08/22/2025
Manufacturing Crisis: How Trump’s Emergency Playbook Echoes Colonial Control
Written By Zimran Truth aka Patrick Jamison
8/22/2025
"A nation that forgets its colonial past repeats its oppression—only with a new flag."
— Kwame Nkrumah
Throughout African and diaspora history, colonial powers mastered a strategy we now recognize in modern governance: manufacture unrest, frame a “state of emergency,” then centralize control through military force and executive decree. In 2020 and again during his 2025 presidency, Donald Trump leaned heavily on this tactic—drawing from a playbook rooted in imperial governance that has been used for centuries to suppress dissent, disenfranchise communities of color, and consolidate state power.
From the clearing of Lafayette Square to the deployment of Marines in Los Angeles, Trump’s escalating rhetoric and policy maneuvers mirror the same colonial patterns used in Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, and the Caribbean, where “public order” became a pretext for silencing the oppressed.
Step One: Create the Atmosphere of Crisis
Historical Parallel:
British colonial administrators in Kenya (1952–1960) deliberately stoked racial fears, labeling the Mau Mau liberation movement as “terrorist” to justify a brutal eight-year state of emergency. The rhetoric divided African communities, criminalized dissent, and allowed Britain to suspend civil rights under imperial decree.
Modern U.S. Echo:
On June 1, 2020, as nationwide protests erupted after the killing of George Floyd, Trump declared:
“If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”
— New York Times, June 1, 2020
This statement, combined with his infamous tweet—“When the looting starts, the shooting starts”—was widely flagged as escalatory rhetoric designed not to calm unrest but to provoke confrontation.
Step Two: Deploy Militarized Force Under “Legal” Cover
Statutory Weapons of Control
Insurrection Act of 1807 → Authorizes presidents to deploy federal troops domestically if local authorities “cannot” maintain order.
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 → Supposedly limits military involvement in civilian law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act is invoked.
40 U.S.C. § 1315 → Grants Homeland Security power to deploy federal forces to “protect federal property” — exploited in 2020 to send untrained DHS agents into Portland protests.
Title 10 vs. Title 32 → The dual National Guard framework. Under Title 32, Trump can federally fund troops while leaving them under state control, sidestepping Posse Comitatus entirely.
Historical Parallel:
During apartheid-era South Africa, the 1986 “State of Emergency” law enabled the government to send military forces into Black townships under claims of “protecting property,” leading to massacres in places like Sharpeville and Soweto.
Modern U.S. Echo:
In July 2020, Trump deployed DHS tactical units to Portland, Oregon. A DHS Inspector General report later confirmed:
“DHS was unprepared to effectively manage these operations … deployments correlated with increased protester confrontations and escalation.”
— DHS OIG, Review of DHS Deployment to Portland, 2021
Step Three: Stretch the Emergency Beyond Its Purpose
By January 20, 2025, Trump escalated his reliance on emergency powers, declaring a national emergency at the southern border and directing DHS and DoD to evaluate whether the Insurrection Act should be invoked.
Executive Proclamation 10886 gave agencies 90 days (deadline: April 20, 2025) to recommend using domestic military forces.
This follows his 2019 precedent when he used an “emergency” declaration to redirect billions to fund his border wall.
In June 2025, Trump bypassed California’s governor and deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines into Los Angeles during immigration protests—citing an obscure 1903 law authorizing military force where protests were “likely.”
“This is about law and order. If local leaders won’t act, we will.”
— Associated Press, June 20, 2025
By August 2025, Trump openly hinted at deploying regular military forces into New York, Chicago, and D.C. using Title 32 to sidestep legal restrictions.
Step Four: Linking Colonial Tactics to Modern Suppression
Colonial regimes used emergency laws to:
Disrupt Black liberation movements.
Frame self-defense as criminal violence.
Deploy militarized police as occupying forces in African and Caribbean cities.
Justify indefinite executive control.
Trump’s use of the Insurrection Act, emergency declarations, and federal troop deployments replicates this playbook almost step-for-step. The objective is control—not safety—and the casualties are the same: Black communities, immigrant families, Indigenous land defenders, and any grassroots movements demanding justice.
Pan-African Warning
Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) once warned:
“In America, Black people are the colonized community. The methods they use abroad, they refine here.”
Trump’s maneuvers show that in the U.S., colonial emergency tactics never ended—they were simply internalized. African and diaspora liberation movements must recognize this continuity, because what happens in D.C. echoes in Lagos, Kingston, Nairobi, and Port-au-Prince.
Here’s a concise, sourced case for the idea that Trump has used rhetoric and policy moves that escalate unrest while positioning himself to invoke extraordinary powers (Insurrection Act / “national emergency” framing). None of this proves intent beyond doubt, but it’s the strongest publicly documented evidence that supports your claim:
“Dominate the streets” + Insurrection Act threats (summer 2020)
On June 1–3, 2020, Trump publicly threatened to deploy the U.S. military against protesters if governors didn’t “dominate the streets,” explicitly invoking the Insurrection Act as a lever. Defense Secretary Mark Esper publicly opposed using it, underscoring that the White House was pressing that option.
The Washington Post
U.S. Department of Defense
Defense One
The same week, federal forces forcefully cleared Lafayette Square just before Trump’s Bible photo-op, amidst his “law and order” speech. While motives for the clearing were contested later, the event is a key instance of aggressive federal posture amid protests.
Wikipedia
Trump’s “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” tweet (flagged by Twitter for “glorifying violence”) is widely cited by scholars and media as escalation-prone rhetoric from the head of state.
CBS News
The Washington Post
Bloomberg.com
Federal deployments that intensified protests (Portland 2020)
DHS Inspector General: DHS had authority to surge officers to Portland but was unprepared (insufficient training/equipment/strategy). Poorly planned force deployments correlated with more violent confrontations—an escalation pattern local officials and researchers warned about.
Office of Inspector General
+1
ABC News
Local and national outlets documented that the arrival and tactics of federal agents inflamed rather than quelled protests, leading to more injuries and larger crowds—consistent with crowd-policing research on “escalation spirals.”
opb
PBS
Academic and policy analyses at the time argued the Portland surge was “exactly how not to police protests,” warning it would provoke further unrest.
ccj.asu.edu
Pattern of leaning on emergency powers
2019 border wall: Trump declared a national emergency to redirect funds—establishing a governing pattern of stretching emergency authorities to achieve political goals. (Different context, but shows reliance on emergency framing.)
Default
Northeastern University Law Review
2025: Reporting shows Trump increasingly treating emergencies as central to governing—critics say the underlying “emergencies” are manufactured or exaggerated.
The Washington Post
Current (2025) steps that fit the same playbook
D.C. “crime emergency”: Trump moved to assert federal control over D.C. policing, deployed National Guard troops, and framed the situation as akin to a national emergency—despite crime trending down, per critics and local officials.
AP News
He’s now hinting at deploying the “regular military” to other cities (NYC, Chicago) and has threatened a D.C. national emergency—raising fresh Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Act concerns.
Axios
National Guard posture in D.C. has been ratcheted up (authorization to carry fi****ms while patrolling), which experts warn can provoke confrontations and heighten tensions—again matching an escalation pattern.
AP News
Legal explainers underline what tools he’s eyeing (Insurrection Act, Guard authorities) and the limits/risks of using troops domestically.
Reuters
Why this supports your thesis
Across 2020 and 2025, you see: (a) aggressive, inflammatory rhetoric from the presidency; (b) deployments and policing tactics documented as unprepared/overbearing that intensified protest dynamics; and (c) a governing preference for emergency frameworks. Put together, the record supports the argument that Trump’s approach tends to stoke unrest while creating a pretext for invoking expanded executive powers—even if direct proof of preplanned intent to “instigate riots” is elusive in public sources.
Office of Inspector General
opb
The Washington Post
Timeline: Trump, Emergency Powers & Military Deployment
June 1, 2020
Event: Clearing of Lafayette Square during George Floyd protests.
Quote: Trump declared, “If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”
Vanity Fair
Context: Defense Secretary Mark Esper publicly opposed invoking the Insurrection Act—underscoring internal concerns about using the military for civil law enforcement.
TIME
2020 (Mid-Year)
Insurrection Act (1807): A seldom-used statute giving the President authority to deploy the military domestically—to suppress insurrections, enforce federal laws, or protect civil rights. Historically used sparingly (about 30 times in ~230 years; last invoked in 1992 during the L.A. riots).
Vanity Fair
Factually
Posse Comitatus Act (1878): Restricts the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement—except where explicitly authorized (e.g., via the Insurrection Act).
TIME
January 20, 2025
Action: Trump issues Executive Orders and Proclamation 10886, declaring a national emergency at the southern border and framing unauthorized migration as an “invasion.” The orders direct DHS and DoD to determine by April 20 whether the Insurrection Act should be invoked.
gtnm.org
MySA
April 19–20, 2025
Deadline: Trump’s team awaits the 90-day report from DoD and DHS on whether to invoke the Insurrection Act.
The Washington Post
Alert: Media flagged April 20 as a critical date for potential escalation.
MySA
June 2025
Military Deployment: Over 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines are sent to Los Angeles amid immigration protests—bypassing the California governor, invoking a 1903 law allowing intervention where protests are “likely to occur.”
The New Yorker
AP News
Quote: Earlier campaign rhetoric: Trump had said he would use the military for immigration enforcement if necessary.
AP News
August 2025
D.C. & Beyond: Trump hints at deploying “regular military” to cities like New York, Chicago, and extends federal control over D.C. policing—using a hybrid Title 32 approach (state control, federal funding) to bypass Posse Comitatus constraints.
Reuters
Legal Framework: Statutes & Authorities in Play
Statute Authority / Purpose
Insurrection Act (1807) Allows President to deploy federal troops domestically in cases of insurrection, rebellion, or to enforce federal law when local governments cannot maintain order.
Vanity Fair
ABC7 Los Angeles
Posse Comitatus Act (1878) Restricts use of federal troops in civilian law enforcement unless explicitly authorized (e.g., via Insurrection Act).
TIME
40 U.S.C. § 1315 Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (via FEMA, GSA, etc.) to protect and police federal property, including capabilities like arrest, regulation, and enforcement—even off-property via agreements.
Legal Information Institute
GovInfo
Title 10 vs. Title 32 (National Guard) Title 10: Guard deployed under federal active-duty orders—under Presidential control (Posse Comitatus applies).
Title 32: Guard under state control, federally funded—permitting broader law enforcement activity within the state.
Military.com
ucmj.us
Summary: Interpreting the Timeline
2020: Trump’s rhetoric escalates (e.g., Lafayette Square), hinting at deploying troops under the Insurrection Act. Top officials push back.
2025 Border: Trump builds legal scaffolding—declaring emergencies and prompting formal review of Insurrection Act invocation.
June 2025: Acts on military deployment—though not via the Insurrection Act, uses alternate statutory authority (1903 law).
The New Yorker
AP News
Post-June 2025: Moves toward broader domestic military posture using Title 32 to finesse around Posse Comitatus limits.
Bibliography
Primary Legal Sources
Insurrection Act of 1807 — 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255.
Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:10 section:251)
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 — 18 U.S.C. § 1385.
Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385
40 U.S.C. § 1315 — Law Enforcement Authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security for Protection of Federal Property.
Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315
Title 10 & Title 32, U.S. Code — Federal vs. State National Guard Authority.
Overview: https://ucmj.us/title-10-vs-title-32-orders-what-is-the-difference
News & Investigative Reporting
2020 Protests & Emergency Powers
Baker, Peter, et al. “Trump Threatens to Deploy Military as George Floyd Protests Continue.” The New York Times, June 1, 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-george-floyd-protests.html
Lamothe, Dan & Ryan, Missy. “Esper Breaks With Trump on Using Insurrection Act.” The Washington Post, June 3, 2020.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/esper-insurrection-trump
Harwood, John. “Trump Tweets ‘When the Looting Starts, the Shooting Starts.’” CNBC, May 29, 2020.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/29/trump-tweet-looting-shooting.html
Federal Deployment in Portland (2020)
DHS Office of Inspector General. “Review of DHS Deployment of Law Enforcement to Portland.” Department of Homeland Security, August 2021.
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2021-08/OIG-21-59-Aug21.pdf
Baker, Mike. “Federal Agents in Portland: What You Need to Know.” The New York Times, July 26, 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/us/portland-protests-federal-agents.html
Border Emergency & Military Planning (2025)
Shear, Michael. “Trump Declares National Emergency at the Border.” The Washington Post, Jan 20, 2025.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-border-emergency
“65 Days to Martial Law: Trump’s Insurrection Act Playbook.” Greater Texas News Monitor, Feb 10, 2025.
https://gtnm.org/65-days-to-martial-law-how-the-trump-administration-is-setting-the-stage-for-the-insurrection-act
“Martial Law Rumors Swirl as April 20 Deadline Approaches.” MySanAntonio, April 17, 2025.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/martial-law-insurrection-act-1807-20269407.php
Military Deployments & Title 32 Maneuvers (2025)
Mayer, Jane. “President Trump’s Military Games.” The New Yorker, June 23, 2025.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/23/president-trumps-military-games
“Trump Sends National Guard, Marines to Los Angeles Amid Immigration Protests.” Associated Press, June 20, 2025.
https://apnews.com/article/a2611009fd40d593f07c58255911513d
Wolfe, Jan. “Can Trump Send the National Guard to U.S. Cities?” Reuters, August 20, 2025.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-trump-send-national-guard-cities-around-us-2025-08-20
Analytical & Contextual Sources
Military.com. “Title 10 vs. Title 32 Mobilization Orders: What’s the Difference?”
https://www.military.com/benefits/reserve-and-guard-benefits/whats-difference-between-title-10-and-title-32-mobilization-orders.html
UCMJ.us. “Title 10 vs. Title 32 Orders: Understanding Federal vs. State Control.”
https://ucmj.us/title-10-vs-title-32-orders-what-is-the-difference
