BLUMENTHAL JOINS SENATE DEMOCRATS TO PUSH BACK AGAINST TRUMP’S WRONGFUL, DANGEROUS DEPLOYMENTS OF TROOPS IN AMERICAN CITIES

[WASHINGTON, DC] – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) joined U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) on the Senate Floor to push back against President Trump’s wrongful and dangerous deployment of National Guard troops into American cities. The Senators warned that Trump’s politically driven actions trample state authority, ignore local leaders and weaponize our military against the very citizens its servicemembers swore an oath to protect.

“I stand here with my colleagues from Oregon, Illinois, and California whose constituents are living through this threat. It is now a reality, as much as a threat. I warned this body two years ago of this reality: unchecked power deployed unconsciously. And I should say that this kind of use of the military poses a tremendous threat to all of our civil liberties, even if we are not from California or Oregon or Illinois. It could happen in Connecticut,” Blumenthal said on the Senate floor.

In his remarks, Blumenthal highlighted legislation he is leading to restrict the President’s authority under the 217-year-old Insurrection Act, “The problems the [Insurrection] Act was designed to address are no longer commensurate with the dangers it now is creating…The President’s action over the last eight months demonstrates the need for these urgent reforms and increase Congressional oversight. Earlier this week, the President suggested he would enact the Insurrection Act to deploy more guardsman in major cities if the courts or governors delayed deployments.”

“My bill would protect not only American citizens from executive overreach but also the military from becoming pawns in any kind of political game. This legislation would create checks and balances, limit the scope of these deployments, authorize extensions by a joint resolution and create a judicial review process. These commonsense solutions would amend an outdated law that no longer fully serves the interest of this nation,” Blumenthal continued.

Blumenthal first introduced legislation to restrict the President’s authority under the Insurrection Act in 2020. The new Insurrection Act of 2025 would reform centuries-old legislation that gives the President broad and vague authority to deploy troops – either with or without the request of a state – to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The current law has been used sparingly by other presidents given the potential for the military to escalate tensions, rather than restore order, during a domestic crisis. More information on the Insurrection Act of 2025 is available here.

The full transcript of Blumenthal’s remarks on the Senate Floor is available below. The video is available here.

Mr. President, last year I was privileged to lead a bipartisan delegation of twenty of our colleagues to Normandy, celebrating the 80^th anniversary of the historic landing there, where American boys – and they were boys, 17 and 18 years old – stormed the beaches of France to liberate Europe. It was one of the most moving experiences of my lifetime, and I believe the Presiding Officer was there.

We were part of a bipartisan group, evenly divided, ten Republicans and ten Democrats. And what we heard and saw, I think, will stay with us for a lifetime, particularly from the veterans who remembered that day. They're in their 100-year-old ages of their lives. After speaking to them, we heard speeches from the Presidents of the United States, of France, leaders of Europe, but what stuck with me was what I heard from the veterans.

One of them said to me: this was our moment. This was our moment. We walked through the American cemetery, those silent rows of white grave markers, down to the beach, Omaha Beach, where I thought of those 18 and 20-year-old boys jumping out of landing craft with 80 pounds on their backs, into eight feet of water, under a hail of machine gun bullets and mortar fire, onto a beach three football fields long. Three football field long, without any cover. There are no trees, there are no dunes. And the hail of gunfire and mortars kept coming.

I think 90 percent died in the first wave, maybe 80 percent in the second. They kept going. A third and a fourth wave, storming the clips, taking back Europe, and saving democracy. And I kept thinking as I walked on that bleak beach, windswept, waves crashing, “that was our moment.” I kept thinking about the veteran who said that to me. It was an American moment, and our reason for going to Normandy was to honor those young men who saved democracy.

Mr. President, this is our moment. This is our moment to save democracy. I know it sounds like an exaggeration to say that our democracy is now under attack, but it is, from adversaries and enemies abroad: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. But we also have to make sure that we safeguard our liberties at home against attack and efforts to undermine them, even if some may feel they are well meaning.

And one of them, and only one of them, is the illegal and unconstitutional use of our military and the deployment of National Guard into American cities to do what local law enforcement, our police and others, state and local law enforcement, are supposed to do under our scheme of government where our military protects us from adversaries abroad, and the FBI, the DEA, state and local police make sure we are safe at home.

For 250 years, the military has defended our great republic without fail. It is the bulwark of our freedom for this nation. It is the hope for millions and millions around the world who yearn for freedom. It is non-political. It remains one of the few institutions the American people still revere. Americans have faith in the military because it is non-political.

So, what the President is risking by using our military – whether the Marines or active duty or National Guard – it’s not only a threat of individual liberties of people in those cities but also the credibility and reverence that the American people have for this venerable institution that has protected us from aggression and threats abroad.

By pursuing political goals with our young men and women in uniform, he risks recruitment for the military. He risks the respect that our constituents have that enables us to work for full funding and support for our military, embodied by the National Defense Authorization Act that we will consider hopefully just within a few hours. When the Armed Services Committee considers the National Defense Authorization Act, the votes at the end are almost always near unanimous. In fact, in my 15 years on that Committee, they have been near unanimous, every year, and we vote on it in a timely way to make sure that we show support for this necessary institution.

The risk to our military, as well as to our individual rights and liberties, are what prompted me to introduce the Insurrection Act of 2024. We all know that the Insurrection Act has a long history. It was written over 200 years ago in the aftermath of the Whiskey Rebellion and the Battle of Wabash. In those instances, probably not at the tip of the tongue of most of us, the forces of law enforcement were limited and poorly equipped. They were barely existent, local police, virtually no state had its own police. So there was a need for potential use of the military in those instances.

But even then, use of the military was limited under the original Insurrection Act, because Americans feared a permanent standing police doing local law enforcement. I drafted this legislation in an effort to amend that outdated law, which gives the president enormous, unchecked powers to deploy the military to quell domestic rebellion. Now, the lack of defining terms, the absence of real accountability, the vagueness of that statute are the reason why we now need reform.

Limits were imposed but the limits are filled with loopholes, practical gaps that fail to check the President’s power. The problems the Act was designed to address are no longer commensurate with the dangers it now is creating. I reintroduced this legislation for this Congress, and I thank my colleagues for supporting this effort.

The President’s action over the last eight months demonstrates the need for these urgent reforms and increase Congressional oversight. Earlier this week, the President suggested he would enact the Insurrection Act to deploy more guardsman in major cities if the courts or governors delayed deployments.

So, I stand here with my colleagues from Oregon, Illinois, and California whose constituents are living through this threat. It is now a reality, as much as a threat. I warned this body two years ago of this reality: unchecked power deployed unconsciously. And I should say that this kind of use of the military poses a tremendous threat to all of our civil liberties, even if we are not from California or Oregon or Illinois. It could happen in Connecticut. And the lack of a factual basis for is well documented in the District Court decision issued by a federal judge days ago citing the absence of any real need on the ground in real time, with evidence before her court, statements from ICE officers, that there was no need. And her findings which are airtight, persuasive are the reasons why I am here to say the National Guard should not be deployed there. Reliance should be placed on local and state police and there should be challenges to any deployment in Illinois or California to test whether it is actually needed to preserve order.

The National Guard has always been a symbol of hope for communities. We’ve seen it in Connecticut when disaster has struck, when there are weather catastrophes, the National Guard is in our neighborhoods to help remove downed trees or provide access to homes and to preserve order when local police couldn’t do it. But now they are being used to turn the military into the President’s personal army. The Founders warned of threats to liberty that a standing army would create. It was one of their biggest fears because they had lived through a time when the British had a standing army in their neighborhoods, in fact, went into their homes and without permission used their homes and shelters and food.

Through the years, through great force of effort at times, the military has remained politically independent. It is under the Commander-and-Chief, but it is non-political. My bill would protect not only American citizens from executive overreach but also the military from becoming pawns in any kind of political game. This legislation would create checks and balances, limit the scope of these deployments, authorize extensions by a joint resolution and create a judicial review process. These commonsense solutions would amend an outdated law that no longer fully serves the interest of this nation.

For the sake of our military and the constituents we represent, I hope my colleagues will support this effort because this use of the military is part of a larger effort to shift the focus of our national defense to policing the homeland rather than protecting us from threats abroad. We need to provide strong, vibrant, vigorous law enforcement and support local and state or federal police who fund it. And that is why I’ve been so upset and angry that this Administration has cut funding, hundreds of millions of dollars that aid and train local police, that increase their numbers and provide aid for victims. The programs have been decimated in the Department of Justice and Homeland Security. We need to put our money where our mouth is. This Administration needs to support our state and local police, not just in rhetoric, but in reality. And the reality is that there must be reform in the Insurrection Act. Not just to protect our citizens and our liberties at this moment, this is our moment, but also the well-being and strength of the American military.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

-30-