Bulwark Takes – “Trump Threatens to Invoke the Insurrection Act”

Podcast: Bulwark Takes
Host: Ben Parker
Guest: Lt. General Mark Hertling (Ret.)
Release Date: January 15, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode unpacks President Trump's threat to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota amidst escalating tensions between federal agents (particularly ICE) and local authorities. Host Ben Parker and retired Lt. General Mark Hertling examine the legal, historical, military, and ethical ramifications of deploying military forces domestically, especially in the current context where federal agents are outnumbering local police and relations are fraught.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background: Trump’s Threat and What the Insurrection Act Is

• [01:29] Ben Parker explains Trump's morning statement, warning he’ll "institute the Insurrection Act" if Minnesota officials don’t stop “agitators and insurrectionists.”
• The Insurrection Act is an old, loosely-worded law that allows the president to deploy the U.S. military internally.
• Purpose of episode: To clarify what the Act is, when it has been used, and why this current situation is so concerning.

2. Legal and Historical Context

• [02:34] Gen. Hertling traces the act to 1807, rooted in the Founders’ caution against using military against citizens.
  • Key Quote:
    “A president can invoke it just because he feels like invoking it, because he believes that the nation and the government is threatened.” – Hertling [03:15]
• Past uses:
  • 1992: George H.W. Bush during LA riots at governor’s request (police and National Guard overwhelmed)
  • 1967: LBJ during Detroit riots (requested by governor)
  • 1957: Eisenhower sent troops to enforce school desegregation against a non-compliant state government
• Common thread: Usually invoked at state/local request due to incapacity—not used to escalate federal action over local objection.

3. Why the Situation in Minnesota Is Different

• [05:18] Ben Parker notes that, contrary to typical use, local authorities have not asked for federal intervention.
  • The Minneapolis PD hasn’t lost control; in fact, federal agents have besieged the city, per local editorials.
  • More federal agents than local police—an inversion of the norm.
  • Key Quote:
    “The federal government is there causing disorder. And Trump’s response is, ‘We’re going to send in more troops.’” – Parker [05:54]
• This turns the Insurrection Act’s logic on its head: instead of restoring order, the threat is to crush dissent and empower ICE.

4. Military Commanders’ Dilemma

• [06:29] Gen. Hertling compares proper use of the Act to a fire extinguisher—used to put out fires, not start new ones.
  • Key Quote:
    “If you're using the Insurrection act to further light more matches... it becomes a discretionary tool of government for actually bringing more harm to the citizens and using military force in a political manner.” – Hertling [06:29]
• [07:39] Military leaders would confront blurry lines: Are orders to suppress peaceful protest lawful?
  • Soldiers swear to follow lawful orders, but also to uphold the Constitution, which protects protest rights.
  • Key Quote:
    “That puts a senior military leader in a very precarious position... the soldiers and the citizens who are doing peaceful protest had the same view of using the Constitution and the way it was formed.” – Hertling [08:47]

5. Impact on Troops and Military Morale

• [10:04] Parker raises the issue of military diversity: many soldiers have immigrant backgrounds, may be told to suppress protests against ICE.
  • Hypothetical: What do you tell “Private Martinez or Sergeant Gonzalez”? Will they be targeted or trusted?
  • Hertling shares a story of a soldier serving (and dying) while still studying for his citizenship [11:07].
• [13:08] The U.S. military includes people of all ideologies; forced participation in domestic crackdowns risks fracturing unit cohesion.

6. Degradation of Military Effectiveness and Public Trust

• [14:47] Deploying military in domestic law enforcement roles undermines morale and retention.
  • Past precedent: Declines in reenlistment after prior domestic use (e.g., LA riots).
  • Soldiers didn’t enlist for policing Americans, especially in roles perceived as political.
  • Blurring the line between militarized police and real soldiers—public can’t tell the difference, risking respect for the military.
  • Key Quote:
    “ICE is losing credibility. The military normally has very high popular support … When you use them in a domestic role, like we're thinking about doing right now, that will certainly decrease the level of support for the military.” – Hertling [15:53]

7. Law Enforcement vs. Military: Different Missions and Methods

• [16:49] Parker highlights that ICE agents are undisciplined, heavily armed, and have been observed using excessive force—including lethal incidents.
• [17:12] Hertling calls out lack of discipline and rules of engagement in ICE:
  • Key Quote:
    “They are, in fact, intimidating and bullying the population. They are using excessive forces in at least some of the films we've seen. So this is not... a disciplined or effective organization ... That’s why they are losing their credibility: because, truthfully, they ain’t that good and they’re using excessive force.” – Hertling [17:50]
• The military, by contrast, is highly disciplined, trained in clear rules of engagement—intermingling risks both discipline and public trust.

8. Practical Risks and “Endgame” Scenarios

• [18:19] If military is deployed, how do commanders protect their own troops when ICE and other federal officers are “running around in camo shooting people”?
• [19:55] Ben Parker draws a stark parallel:
  • Key Quote:
    “It sounds like the situation the administration is at least considering setting up is that ICE and Border Patrol and DHS can do whatever they want… and then you’re going to be introducing the regular military... It sounds like they're asking for a situation in Minneapolis like what we just saw in Iran, where people are out protesting in the streets and the government starts shooting.” – Parker [19:55]
• Hertling: There’s real potential for military-on-civilian violence, despite the U.S. condemning other countries for exactly this.
  • The police’s role is to “protect and serve”—ICE and Border Patrol are not acting to protect, but to arrest and intimidate.
  • Inserting the military in such a situation is a recipe for chaos.

9. Final Warnings and Plea for Restraint

• [22:11] Parker: Hopes the president listens to “good and seasoned officers” who understand the gravity.
• Both hope that these dire possibilities are never realized—but urge vigilance and awareness of the risks.

Notable Quotes (by Timestamp)

• Gen. Hertling:

  • “A president can invoke [the Insurrection Act] just because he feels like invoking it, because he believes that the nation and the government is threatened.” [03:15]
  • “If you’re using the Insurrection Act to further light more matches... it becomes ... bringing more harm to the citizens and using military force in a political manner.” [06:29]
  • “That puts a senior military leader in a very precarious position... the soldiers and the citizens who are doing peaceful protest had the same view of using the Constitution...” [08:47]
  • “ICE is losing credibility. The military normally has very high popular support... When you use them in a domestic role... that will certainly decrease the level of support for the military.” [15:53]
  • “So this is not... a disciplined or effective organization... That’s why they are losing their credibility: because, truthfully, they ain’t that good and they’re using excessive force.” [17:50]

• Ben Parker:

  • “The federal government is there causing disorder. And Trump’s response is, ‘We’re going to send in more troops.’” [05:54]
  • “It sounds like... what we just saw in Iran, where people are out protesting... and the government starts shooting.” [19:55]

Most Memorable Moments

• Historical clarity around the Insurrection Act’s intended purpose vs. current context.
• The uncomfortable hypothetical posed to military personnel of immigrant descent tasked with suppressing protests targeting ICE.
• Stark warnings about discipline, morale, and the peril of blurring lines between soldiers and militarized law enforcement.
• The blunt worry that America could find itself in an Iran-style urban crackdown.

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:29] Trump’s Statement and Episode Introduction
• [02:34] General Hertling explains the Insurrection Act’s legal history
• [05:18] Recent precedents vs. the current Minnesota situation
• [06:29] Analogy of Insurrection Act as “fire extinguisher”
• [07:39] The commander’s dilemma: Lawful orders and constitutional values
• [10:04] Diversity and loyalty within the armed forces
• [13:08] Ideological differences and military morale
• [14:47] Degradation of the military as an institution
• [16:49] Militarized ICE vs. disciplined military
• [17:12] Hertling on loss of discipline and oversight within ICE
• [18:19] Practical dangers for military commanders
• [19:55] Warning of a potential Iran-style scenario
• [22:11] A plea for seasoned military leadership and restraint

Overall Tone

Concerned, urgent, and unflinching. Ben Parker and Gen. Hertling deliver direct historical context, realistic military insight, and a clear-eyed warning about the dangers, both ethical and practical, should the Insurrection Act be deployed as Trump has threatened.

For those who haven’t listened:
This episode delivers a sobering look at the stakes involved when the President threatens to send the military into American cities not to restore lost order, but to clamp down on dissent and support aggressive federal agencies. It’s essential listening (or reading) for understanding how fragile civil-military relations and American democracy can be at a flashpoint.