Stop Trump’s Abuse of Power Act
Summary
The "Stop Trump's Abuse of Power Act" (H.R. 4264) aims to amend Title 10 of the United States Code, specifically sections 252 and 253, to limit the President's authority to deploy the Armed Forces domestically. The bill restricts the President's ability to use active-duty military personnel to respond to peaceful protests or demonstrations within a state or territory without the explicit request of the governor or chief executive of that state or territory.
This proposed legislation seeks to ensure that the military is not used to suppress peaceful assembly and dissent, reinforcing the principle of civilian control over the military. It modifies existing laws regarding the President's power to enforce federal authority and address interference with state and federal law.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Ms. Stevens, Mr. Carbajal, and Mr. Krishnamoorthi and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the bill would change the circumstances under which the President can deploy active-duty military for domestic law enforcement. The primary change is that the President would need a governor's request to deploy troops to address peaceful protests or demonstrations.
This could lead to fewer instances of federal military intervention in state-level affairs related to protests. It could also shift more responsibility to state and local law enforcement for managing such events.
Potential Benefits
- Protection of Peaceful Assembly: Reinforces the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble by limiting federal military intervention in protests.
- States' Rights: Empowers state governors by requiring their consent for federal military deployment in response to protests.
- Reduced Risk of Escalation: Decreases the potential for escalating conflicts between protesters and federal troops.
- Clarification of Presidential Authority: Provides clearer boundaries for the President's power to use the military domestically.
- Reinforces Civilian Control: Affirms civilian oversight of the military by limiting its role in domestic law enforcement.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential Delay in Response to Emergencies: Requiring a governor's request could delay federal military assistance in urgent situations where state authorities are overwhelmed.
- Hindrance to Federal Law Enforcement: Limits the President's ability to enforce federal laws if state authorities are unwilling or unable to address interference with those laws during protests.
- Possible Inconsistent Application: The need for a governor's request could lead to inconsistent application of federal law across different states.
- Increased Burden on State Resources: States may need to allocate more resources to manage protests and demonstrations without federal military support.
- Potential for Political Gridlock: Disagreements between the federal government and state governments could prevent necessary military assistance during critical events.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill aligns with the First Amendment's protection of the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. By limiting the President's ability to deploy the military against peaceful protests, it reinforces this constitutional right. The bill also touches on the balance of power between the federal government and state governments, a key aspect of federalism embedded in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, and this bill arguably strengthens state authority in managing domestic affairs. However, Article IV, Section 4, which guarantees the federal government shall protect every state against domestic violence, could be interpreted as providing a basis for presidential intervention, potentially creating tension with the bill's restrictions.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).