his threat of military force to stop the countrywide protests sparked by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Shortly after the President made his declaration Monday, pushback from the Pentagon was rumored. Retired military members also reportedly bent the ear of the head of the Department of Defense.
Then in a Pentagon briefing on Wednesday, Trump's Secretary of Defense Mark Esper—that same DoD head—said:
"The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations."
"We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act."
"I've always believed and continue to believe, that the National Guard is best suited for performing domestic support to civil authorities in these situations, in support of local law enforcement."
You can see his remarks here:
Esper was met with support from many on Capitol Hill.
In addition to Republican Senators such as Majority Whip John Thune:
"I think that these tasks ought to be relegated as much as possible to the state and local authorities, the law enforcement and police. I know there are instances in the past where they've had to call up active-duty personnel, but I think the goal always is to de-escalate, not escalate. So my view is that's the right call."
One wonders if the fate that has befallen others who were not suitably loyal to Trump would be Esper's as well.
UPDATE: By Wednesday afternoon, Esper—who had agreed to return active duty personnel brought to Washington DC to their home bases—reversed his position. Some attributed it to pushback from the White House.
While Esper has not issued a statement reversing his earlier comments about the Insurrection Act at the Pentagon, people wondered if the threat to his job means he will now support the use of active duty military in the United States under the command of the federal government.