The Ben Shapiro Show – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Will Trump Invoke the Insurrection Act?
Date: January 28, 2026
Host: Ben Shapiro (The Daily Wire)

Episode Overview

In this episode, Ben Shapiro delivers a deep-dive analysis of the controversies erupting in Minneapolis as protesters and local officials actively resist federal immigration enforcement. Shapiro explores whether President Trump should—and legally could—invoke the Insurrection Act in response to escalating clashes between ICE agents and coordinated local resistance, situating the debate within centuries of American legal and political history. He breaks down the law’s origins, its past usages, the technicalities of state versus federal authority, and directly addresses objections from political opponents. The episode aims to clarify the legal and constitutional dimensions of federal intervention, stripping away what Shapiro sees as partisan distortion and historical ignorance.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Current Crisis in Minneapolis (01:05–03:45)

• Shapiro details how Minneapolis has become the epicenter of resistance against ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations.
  • Protesters are "attempting to obstruct federal law enforcement, acts of violence against ICE and Border Patrol, and the tragic deaths of two American citizens in confrontations with federal law enforcement" ([02:10]).
  • Local political leaders—Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Mayor Jacob Frey—are "casting federal agents as the enemy" and “encouraging obstruction of law" ([01:45–02:30]).
• Emphasizes the national significance: “What’s happening in Minneapolis right now… could turn into one of the most constitutionally significant domestic confrontations in decades.” ([01:15])
• Draws a distinction between mere non-compliance and the "active encouragement of obstruction of federal law."

The Insurrection Act: Historical Context and Purpose (03:45–08:15)

• Shapiro traces the Act back to 1807 and Thomas Jefferson's presidency as a safeguard for the “survival of the republic.”
  • Describes the Burr Conspiracy as an existential threat, justifying Jefferson’s insistence on emergency powers ([04:45–06:30]).
  • Quotes the original law: “...it shall be lawful for [the president] to employ… such part of the land or naval force of the United States as shall be judged necessary.” ([06:20])
• Highlights: the law was never meant to “crush peaceful protest” but to "stop the upending of the American government altogether." ([06:45])
• Notable parallel to today: “What is a sanctuary state in practice? It’s not just a place that refuses to do the work of federal law enforcement. In Minnesota, it has become a place that actively encourages the obstruction of federal law.” ([07:10])

Precedents of Presidential Use (08:15–10:41)

• Shapiro challenges claims the act is "archaic" or "never used"—it’s been invoked over 30 times, by presidents of both parties.
  • Examples: Andrew Jackson (1831), Lincoln (1861), Grant (Reconstruction), Cleveland (Pullman Strike), FDR (Detroit riot), Eisenhower (Little Rock), JFK (school integration), LBJ (race riots), and George H.W. Bush (Rodney King riots).
  • “Was Ulysses S. Grant a fascist for using the military to crush the KKK and protect the rights of Black Americans? Of course not. They were enforcing the law.” ([09:20])
• Argues this establishes clear bipartisan precedent for using the Insurrection Act to “preserve American liberty and federal supremacy.”

Legal Mechanics: Breaking Down the Insurrection Act (11:00–13:45)

• Shapiro rebuts the argument that the Act requires a governor’s permission.
  • Two sections: Section 251 (“Cooperative model”) and Section 252 (“Hammer Clause”).
  • Section 251: Allows use of force "upon request" from state authorities (e.g., Rodney King riots, where Governor Pete Wilson asked for help).
  • Section 252: Gives unilateral presidential authority “whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions... make it impracticable to enforce the laws… he may call into federal service… such of the armed forces as he considers necessary…” ([12:40])
• “Section 252 begins, ‘whenever the President considers’—that would be the President’s authority. There’s no clause indicating local or state consent.” ([12:50])
• Lays out step-by-step how local refusal combined with breakdown in order meets the Act’s trigger conditions: "If those conditions are met, the President doesn’t just have the right to act, he arguably has the duty to act." ([13:25])

Addressing the Posse Comitatus Act (13:45–15:05)

• Explains Posse Comitatus Act as a limitation on using the military for civilian law enforcement, except when “expressly authorized by an act of Congress” (such as the Insurrection Act).
• “Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act are not in conflict. They are statutes designed to work in sequence.” ([14:20])
• Outlines a “crisis sequence” in which the Act’s invocation suspends Posse Comitatus restrictions.

Double Standards, January 6, and Partisan Hypocrisy (15:05–15:55)

• Highlights inconsistency in political rhetoric and application, referencing bipartisan uses in history versus the current uproar over Trump.
  • “When President Eisenhower sent troops into Little Rock…the left called him a civil rights hero. When JFK sent troops to ensure Black students could enroll… the left cheered him on… When Trump threatens to use the Insurrection Act, the left calls him a fascist dictator.” ([15:05])
• Addresses January 6th, noting that the Insurrection Act wasn’t invoked because "law and order was already established by 8pm".
  • “The law doesn’t work to benefit either political party. Neither the left nor the right gets to demand a law’s use in one case and then shriek fascism when it’s used in another similar case.” ([15:45])
• Critiques what he sees as selective outrage and misuse of “defending democracy” rhetoric.

Looking Ahead: What Happens Next ([16:10–16:41])

• Describes the situation as unsustainable: "If Minnesota continues to up the ante, the question becomes when, not if, the federal government will have to step in."
• Concludes that the real issue is "whether or not Americans still believe in the rule of law at all."
  • “A country that cannot enforce its own laws is not a country. It’s just a geographic area waiting to be conquered… If we do get to that point, the President has a clear legal and historical mandate to say, ‘No more.’” ([16:30])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Minneapolis Today:
  “Law enforcement as a source of chaos and protesters who obstruct the law as righteous dissidents. The results have been hideous.” – Ben Shapiro ([01:30])

• On the Insurrection Act’s Origins:
  “The Insurrection Act was explicitly not designed with an intent to crush peaceful protest… It was created to stop the upending of the American government altogether.” ([06:45])

• On Presidential Authority:
  “‘Whenever the President considers…’—that would be the President’s authority. There’s no clause indicating local or state consent.” ([12:50])

• On Partisan Use and Hypocrisy:
  “Neither the left nor the right gets to demand a law’s use in one case and then shriek fascism when it’s used in another, similar case… If your worldview flips depending on who’s president, you’re not defending democracy. You’re just playing for your partisan team.” ([15:45])

• On the Stakes for the Country:
  “A country that cannot enforce its own laws is not a country. It’s just a geographic area waiting to be conquered.” ([16:30])

Important Timestamps

• 01:05–03:45: Minneapolis crisis and active political defiance
• 03:45–08:15: History and original intent of the Insurrection Act
• 08:15–10:41: Examples from American history and bipartisan precedent
• 11:00–13:45: Legal mechanics, Section 251 vs. Section 252
• 13:45–15:05: Interplay with Posse Comitatus Act
• 15:05–15:55: Double standards, January 6 comments, and hypocrisy
• 16:10–16:41: Prognosis and warning about the American rule of law

Summary Flow & Tone

Ben Shapiro’s tone throughout is forceful, direct, and unsparing—characterized by a detailed, methodical march through legal history and statute. He repeatedly uses rhetorical questions and historical analogies to underscore his central argument: invoking the Insurrection Act in response to active state-level resistance to federal authority is both lawful and historically routine. Shapiro strongly critiques what he views as left-wing hypocrisy and partisanship, closing with a warning about the consequences of ignoring constitutional mechanisms.

This episode provides listeners with a thorough, history-grounded argument for the legitimacy (and perhaps necessity) of presidential intervention under the Insurrection Act, especially in environments of open resistance to federal law.