The Case for Insurrection

Over the past six months, a wave of violent protests targeting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and federal facilities has swept across cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Chicago. These incidents, marked by coordinated attacks, property destruction, and assaults on law enforcement, have escalated beyond mere civil unrest. 

They meet the legal and historical definition of an insurrection—a deliberate, organized rebellion against the authority of the United States government. Labeling these acts as such is not only justified but necessary to address the threat they pose to national sovereignty and the rule of law.

The legal framework for defining insurrection is clear. Under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, an insurrection involves actions that obstruct the execution of federal law or challenge the government’s authority through force or violence. The Insurrection Act of 1807 further empowers the president to deploy military forces to suppress such rebellions when they hinder the enforcement of federal laws or deprive citizens of constitutional protections. 

The recent violence against ICE officers fits this mold: crowds of rioters, often numbering in the thousands, have surrounded federal buildings, attacked agents with rocks, fireworks, and Molotov cocktails, and sought to disrupt lawful immigration enforcement operations. In Los Angeles alone, over 1,000 rioters reportedly assaulted a federal facility on June 6, 2025, slashing tires, defacing property, and trapping agents inside, actions that directly undermine the government’s ability to execute its immigration policies.

These are not spontaneous outbursts of frustration but orchestrated efforts to paralyze federal authority. Reports indicate that protesters, some carrying foreign flags, have chanted slogans like “ICE out of L.A.” while blockading highways and setting autonomous vehicles ablaze. Such tactics mirror historical insurrections, like the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. 

In that insurrection, armed citizens violently resisted federal tax enforcement. Then there was the Shays’ Rebellion of 1786, which targeted courthouses to halt debt collection. While those rebellions were quelled with military force, the current violence has been met with hesitation, partly due to political divisions that embolden rioters. Vice President JD Vance aptly noted on June 8, 2025, that “insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers,” highlighting the symbolic and practical challenge to U.S. sovereignty.

Critics argue that these protests are merely exercises of free speech or justified responses to aggressive immigration policies. They point to the peaceful elements of some demonstrations, where marchers chanted for immigrant rights or held signs condemning ICE. However, the presence of peaceful protesters does not negate the violent core of these events. In Los Angeles, authorities reported 197 arrests in a single night for curfew violations, assault, and vandalism, with businesses looted and self-driving cars torched. 

In Austin, four officers were injured by rock-throwing protesters, and in San Francisco, 150 arrests followed violent clashes. These acts of aggression are not incidental but central to the movement’s strategy: to intimidate and obstruct federal agents through force. The Department of Homeland Security’s June 19, 2025, statement about Portland rioters using lasers to blind officers and storming an ICE office underscores this pattern of calculated hostility.

The scale and coordination of these attacks further support the insurrection label. Protests have spread to dozens of cities, from Seattle to Washington, D.C., with organizers planning “No Kings” events to coincide with federal actions, as reported by PBS News on June 11, 2025. 

Social media posts, like those from Stephen Miller on July 7, 2025, describe these as “coordinated attacks” designed to block deportations, a claim echoed by ICE’s assertion that rioters aim to “stop the execution of federal immigration laws.” This level of organization, coupled with the targeting of federal personnel and property, distinguishes these events from localized riots, which typically lack such a focused anti-government agenda.

Historical context reinforces this classification. The January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, widely labeled an insurrection, involved a mob storming a federal building to disrupt a constitutional process. While the ideological motivations differ, the parallels are striking: both involve violent attempts to impede federal authority, with rioters breaching secure facilities and assaulting law enforcement. 

If January 6 warranted the term “insurrection,” so do these sustained, multi-city attacks on ICE operations. The Trump administration’s decision to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, as reported by ABC News on June 8, 2025, reflects the gravity of the situation, akin to President Eisenhower’s use of troops to enforce desegregation in 1957 against resistant state authorities.

Opponents of the insurrection label, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, argue that federal overreach—such as deploying troops without state consent—escalates tensions and infringes on local autonomy. Newsom’s June 9, 2025, statement called the National Guard deployment “purposefully inflammatory,” suggesting it provokes rather than pacifies. Yet this ignores the reality that state and local leaders, by refusing to curb violence or even condemning ICE operations, have effectively abetted the chaos. 

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’s claim that ICE raids “sow terror” sidesteps the fact that her city’s police took hours to respond to a June 6 attack, leaving federal agents outnumbered and vulnerable. The mayor is notoriously ignorant of the Supremacy Clause that gives her zero authority over federal officers.

Labeling these acts as insurrection is not about stifling dissent but about recognizing a direct assault on the government’s ability to enforce its laws. Immigration policy is a federal prerogative, and while debate over its merits is vital, resorting to violence to obstruct it crosses a dangerous line. 

The president must act decisively—through prosecutions, troop deployments, or, if necessary, the Insurrection Act—to restore order and deter future rebellions. Failure to do so risks normalizing such violence, eroding the rule of law, and inviting further challenges to national authority. The stakes are clear: what began as protests have become a coordinated campaign to undermine the United States’ sovereignty. It is time to call it what it is—an insurrection.