Photo credit: www.yahoo.com
Donald Trump has claimed consistently since he regained the presidency in January that his administration has significantly reduced illegal immigration through the southern border. He frequently asserts – incorrectly, of course – that he has achieved unprecedented success in this area.
President Trump is set to determine whether he will invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 on April 20 to address what he described on his first day in office as “a national emergency at the southern border.” Trump has already utilized outdated federal laws to tighten immigration controls while authorizing military use of land along the border.
This has been characterized as a strategy where he declares an emergency, claims to have resolved it, and then seeks heightened powers to manage the situation he asserts is still critical.
For Trump, the logical inconsistencies appear irrelevant. His primary goal seems to be the augmentation of presidential authority, indifferent to factual accuracy or his own past statements.
Trump’s Desire for a Border Crisis
President Trump was pictured in the Oval Office on April 18, 2025.
In his executive order on January 20 that declared a southern border emergency, Trump required Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to deliver a joint report within 90 days regarding border conditions, “including the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807.”
According to CNN reports dated April 18, sources indicated that Noem and Hegseth are anticipated not to suggest invoking the Insurrection Act at this time, given the decline in border crossings.
Nevertheless, skepticism remains. Observers note that neither Noem nor Hegseth are likely to provide information contrary to Trump’s desires, as they have previously demonstrated the fortitude needed to do so.
Elizabeth Goitein from the Brennan Center for Justice shared insights that suggest Trump has been interested in invoking the Insurrection Act since the 2020 protests sparked by the death of George Floyd.
Back then, Mark Esper, the Defense Secretary, opposed such actions. His stance could offer valuable lessons for those currently in office, were they inclined to learn them, but indications suggest they are not.
If the Insurrection Act is implemented, it would empower Trump to deploy active-duty military forces for law enforcement within the nation, as well as federalize National Guard personnel from various states to support these operations.
This move could result in militarized enforcement actions across cities, including stopping civilians in the streets for identification and conducting searches in homes.
As Goitein notes, “We can’t be certain until we observe it, but that type of behavior, in principle, could fall under the provisions of the Insurrection Act.”
Trump’s Disjointed Immigration Policies
In March, Trump called upon the Alien Enemies Act to assist in a large-scale deportation initiative. However, the Supreme Court ruled on April 19 that he must pause deportations of Venezuelan migrants while judicial review is conducted.
Moreover, on April 11 Trump issued an executive order allowing the military to assume control of federal lands along the border, a move that may face legal challenges.
Goitein describes Trump’s legal strategies as “confused” since the Insurrection Act classifies unlawful immigration as a law enforcement issue, while the Alien Enemies Act categorizes it as a form of warfare; Trump’s militarization of the border suggests it is an issue of trespassing on military property.
Opinion: Trump’s administration misused taxpayer funds to deport a Maryland man to El Salvador.
While asserting effective control over the border, Trump boasted during an April 8 address to the National Republican Congressional Committee that, “In a matter of weeks, we’ve achieved the lowest level of illegal border crossings in American history.”
This claim is misleading; while apprehensions of unlawful migrants have significantly decreased, they are at the lowest level seen in decades, they do not represent the lowest in U.S. history.
Understanding Trump’s Deportation Agenda
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was documented visiting military personnel near Sunland Park, New Mexico, on Feb. 3, 2025.
The reality of the situation is clear and has been predictable, as previously articulated following Trump’s reelection. His agenda includes unleashing military forces domestically against individuals he identifies as adversaries. If you believe this targeting halts with undocumented immigrants, you might not be fully recognizing the broader implications.
Federal Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson’s April 17 ruling exemplifies these concerns. Following his opinion regarding unlawful deportations, he noted, his apprehension over the administration’s overreach in deportation cases.
“If today’s Executive acts as if it has the authority to deport without due process and flout court orders, how can we be assured it won’t extend to American citizens?” Wilkinson asserted, highlighting the gravity of such actions.
Goitein further expressed concerns about Trump’s contradictory messaging since his return to power.
“Trump himself claimed on social media the invasion has ended with fewer individuals attempting to cross the border recently,” Goitein said. “This strongly suggests that he should rescind the emergency declaration made on January 20.”
Vanessa Cárdenas from America’s Voice, an organization focusing on immigration rights, presented two possible motivations for Trump’s intended use of the Insurrection Act: 1) his tendency to “scapegoat” immigrants, and 2) the necessity of diverting attention from his administration’s ongoing issues.
Fostering Fear as a Political Distraction
Cárdenas identifies a divisive rhetoric fostered by Trump aimed at instilling fear in the American populace.
“He utilizes historical legal frameworks to endorse his narrative of invasion,” she articulated. “This strategy serves to rally his supporters while simultaneously cultivating animosity toward immigrants.”
A U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicle was observed on March 24, 2025, as part of military units aiding in border security in the El Paso and Big Bend regions of Texas as part of Joint Task Force Southern Border.
As he bolsters his immigration agenda, Trump has concurrently caused volatility in the stock market due to erratic trade policies, retreating from previous stances only to reassert them. Despite campaigning to enhance economic conditions, his efforts have resulted in little to no progress on economic issues.
According to Cárdenas, this invocation of the Insurrection Act could serve as a much-needed distraction for Trump amidst the multitude of challenges facing his administration.
Opinion: The upcoming midterm elections are closer than they appear, and the political skirmishes have already begun.
Goitein emphasized that while courts often hesitate to intervene in a president’s emergency declarations, the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated exceptions exist for actions taken in “bad faith.”
This legal standard may demonstrate significant relevance regarding Trump’s actions, as his operational framework often embraces bad faith as a principal element.
“There are scenarios where a president may overstep the boundaries of acceptable judgment, demonstrating clear errors or engaging in actions outside of legal authority,” she elaborated, noting this scrutiny could arise if Trump is seen as simultaneously insisting there’s no crisis at the border while attempting to exert emergency powers.
Ultimately, as has been the case throughout Trump’s tenure, the judicial branch may need to step in to mitigate what could be another overreach of presidential power. The key question remains whether Trump will comply with legal directives should the judiciary intervene.
Source
www.yahoo.com