First, the essentials. Martial law is the term for when civilian government and legal processes (such as mayoral jurisdiction and police officers, respectively) are overtaken by state military, so as to make demands on behalf of the nation’s leader, and then enforce those demands with their wealth of resources. Typically, martial law is invoked in dangerous situations, such as natural disasters or major civil unrest.
This is different from the United States’ Insurrection Act, wherein those civilian enterprises are not replaced by military personnel and resources, but supplemented by them. More importantly, the official nature of the Insurrection Act allows the POTUS to deploy the military domestically during emergencies, as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the use of the military against American civilians. In short, the Insurrection Act can waive the rules of the Posse Comitatus Act to create a sort of mini martial law. this.
Recently, fears have been rising over whether or not the United States could enter martial law on April 20 under Donald Trump. But why then? What is it about April 20 that holds significance? When Trump first took office back on January 20, he signed an executive order declaring a state of emergency at the United States’ southern border, requiring the secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to submit a report about what the “situation” is at said border, together with recommended actions for “resolving” said “situation.” This report needed to be submitted within 90 days.
When this order was signed, Trump also declared that “A national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States…I hereby declare that this national emergency requires use of the Armed Forces…” This directly references the potential execution of the Insurrection Act.
The Secretary of Defense? Pete Hegseth. The Secretary of Homeland Security? Kristi Noem. Two of Donald Trump’s most prominent yes-men. And guess how many days January 20 and April 20 are apart? Ninety.
So, essentially, on April 20, there’s a not-insignificant chance that those two aforementioned Trump yes-men are going to tell Trump whether or not he should deploy the military in the southern United States to crack down on immigration. Except, as we saw with the case of Mahmoud Khalil — a recent Columbia University graduate who played a major role in that student body’s recent pro-Palestinain campus occupations — it doesn’t matter if you have a green card or if you haven’t committed any crimes; under this presidency, ICE will illegally detain you if they think you’re troublesome to the vision of Trump’s America. They’re trying to deport Khalil for speaking out against genocide as we speak. This is a direct, wholly unconstitutional attack on free speech.
And here’s why that distinction between the Insurrection Act and martial law was so important. On April 20, Trump will constitutionally — through the Insurrection Act — be allowed to deploy the military against American civilians, and his government has already demonstrated that legal American civilians who have not committed any crimes are at risk for detention and deportation. It’s not technically martial law, but this Trumpian cocktail is just as bad, if not worse.
Khalil’s detention — again, occurring in response to his speaking out against the genocide of Palestinian people — was made on the grounds of Trump’s executive order prohibiting anti-Semitism. How long before more executive orders (none of them made in good faith, let’s be clear on that) just so happen to limit more ways of speaking, acting, and thinking? A scary thought, and a horrifyingly pertinent one.
Published: Mar 14, 2025 06:36 am