Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act?
I put the chance that Trump invokes the Insurrection Act during this presidency at 30%. It is a serious but still exceptional step, and the most plausible path is a major domestic unrest or border-security crisis that makes ordinary authorities look insufficient.
Analysis
The Insurrection Act is one of the few domestic emergency powers that a president can invoke largely on his own authority, and Trump has both the rhetorical style and the political instincts that make such a move more plausible than under most presidents. Over a four-year term, the probability of a triggering event is not trivial: large-scale protests, civil disorder, or a confrontation over immigration enforcement could all create conditions where he or his advisers see the law as a way to bypass local resistance and project control. Even so, the action would still be extraordinary, which keeps the baseline probability well below a coin flip.
The strongest argument against a higher number is that Trump has other tools that are easier, less controversial, and often sufficient. He can federalize resources, deploy the National Guard through other legal pathways, pressure governors, use DHS and DOJ authorities, or simply escalate politically without crossing the Insurrection Act threshold. He also has reason to avoid a step that would invite immediate legal, congressional, and public backlash, especially if the factual predicate looks thin. The fact that he did not invoke the Act during the unrest of his first term is a meaningful cautionary precedent, even if the second term may differ.
Compared with the current market price of 22% yes, I think the market is somewhat conservative but not badly wrong. The price appears to underweight the combination of Trump’s willingness to use dramatic executive power and the long time horizon left in the term, which gives several opportunities for an incident to arise. Still, this is not a high-confidence yes; most plausible crises can be managed without crossing the line, so the fair value is only modestly above the market rather than dramatically higher.
Arguments
For
- Arguments for Yes: Trump has repeatedly signaled a willingness to use aggressive federal power against unrest and may see the Act as the cleanest tool if local authorities resist.
- Arguments for Yes: Over several years in office, the chance of a triggering crisis is material, and the threshold for this market is only one invocation.
Against
- Arguments against Yes: The Insurrection Act is politically explosive, and Trump may prefer cheaper, less legally fraught alternatives that still project toughness.
- Arguments against Yes: Even in his first term, despite unrest and pressure from advisers, he stopped short of invoking it, suggesting real restraint when the costs are obvious.
Key drivers
- Trump has a strong preference for visible, forceful responses to domestic unrest and may view the Insurrection Act as a useful symbol of control.
- The remaining term is long enough that even a low-probability trigger event such as major riots or a border-related confrontation becomes meaningfully possible.
Risk factors
- Trump can often achieve similar objectives through other authorities, reducing the need to invoke the Act.
- Legal, political, and institutional backlash could deter invocation unless there is a clear and sustained disorder scenario.
Scenarios
Best case
A major unrest or border emergency develops, Trump concludes ordinary law-enforcement tools are failing, and he invokes the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops domestically.
Most likely
Trump periodically threatens or discusses extraordinary domestic security measures, but actual Insurrection Act invocation remains unnecessary and politically too costly for most situations.
Worst case
There are protests and episodes of unrest, but they never reach a level that justifies the Act, and Trump relies on National Guard deployments or other executive tools instead.
More from this day
- CompaniesKalshi1y
Starbucks total global stores in 2026
AI62%MKT15%Edge+47Hidden GemStarbucks is materially more likely than the market implies to finish 2026 above 41,800 total global stores. The combination of an already very large base and guidance for 600 to 650 net new global openings makes the threshold look attainable unless closures or execution slippage are unusually heavy.
- EconomicsKalshi11y
US real GDP growth in 2036?
AI64%MKT20%Edge+44Hidden GemThe most likely outcome is moderate positive growth in 2036 rather than near-stagnation or a boom, with the center of gravity in the 1.6% to 2.5% range. The market looks somewhat compressed toward lower-growth outcomes, but not dramatically mispriced unless the contract is tied to a structurally faster-growing emerging economy.
- pop culturePolymarket3mo
Where will 2026 rank among the hottest years on record?
AI27%MKT69%Edge-42Hyped2026 has a real chance to finish near the top of the record list, but beating 2024 to become the single hottest year looks more unlikely than the market implies. I would price Yes at about 27%.