The insurrection act dilemma: Political disorder, federal power, and the road to 2028

The United States may face a difficult test of political stability as the country approaches the 2028 presidential election: how should the federal government respond if mass protests escalate into sustained violence, local authorities struggle to maintain order, and political organizations turn the government’s response into a national controversy? Reports of planning within Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)-linked networks raise questions that deserve serious scrutiny. However, allegations of a coordinated strategy to provoke nationwide violence must be distinguished from verified facts. The central issue is not merely who benefits politically from unrest, but how democratic institutions can preserve public safety without undermining constitutional freedoms.

The controversy centers on allegations that activist networks could coordinate street demonstrations, legal assistance, and media messaging to provoke a forceful federal response. According to this account, the intended outcome would be to pressure President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, then portray the deployment of federal forces as proof of authoritarianism. The theory is politically plausible as a scenario, but the existence, scope, and operational intent of any such coordinated plan require independent verification. Democratic debate is better served by evidence than by treating allegations as established conclusions.

One concept cited in discussions of mass mobilization is the “3.5 percent rule,” associated with research by political scientist Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan. Their research examined historical campaigns of nonviolent resistance and found that none of the campaigns studied with active participation from at least 3.5 percent of the population had failed to achieve their objectives during the period examined. This finding is not a universal formula for political change, nor does it establish that mass participation necessarily leads to violence. Nevertheless, it helps explain why organized movements may view sustained public mobilization as a powerful political instrument.