By Civitas
April 20 marks a deadline that could change the course of American democracy.
On Jan. 20, 2025—Inauguration Day—the newly installed administration issued an executive order declaring a national emergency at the southern border. That order directed the Department of Homeland Security to produce a joint report with the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, evaluating whether the Insurrection Act should be invoked to allow domestic military deployment. That report is due April 20—tomorrow.
Let that sink in.
Credit: Unsplash / Evgeny Opanasenko
We are one signature away from sending active-duty U.S. troops into American communities to enforce policy—not just in response to rebellion or catastrophe, but as part of everyday government strategy. That’s not just a slippery slope. It’s a full descent into militarized civil governance.
We are one signature away from sending active-duty U.S. troops into American communities to enforce policy … as part of everyday government strategy. That’s not just a slippery slope. It’s a full descent into militarized civil governance.”
Civitas
And if history is any guide, Black and Brown communities will be the first to feel the weight of that force.
A Brief History: The people and the bayonet
America has long walked a tightrope between military power and democratic governance. The founders feared the very idea of a standing army. It was only supposed to defend the country from external threats—not to police American citizens.
But Black Americans know how quickly that ideal can be ignored.
From the use of the National Guard to suppress civil rights protests in the 1960s, to the militarized police response in Ferguson and Baltimore just a decade ago, Black and Brown people have lived at the intersection of domestic policy and military might. The difference now is that the executive branch isn’t talking about militarizing the police—it’s considering unleashing the actual military.
What is the Insurrection Act and why should we be concerned?
The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to deploy federal troops within the United States under specific, extreme circumstances—like a rebellion, an invasion or when local authorities request assistance. It has been used only sparingly in modern history: to enforce school desegregation in the South, to quell the L.A. riots, and during national disasters.
But what’s happening now is different.
Rather than waiting for a breakdown in local governance, the current administration is proactively exploring how to use the military as a tool of enforcement—particularly around immigration policy, border control, and potentially even political dissent. That’s a legal and moral line this country has rarely crossed—and never under circumstances so politically charged.
A constitutional crisis in the making
The U.S. military is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which makes clear that service members are only obligated to follow lawful orders. That means they cannot be compelled to participate in actions that violate the Constitution, including unlawful detentions, targeting civilians or using military force against U.S. citizens without due process.
But the problem isn’t just about the military following orders. It’s about how the law itself is being reshaped to make those orders appear legal.
The Posse Comitatus Act, a post-Reconstruction law that restricts the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, is also under threat. And plans like Project 2025, a far-right policy blueprint endorsed by members of the administration, openly advocate expanding presidential power over the military—including for use inside the country.
This would give the president near-unchecked authority to deploy troops without needing approval from Congress or the courts. It turns a tool of last resort into a first-strike weapon—one that could be aimed at immigrants, protestors, journalists, and political opponents.
“It turns a tool of last resort into a first-strike weapon—one that could be aimed at immigrants, protestors, journalists, and political opponents.”
Civitas
Why it matters—especially for us
Black and Brown Americans have always had to fight to belong fully to this nation. We have defended it in war, transformed it through protest, and built it in spite of systems designed to exclude us.
But when the military is used to control the people, rather than protect their rights, it is our communities—our bodies—that are often first in line.
We know what happens when the state equates protest with insurrection. We’ve seen what militarized policing looks like. And we understand that once the government begins defining citizenship by ideology or political loyalty, Black and Brown people, immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ+ folks, and anyone considered “other” is at risk.
What now?
We are at a crossroads.
By April 20, we will know whether the administration plans to go down the path of deploying the military to enforce civilian policy. But even before that decision, the message has been sent: military power is now on the table in domestic politics.
That is not how a democracy functions.
We need elected officials, legal scholars, veterans, clergy and everyday citizens to stand up and say: “No.” We will not allow this country to become a place where force overrides freedom.
Because if we lose the line between civilian and military power, we lose the republic.
Drawing inspiration from the original authors of the Federalist papers’ use of “Publius” (referring to Publius Valerius Publicola, a founder of the Roman Republic), we use “Civitas” as our pseudonym. “Civitas” is Latin for “citizenship” or “community of citizens,” emphasizing both the rights and responsibilities of citizens in maintaining a constitutional republic. This pseudonym reflects our focus on civic engagement and the collective effort required to preserve democratic institutions in the face of current challenges.
Read more commentary by Civitas here.