Most people are familiar with the volatile relationship between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, ending with Burr killing Hamilton in a duel on July 11, 1808. That duel was featured in the musical Hamilton, where you get a glimpse of Burr’s and Jefferson’s differences during the 1800 presidential election. A tie between the pair in the Electoral College was broken due to Hamilton’s influence, and Jefferson went on to serve two terms as president. Hamilton’s rationale in the musical for supporting Jefferson, whom he also didn’t like, was, “Jefferson has beliefs. Burr has none.”
The system at the time called for separate votes for president and vice-president. Under the original rules of the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 3), the person who came in second place in the Electoral College automatically became vice president.
Before 1804, each elector cast two votes for president. The candidate with the most votes (and a majority of electors) became president. The candidate with the second‑highest total became vice president. This system did not distinguish between presidential and vice‑presidential votes.
In the 1796 Election, John Adams (Federalist) became president, while his opponent Thomas Jefferson (Democratic‑Republican) became vice president. This meant the top two executive officers were from opposing parties, creating constant friction. In the 1800 Election, Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied with 73 electoral votes each. Because the system didn’t separate votes for president and vice president, the tie threw the election into the House of Representatives, leading to 36 ballots before Jefferson was chosen president.
These crises led to the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804), which required electors to cast separate ballots for president and vice president. From then on, the “runner‑up becomes VP” rule was abolished. The Burr–Jefferson conflict is one of those moments where personal rivalry, constitutional uncertainty, and fears of rebellion all collided, and it directly shaped the passage of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Here’s the story in context.
Although Jefferson ultimately won the presidency, the tie embittered him against Burr, whom he believed had schemed to steal the presidency. Jefferson had convinced himself he was supposed to be the president and that Burr betrayed him by fighting to win in the Electoral College. Burr was relegated to a marginal role as Jefferson’s vice president (1801–1805). He was rarely “in the room,” when things were decided which according to the musical was where Burr wanted to be.
In 1804, while vice president, Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, destroying his political career. Shunned by Jefferson and the Democratic‑Republicans and distrusted by Federalists, Burr’s ambitions turned westward.
Burr allegedly schemed to raise a private army, seize Spanish territory in Mexico, and/or carve out an independent empire in the American Southwest. He courted support from frontier settlers, disaffected politicians, and even foreign powers like Britain and Spain. He was accused of recruiting U.S. military officers and stockpiling weapons.
Jefferson, already hostile to Burr, saw this as a potential insurrection or even treason. Reports of Burr’s activities spread panic that the young republic might fracture. Jefferson proclaimed in 1806, warning citizens not to join Burr’s expedition, and ordered the military to intercept him. This was before the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, and Jefferson was free to use the military for domestic purposes.
Burr was arrested in 1807 and tried for treason in Richmond, Virginia, under Chief Justice John Marshall. Jefferson personally pushed for conviction, but Marshall insisted on the Constitution’s strict definition of treason (“levying war against [the United States] or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”). Because Burr’s plans never materialized into open war, he was acquitted.
Jefferson was frustrated by the acquittal and by the limits of federal power to pre‑emptively stop conspiracies. The episode exposed how fragile federal authority was when faced with private military ventures or domestic uprisings.
The Insurrection Act was passed in direct response to the Burr conspiracy. It gave the president explicit authority to use federal troops (and later, the militia/National Guard) to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or unlawful combinations that obstruct federal law. It was designed to close the gap between treason (which required proof of “levying war”) and the practical need to stop armed conspiracies before they erupted.
The Act has been invoked multiple times since — from enforcing desegregation in Little Rock (1957) to responding to riots and natural disasters. It remains one of the most powerful tools for domestic military deployment, rooted in Jefferson’s clash with Burr.
The Jefferson–Burr conflict was more than personal animosity. Burr’s alleged conspiracy to carve out a western empire convinced Jefferson and Congress that the federal government needed stronger legal authority to suppress domestic threats. The result was the Insurrection Act of 1807, a law still shaping the balance between civil authority and military power today.
Invocation of the Insurrection Act in 1957 is the closest parallel to what Donald Trump is threatening today, with one major exception. In 1957, President Eisenhower used the act to force the Arkansas state government and National Guard to comply with federal law and the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. Trump wants to use the Insurrection Act to ignore the Constitution, remove due process, and potentially affect future elections.
In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. In 1957, nine Black students (the “Little Rock Nine”) attempted to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Governor Orval Faubus openly defied the ruling, using the Arkansas National Guard to block the students’ entry. This defiance created a constitutional crisis: a state government was actively resisting federal law and a Supreme Court decision.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730 on September 23, 1957, invoking the Insurrection Act. His reasoning was:
- Faubus’s actions and the violent mobs in Little Rock were preventing the enforcement of federal court orders.
- Breakdown of state authority: Local officials were either unwilling or unable to maintain order and protect the students.
- Protection of citizens’ rights: The federal government had a constitutional obligation to ensure equal protection under the law (14th Amendment).
- Restoring order: Eisenhower argued that mob violence and state resistance amounted to an insurrection against federal authority, justifying military intervention.
Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard (removing them from Faubus’s control). It led to Arkansas National Guard troops blocking integration on one day and enforcing it the next. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to escort and protect the students. This was the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were sent to the South to enforce civil rights.
The rationale was that Arkansas officials were defying federal law and court orders, creating a situation where the federal government had to act to uphold the Constitution. Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to protect the Little Rock Nine, enforce desegregation, and restore order when the state refused to comply.
Donald Trump and his surrogates began threatening the use of the Insurrection Act early in his first term. In June 2020, Trump publicly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active‑duty military into U.S. cities to quell the George Floyd protests. The Act requires that state authorities be unable or unwilling to enforce federal law; in 2020, governors and mayors were actively managing protests. Using troops against lawful assemblies would violate First Amendment rights and exceed statutory limits.
Senator Tom Cotton, a close Trump ally, urged Trump to invoke the Act to crush “anarchists.” Critics argued this was unconstitutional because the Act cannot be used as a blanket tool for political suppression; it must address genuine insurrection or obstruction of federal law.
Trump threatened to send active‑duty troops into Portland if local officials didn’t stop the protests. Courts later ruled federal overreach in Portland unlawful in some cases. Deploying troops without a state request or evidence of rebellion violates federalism principles and the Posse Comitatus Act.
After protesters were forcibly cleared, Trump warned he would invoke the Insurrection Act if unrest continued. Legal scholars noted this was unconstitutional because peaceful protest is protected speech; using the military to suppress it would amount to martial law by another name.
In his 2024 campaign, Trump and surrogates repeatedly promised to use the Insurrection Act “on day one” of a new term to deploy the military domestically against crime and immigration. Pre‑emptive pledges to use the Act for routine law enforcement are unconstitutional because the Act is limited to insurrection, rebellion, or obstruction of federal law, not general crime control.
Trump threatened to invoke the Act if courts blocked his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. Experts argue this is unconstitutional because the Act cannot be used to override state opposition unless there is an actual insurrection; crime in Chicago does not meet that threshold.
Trump signaled he would use the Act to send troops into Democratic‑led cities he claimed were “out of control.” This is unconstitutional because it weaponizes the Act for partisan purposes, violating the Guarantee Clause (Article IV, Section 4) and undermining the separation of powers.
In October 2025, Bondi said on Fox News that Trump “absolutely has the authority to invoke the Insurrection Act” to address violent crime in Democratic‑led cities such as Chicago. She criticized Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker for rejecting federal assistance and suggested that local leaders should welcome Trump’s use of federal forces.
Earlier in June 2025, when pressed about the legal threshold for invoking the Act during protests in Los Angeles, Bondi dodged questions about what specific conditions would justify it, but emphasized that the administration was “not scared to go further.”
Stephen Miller has strongly implied support for Trump using the Insurrection Act, though he often frames it in terms of the president’s “plenary authority” over the military rather than naming the statute outright.
After a federal judge blocked Trump from sending National Guard troops to Portland, Miller argued that the president has “plenary authority” to deploy the military domestically. This language echoed Trump’s own threats to invoke the Insurrection Act to override state opposition. Miller accused a federal judge of staging a “legal insurrection” by ruling against Trump’s troop deployment. While not a direct call to invoke the Act, the framing suggested that Miller viewed judicial limits on Trump’s domestic military power as illegitimate.
Trump has set the stage for using the Insurrection Act to quash protests and fully implement his immigration policy. He could steamroll judicial rulings declaring his actions unconstitutional and prevent Americans from peaceful demonstrations. His surrogates tried to frame the recent “No Kings” protest involving over 7 million people as “Hate America Protests.” Those claiming that those protesting Trump actually hate America include Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt maligned Democrats as siding with “Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”
What’s raising alarm among constitutional scholars is that Donald Trump and some of his allies have threatened to use the Act in ways that go far beyond its intended scope. Here’s how experts warn it could be misused to affect the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election:
Trump could claim threats of unrest or fraud and send active‑duty military to monitor or control polling sites. He could take control of state Guards in Democratic‑led states under the pretext of “restoring order.” Large demonstrations around election certification or voting rights could be branded as insurrections, justifying troop deployment. By claiming fraud or obstruction of federal law, troops could be sent to “secure” election offices.
While the president cannot legally cancel elections, invoking the Act could create enough chaos to delay voting in certain areas. If Trump or his allies lose, they could claim unrest or fraud and invoke the Act to interfere with certification. This would subvert the peaceful transfer of power, violating the core principle of constitutional democracy.
We only have to look back to January 6, 2021, to see what Trump and his allies could do with little time or planning. Since retaking office in 2025, Trump has maximized control over federal agencies, weakened checks on executive power, and expanded domestic use of federal forces, creating a framework where the Insurrection Act could be more easily invoked or abused. I don’t view it as a question of if the Insurrection Act will be invoked, but when.
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of William Spivey's work on Medium. And if you dig his words, buy the man a coffee.