Revising My Argument
About the martial law thing
Personal experience of martial law in Poland and the Midway Blitz of Chicago last fall motivated my recent article, “A State of War.” I saw significant connections between the two. Stan wojenny, declared in Poland on December 13, 1981, translates into English as “martial law,” but literally means “a state of war.” The chaos, uncertainty, and unease caused by ICE operations in Chicago felt reminiscent of those times in Warsaw.
Similar atmospherics hinted at common structural patterns. I examined tactical actions taken by the authorities to repress grassroots social opposition by force. The strategy followed by Jaruzelski to suppress the Solidarity movement in 1981 and by Trump (through his loyalists) to dominate (perceived) non-MAGA US cities were homologous. Despite similar authoritarian social-control patterns in Poland and the US, my article suggested that we’re not yet at the stage of martial law.
I thought, “We’re not there yet” because Trump hasn’t invoked the Insurrection Act; he just threatened it. And without a declaration to legalize federal occupation and suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, Minnesota’s elected officials would retain sovereignty and control the government in their state.
That was a logical conclusion—but it was wrong.
A State of War
On December 13, 1981, the Polish Communist Party ordered the military occupation of major Polish cities to suppress an incipient democratic, labor union movement. General Wojciech Jaruzelski, the First Secretary of the Polish United Workers Party, addressed the nation on television:
Invoking the Insurrection Act to overrule state government and justify a surge of federal troops would cross a red line, wouldn’t it? In December, political scientists put the US on the “democratic backsliding” side of the line; occupation of major US cities by armed agents of the state would be on the other side of the line—moving towards consolidating autocracy.
I didn’t think I was wearing rose-colored glasses when I wrote (just last week!):
In the US, martial law has been repeatedly threatened but not yet imposed. On January 20, 2026, President Trump said he would have no qualms about invoking the Insurrection Act to deter anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis. Many analysts believe that the surge of federal agents and their increasingly violent behavior is intended to foment social disorder, giving Trump a pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act. This would impose de facto martial law in Minnesota.
This implies that a pretextual event was needed before military (or paramilitary) personnel and materiel could be deployed in American streets. The assumption being that such a move would need a fig leaf of legitimacy.
I have reconsidered. It’s likely that Trump doesn’t really care about the Insurrection Act—his threats achieve the desired dramatic effect. Trump’s threatening statements drive the news cycle and keep the media's focus on him. Will he, or won’t he? The reality TV drama continues.1
Trump doesn’t care because he doesn’t have to. TFG has discovered he doesn’t need legal justification to do what he wants. State officials and others push back in the form of lawsuits; the courts take months, or maybe years, to rule on the lawfulness of his actions. If Trump’s DOJ loses in one court, it reindicts in a different jurisdiction and puts more time on the clock. Lose again? Appeal. The goal is not to win, it’s to run out the clock; so when a legal determination is finally made, it doesn’t matter. The lawyers run from court to court with their papers while the regime’s paramilitary goons effect change on the ground, in defiance of judicial orders and departmental regulations.
There’s no need to wait for any more shoes, flags, or dimes to drop. Trump is bent, without qualms or hesitation, on destroying the relationships and values we treasure. Liberal democracy is in the crosshairs. We’re already in a state of war.
At this point, as democratic forces strengthen, we can only slow him down and devise a plan. And in the process, consolidate our own real democratic alliances, create a roadmap for the future, suffer what we must, and realize that a more perfect union is possible. We want a more perfect union—that’s what we are working towards, and what we will achieve.
Remember when Trump tried to muscle Zelenskyy into announcing an investigation into Hunter Biden to help Trump in the 2020 election? He told Zelenskyy that he didn’t actually need to do an investigation—just announce one. That was the grounds for Trump’s first impeachment, in Season 1.
The complicity of the Supreme Partisan Hacks
The Rule of Law is crucial, the Rule of Law is dead. They can’t make a simple clear decision about taxing power and tariffs, but as you point out, a long stall by the Supremes is as good as a win. Lower courts are trying, but as long as the Orange Pedophile is protected by the Supreme Hacks, we are screwed.
I am old enough to remember when the Dean of a prominent law school in Chicago (no, not that one- the other one) declared that he longed for the day when they would no longer have to teach “Law & ___ (Society, Politics, Economics, etc.”) courses, but just “Pure Law”.
You can’t understand how the Pedophile, the Supremes, and Mitch McConnell have destroyed the Rule of Law without analyzing social, economic, and political power.