Narrow the Insurrection Act
The Insurrection Act says the President can respond 'by any other means.' The MAD Act says: no, he can't.
The Insurrection Act lets the President deploy the United States military against the American people. There is no time limit. There is no requirement to consult or notify Congress. There is no meaningful judicial review. The key terms (“insurrection,” “rebellion,” “domestic violence”) are not defined anywhere in the statute. [1, 2] And the law authorizes the President to respond not only with the armed forces but “by any other means” language broad enough to be read as authorizing the deputization of private paramilitary groups.
This is not a hypothetical. The Act has been threatened for use against peaceful protests, immigration enforcement disputes, and political opposition in American cities. [4, 5] Each time, the only thing that stood between the American public and a domestic military deployment was the personal restraint of the individual holding the office. Not the law. Not the courts. Not Congress. One person’s judgment.
The founders did not build a republic on the hope that presidents would always show restraint. They built one on the certainty that some would not.
The Best and Worst of the Same Law
The Insurrection Act has been invoked approximately thirty times by fifteen presidents since 1794. [3] Some of those invocations are among the finest exercises of federal power in American history: Eisenhower sending the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce desegregation. Kennedy at Ole Miss. Grant invoking it eight times during Reconstruction to crush the Ku Klux Klan. [4] In each case, the military was used to protect constitutional rights that state governments were actively destroying. That authority is essential and must be preserved.
But the same statute that enabled Eisenhower to protect nine Black students in Arkansas contains zero structural safeguards against a president who wants to use the military to suppress dissent, intimidate voters, or interfere with an election. The law that enabled Grant to dismantle the Klan could, by its plain text, be used to deploy combat troops in response to two people conspiring to commit a minor federal offense. The War Powers Resolution requires congressional authorization within 60 days for the use of force abroad. [12] The Insurrection Act imposes no equivalent check on the use of military force against Americans at home.
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 47 [8]
What Title III of the MAD Act Does
Title III replaces the existing Insurrection Act in its entirety rewriting 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255 as new §§ 251–261. [6] It preserves the President’s authority to respond to genuine insurrection. It removes the authority to act without checks.
The vague triggering language is replaced by two defined tracks with evidentiary requirements. Track 1 covers situations where unlawful obstruction or armed rebellion deprives a group of people of their constitutional rights: the Eisenhower-at-Little-Rock scenario. Track 2 covers public safety collapse caused by organized, armed violence with identifiable command structure: not individual crime, not protests, not crowd disorder. Evidence must include a law enforcement capacity assessment, not just a presidential declaration.
The law names what can never be a trigger: peaceful protest or assembly. A state’s adoption of policies that differ from federal preferences. Elevated crime rates manageable by civilian law enforcement. Immigration enforcement operations. Political opposition to executive branch policies. Each exclusion corresponds to a specific scenario in which the current Act has been threatened. [6]
The Structural Heart: The Independent AG Certification
Before any deployment, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General must jointly certify to Congress the factual basis for invocation, the geographic scope, the forces involved, and every civilian law enforcement alternative that was considered. But the critical innovation is what comes next: the Attorney General must simultaneously transmit a separate, independent certification (not co-signed by the President, not reviewed or edited by the White House) stating under penalty of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 that the invocation is not connected to any personal legal or political interest of the President, any pending criminal proceeding or impeachment inquiry, or any electoral process. [6, 14]
Only Senate-confirmed officials may sign. An Acting AG installed through the Vacancies Act cannot certify. If the President becomes the target of a criminal proceeding during an active deployment, the AG must issue an updated certification or the invocation goes to Congress for mandatory review. This is the structural check that does not currently exist: a Senate-confirmed official who must personally stake their liberty (under federal criminal law) on the proposition that the President is not using the military for self-interested purposes.
Seven Days
Under the current law, a deployment can last forever. Under the MAD Act, any invocation expires after seven days unless Congress votes to extend it. [6] The clock runs regardless of whether Congress is in session. Congress can terminate any invocation at any time by simple majority—not subject to presidential veto, not subject to filibuster. A President who has deployed troops against the American people does not get to veto the order to stand down.
“The legislature of the United States will be obliged, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 26 [9]
Hamilton was arguing that military authority requires regular, affirmative legislative approval. The MAD Act applies that principle with the urgency the domestic context demands: not every two years, but every seven days.
The Bright Lines
Title III draws absolute prohibitions that no invocation can override. The “or by any other means” language is repealed: no private citizens, paramilitary groups, or military contractors may be deputized. The chapter cannot be used to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, or displace civilian authority. Deployed forces may not conduct surveillance on lawful political activity, make arrests unrelated to the specific insurrection, or operate outside the proclaimed geographic area. [6]
And there is a line around democracy itself. Forces may not restrict, delay, or interfere with any session of Congress, any state legislature, any electoral process at any level, or the counting or certification of any election results for any reason. The sole exception is physically repelling an active armed attack on the Capitol Building, strictly limited to repelling the attack. That line is absolute, and it exists because the founders understood that the moment a military force can interfere with a legislature or an election, self-government is over.
The Declaration of Independence listed among its grievances that the Crown had “rendered the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” and had protected armed agents “by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit.” [7] Title III creates real judicial review (a statutory cause of action that does not currently exist) with 10-day rulings and the power to order immediate withdrawal. And it creates real criminal liability: any civilian who knowingly directs a non-compliant deployment can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 242. [14]
The Question
“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” — Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 [10]
The Insurrection Act has not been formally invoked since 1992. [3] The longest gap in the statute’s history. But the threat of invocation has become a recurring feature of political life: floated against protests, against cities, against political opponents. [5] The law as written offers no structural resistance to any of those uses. The only barrier has been individual restraint, and the founders were explicit that individual restraint is not a constitutional safeguard.
Title III of the MAD Act does not weaken the presidency. It does not prevent the Commander in Chief from responding to genuine armed insurrection. What it does is ensure that when the most powerful military on earth is turned inward, there is a certification under penalty of criminal law, a clock that forces Congress to vote, a courthouse door that is open, and a bright line around elections and legislatures that no invocation can cross.
A Note on the Men We're Quoting
This article cites Madison, Hamilton, Mason, and Jefferson. It is worth pausing on who those men were. Thomas Jefferson, whose words close this article, enslaved hundreds of people over his lifetime and is credibly accused of raping Sally Hemings, an enslaved woman who could not have meaningfully consented to a man who enslaved her. James Madison enslaved over 100 people. George Mason, who wrote that "all men are by nature equally free," enslaved roughly 300.
Not all the founders share that history. Alexander Hamilton, quoted above on legislative oversight of military power, was an immigrant who grew up around the slave trade in the Caribbean and became a member of the New York Manumission Society. Benjamin Franklin, late in life, became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and petitioned Congress to end slavery. Their records are not identical, and it is important to say so.
But the question this article asks is not whether the founders were good men. It is whether their structural insights about government power were correct. On that question, the evidence is overwhelming: when armed agents of the state operate without checks, accountability, or oversight, abuse follows — and it falls hardest on the most vulnerable. The founders who enslaved people proved that principle with their own lives, even as they articulated it with their pens. We do not honor them by pretending they were better than they were. We honor the best of what they built by extending its protections to everyone — which is exactly what the MAD Act does.
Acknowledgment
Title III of the MAD Act builds on a legislative foundation laid by others. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Insurrection Act of 2024 (S. 4699) and the Insurrection Act of 2025 (S. 2070, 119th Congress). [15, 16] The core structural framework of Title III—replacing the existing statute in its entirety, the 7-day automatic lapse, congressional approval for extension, a statutory cause of action for judicial review, and the prohibition on suspending habeas corpus—originates in Senator Blumenthal’s legislation. Title III extends that framework with the independent AG certification, anti-filibuster procedures, presidential succession provisions, and the absolute prohibition on electoral interference. But the foundation is his.
Original cosponsors of S. 2070 include Senators Padilla, Schiff, Booker, Wyden, Gillibrand, Duckworth, Van Hollen, Markey, Hirono, Warren, Slotkin, Baldwin, Sanders, Coons, Welch, Merkley, Kim, Hickenlooper, and Warner. Additional cosponsors: Senators Kelly, Reed, Gallego, Shaheen, and Durbin. [20] Representative Chris Deluzio (D-PA-17) introduced the House companion, H.R. 4076. [17]
The Brennan Center for Justice submitted reform proposals to the January 6th House Select Committee in 2022. [18] The American Law Institute published bipartisan “Principles for Insurrection Act Reform” in April 2024. [19]
Sources and Citations
A note to readers: We are committed to providing the public with accurate, factually grounded information. If you identify any errors of fact, gaps in sourcing, or flaws in the reasoning presented in this article, we would be grateful if you would bring them to our attention so they can be corrected. Mistakes are possible in any work of this kind, and we take corrections seriously.
10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255. The Insurrection Act, codified in Title 10, Chapter 13 of the United States Code.
Brennan Center for Justice, “The Insurrection Act, Explained.” brennancenter.org
Brennan Center for Justice, “Guide to Invocations of the Insurrection Act.” brennancenter.org
Britannica, “Insurrection Act.” Historical record of invocations. britannica.com
PolitiFact, October 22, 2025: fact-check on Insurrection Act invocations and the claim of “unquestioned power.” politifact.com
MAD Act, Title III — “Insurrection Act Reform” (Sections 3001–3006). Full legislative text replacing 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255 with new §§ 251–261.
Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776). Grievances regarding standing armies and military supremacy over civil power.
James Madison, Federalist No. 47 (January 30, 1788). Verified at Avalon Project, Yale Law School. avalon.law.yale.edu
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 26 (December 22, 1787). Verified at Avalon Project, Yale Law School. avalon.law.yale.edu
Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. Verified at Founders Online, National Archives. founders.archives.gov
George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section 13, June 12, 1776. Verified at National Archives. archives.gov
War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548.
Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385. Amended by MAD Act Sec. 3004.
18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law); 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy); 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements).
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), S. 2070, 119th Congress, “Insurrection Act of 2025,” introduced June 12, 2025. congress.gov
S. 4699, 118th Congress, “Insurrection Act of 2024,” introduced by Sen. Blumenthal.
Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA-17), H.R. 4076, 119th Congress, “Insurrection Act of 2025” (House companion bill).
Brennan Center for Justice, Insurrection Act reform proposals submitted to the January 6th House Select Committee, 2022.
American Law Institute, “Principles for Insurrection Act Reform,” April 2024.
Sen. Blumenthal press release, June 2025. blumenthal.senate.gov
