#norms
2 entries with this tag
Asked Directly Whether He Would Rule Out Invoking the Insurrection Act — the Law Letting a President Deploy the Military Against Americans on U.S. Soil — or Declaring a National Emergency Around the November Midterms, Trump Said, "I Don't Rule Anything Out or In. I Could Use It. A Lot of People Think I Should Use It Sometimes" — as His Administration Surges Troops and Agents Into Democratic-Run Cities
In an interview with Time published October 1, 2026, with the midterm elections a month away, Trump was asked whether he would rule out invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring a national emergency around the vote. His answer was a refusal to foreclose it: "I don't rule anything out or in. I could use it. A lot of people think I should use it sometimes." Asked more broadly about the limits of his power, he said, "I'm not committing to anything," and, "We're going to see how it plays out in court." The Insurrection Act is the statute that allows a president to deploy the U.S. military to enforce the law domestically — against Americans, on American streets. For a president to decline to rule out using it, or an emergency declaration, specifically "around the midterms" is not a neutral statement of legal fact. It is a threat left deliberately on the table, and it lands in a context this archive has documented: an administration that has surged National Guard troops and federal agents into Democratic-run cities on crime and immigration pretexts, that has spent a year attacking mail voting and voter rolls, and whose critics — including some on the right — have warned of a design to shape or contest the election. Time also reported that White House advisers have already war-gamed how to respond if Democrats win the House or Senate. A president confident of a fair contest does not muse about soldiers around it. This one would not say he wouldn't.
Asked on Live Television Whether He Would Pledge That the Justice Department Would Be Independent of the White House, the Newly Confirmed Attorney General — Trump's Former Personal Lawyer — Said "No, I'm Not Going to Pledge That," Confirming Out Loud, Days After His 50-49 Confirmation, Exactly What His Critics Warned
Just over a week after the Senate confirmed him 50-49, Attorney General Todd Blanche — Trump's former personal criminal-defense lawyer — went on NBC's "Meet the Press" and was asked the simplest question about his new job: would he pledge that the Justice Department would be independent of the White House? His answer: "No, I'm not going to pledge that." He said he would take President Trump's views into account in directing federal law enforcement, while insisting he would act with integrity and "prosecute without fear or any sort of favor," and that Trump would never cross a "legal line." He also publicly backed U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro after Trump criticized her for dropping a prosecution, and defended the DOJ opinion extending executive privilege to Trump's private advisers. The post-Watergate norm — that the Justice Department does not take direction from the president on who to investigate and charge — is the single most important guardrail against a law-enforcement apparatus turned into a political weapon. Two Republican senators, Collins and Murkowski, voted against Blanche precisely because they feared he would erase it. Days later, on national television, he confirmed they were right: he would not even pledge the independence the office is supposed to embody. He is not hiding the answer. He is stating it.