Sisters in Law – Episode 271: “Trump Threatens To Invoke The Insurrection Act”

Date: January 17, 2026
Hosts: Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuaid, Kimberly Atkins Store
Main Theme: Examining Trump’s threats to invoke the Insurrection Act, the DOJ’s investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, and the Department of Justice’s aggressive actions towards journalists—what these mean legally and politically in the current climate.

Overview

In this high-stakes episode, the #SistersInLaw team tackles a week crowded with troubling developments. The central focus is on Donald Trump’s overt threats to invoke the Insurrection Act, what such a move would mean, how it differs from other presidential emergency powers, and the implications for democracy. The panel also examines the weaponization of the DOJ against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and escalating pressures and legal threats against journalists—an ominous sign for a free press. As always, the hosts illuminate the legal frameworks, real-world precedents, and consequences of these developments in their trademark clear, witty, and urgent style.

Key Discussion Points

1. The Insurrection Act & Trump’s Threats

(Discussion Begins – 08:56)

What Happened?

• Trump has publicly threatened to use the Insurrection Act, after the Supreme Court ruled against his prior attempts to federalize the National Guard without sufficient cause.

Legal Framework

• Title 10, Section 12406: Previously attempted by Trump to federalize state National Guard, but reined in by Supreme Court (Illinois v. Trump) requiring exhaustion of regular forces first.
• The Insurrection Act: Gives the president broader powers to deploy both National Guard and active-duty military, and overrides the Posse Comitatus Act restriction on military involvement in domestic law enforcement.
  • Key difference: Unlike 12406, the Insurrection Act allows direct law enforcement by military and does not require state consent in all cases. (Barb McQuaid, 10:15)
• Three Statutory Triggers (Joyce Vance, 13:09):
  1. Section 251: Upon request by a state’s legislature/governor to suppress insurrection.
  2. Section 252: To enforce federal law or suppress rebellion without state consent.
  3. Section 253: To suppress insurrection or domestic violence if states cannot/will not guarantee constitutional rights; used historically in civil rights interventions.

Limitations and Judicial Review

• The president’s power is broad but not absolute—deployment is supposed to be temporary, restoring order so civilian control can resume. (Joyce & Jill, 15:17–15:58)
• Early Supreme Court cases suggested presidential discretion was exclusive, but later cases (Sterling v. Constantin, 1932) confirm courts may scrutinize whether deployment was constitutional. (Kimberly Atkins Store, 16:42)

Martial Law vs Insurrection Act

• Martial law—much more extreme, suspends civilian government for military rule (Barb McQuaid, 20:55). Very rarely used in U.S. history (Hawaii during WWII, post-disaster scenarios).
• The Insurrection Act does not suspend constitutional rights (e.g., habeas corpus), whereas martial law can under rare circumstances. (Joyce Vance, 23:08)

2. How Serious Is Trump’s Threat? Historical Context and Limitations

(Discussion – 23:43, 24:12)

• The Insurrection Act has only been used about 30 times in 250 years, usually at a state’s request or to enforce civil rights.
• It’s not for suppressing protest or because the President is angry. “This is not normal, people.” (Kimberly Atkins Store, 16:42)
• Trump’s threat is viewed as political theater or an intimidation tactic—meant to “rattle the libs”—rather than a valid exercise of power. (Kimberly, 24:12)
• Notable precedent: Use to enforce desegregation at Ole Miss (James Meredith, classmate of Jill), Rodney King riots, Civil Rights Era. (Jill, 26:59–27:44)
• Quote: “Donald Trump likes to rattle the libs, and this is his favorite tool...he likes threatening this thing. And…he’s getting it. It’s working. And I just don’t think he really believes that this is what this is all about.” — Kimberly Atkins Store [24:54]

3. DOJ’s Investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell

(Discussion Begins – 35:29)

Context:

• DOJ opened a criminal investigation into Powell for alleged false statements regarding Federal Reserve HQ renovations, perceived as political retaliation for not lowering interest rates on Trump’s demand.

Legal and Political Analysis

• Parallels drawn to “Operation Whirlwind” and the Comey criminal referral—another means to “punish rivals” and assert control via “BS criminal investigations.” (Barb McQuaid, 36:23)
• Trump makes the quid pro quo explicit, publicly stating he’d “back off if Powell would lower interest rates.” (Jill, 41:08)
• The independence of the Federal Reserve is a deeply entrenched norm; Supreme Court is likely to block efforts to fire Powell. Dismissals of similar agency heads have met judicial resistance.
  • “The Fed is different because the court says it is and for no other reason.” — Joyce Vance [46:38]
• The pattern is now clear: DOJ and other levers of federal power being used punitively against those who defy Trump’s preference.

Notable Quote

• “Trump just did something even stupider, which is to say the quiet thing out loud...he’d back off if Powell would lower interest rates…” — Jill Wine-Banks [41:08]

4. Weaponization of Executive Power: Chilling Trends

(Discussion – 47:41 onward)

• DOJ being used to target governmental rivals, journalists, and anyone asserting independence.
• Historic DOJ policy (post-Watergate, Attorney General Jackson) requires “predication”—real evidence before opening an investigation. This norm is being eroded in pursuit of individual vendettas.
  • “Your job is to investigate crimes, not people.”—quote from Robert Jackson, cited by Barb McQuaid [47:41–49:19]
• The panel draws analogies to authoritarian overreach, warning “it didn’t happen all at once” in the past (Jill, 49:57).

5. DOJ Aggression Toward Journalists

(Discussion Begins – 52:50)

Incident:

• FBI executes a search warrant at Washington Post reporter Hannah Natenson’s home, targeting her devices due to alleged leaks from a government contractor.
• Concern is acute given anti-journalist rhetoric and prior policy changes rolling back DOJ guidelines limiting actions against the press.

Legal Standards

• Privacy Protection Act requires law enforcement use subpoenas, not search warrants, except under rare exceptions (e.g., imminent risk). Powers appear to have been misapplied (Jill, 55:05).
• Even with probable cause, the least intrusive means is supposed to be used. (Jill, 64:01)
• This trend is especially concerning for freelance and independent journalists without deep legal resources. (Kimberly, 58:08)

Notable Quote

• “These are literally going to turn into witch hunts…Particularly for independent and smaller news organizations, this could be really devastating…the cost of litigation…could put them out of business.” — Kimberly Atkins Store [58:08]

Digital Security Tips

• Signal/WhatsApp apps: FBI can seize devices and get metadata, but not content without cooperation or password (Kimberly & Barb, 67:35)
• Passcode protection is safer than biometrics; encrypted messaging apps can be set to auto-delete messages. (Barb & Kimberly, 68:53–70:09)

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Trump’s threat:
  “He's dangling this idea of the Insurrection Act out there, like, ‘don't make me use my big stick. Cause I will.’" — Barb McQuaid [10:15]
• On using the Act in context:
  “This is not normal, people…Protest has been an inherent part of our democratic system since the beginning.” — Kimberly Atkins Store [16:42]
• On martial law:
  “Martial law is the nuclear option. It is the replacement of our civilian government by military rule.” — Barb McQuaid [20:55]
• On Powell and the Fed:
  “He said, come at me, bro…I know what my job is, and you are not going to intimidate me.” — Kimberly Atkins Store, quoting Powell [39:21]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Insurrection Act Segment Begins: 08:56
• Statutory Details and Precedents: 13:09
• Limits/Judicial Review/SCOTUS: 16:42
• Martial Law Distinction: 20:55
• DOJ & Jerome Powell Investigation: 35:29
• Weaponization of DOJ Discussion: 47:41
• Journalists & Search Warrant Segment: 52:50
• Legal specifics on privacy protections for journalists: 55:05
• Digital Security & Journalist Advice: 67:35

Listener Q&A (Select)

• How Trial Courts Authenticate Evidence in the AI Age (76:39)
  • Investigators look for chain of custody and authentication; direct acquisition from devices, not social media uploads.
• What is a Spontaneous Utterance? (79:12)
  • Legal definition, hearsay exception; Agent Ross’s post-shooting profanity is not hearsay but could show state of mind.
• Civil Lawsuit Prospects in Police Shooting Cases (81:32)
  • Families can seek damages under Federal Tort Claims Act; not officer personally, but against the government. Precedents: George Floyd, Rodney King.

Notable Quotes with Speaker & Timestamp

• “He's dangling this idea of the Insurrection Act out there, like, ‘don't make me use my big stick. Cause I will.’” — Barb McQuaid [10:15]
• “This is not normal, people…Protest has been an inherent part of our democratic system since the beginning.” — Kimberly Atkins Store [16:42]
• “The Fed is different because the court says it is and for no other reason.” — Joyce Vance [46:38]
• “Your job is to investigate crimes, not people.” — Barb McQuaid, quoting Robert Jackson [47:41]
• “These are literally going to turn into witch hunts…could put them out of business.” — Kimberly Atkins Store [58:08]

Tone & Style

The conversation is deeply analytical and urgent, with flashes of humor and camaraderie between the hosts. The tone balances legal expertise with personal insight and a clear sense of the stakes for democracy and the rule of law.

Conclusion

The episode delivers a bracing, clear-eyed examination of Trump’s threatened invocation of presidential emergency powers, the dangerous politicization of federal law enforcement, and the heightened pressures on a free press. Listeners are left both informed and galvanized—reminded of the value of peaceful resistance and vigilant citizenship in the face of unprecedented tests to legal norms and constitutional principles.