A new report alleging that Vice President JD Vance pushed Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act during protests in Minneapolis has sparked a fierce reaction from Minnesota locals, many of whom say the idea never matched what was actually happening on the ground.
The claims come from Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, a forthcoming book by New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. According to excerpts published by The Independent, Vance reportedly urged Trump to consider invoking the Insurrection Act following demonstrations in Minneapolis earlier this year.
The report claims senior White House officials debated the move but ultimately backed away amid concerns over legal challenges and the public fallout that could come from deploying military forces onto American streets.
While the allegations have generated headlines nationwide, the response in Minnesota has been particularly intense.
Over on Reddit’s r/minnesota community, which has more than 300,000 members, many commenters rejected the suggestion that Minneapolis was experiencing anything resembling an insurrection.
One of the most upvoted comments simply asked: “What insurrection? Neighbors standing up for each other?”
The remark quickly became a rallying point in the discussion, with hundreds of Minnesota locals agreeing that the label did not reflect their experience of the protests. Others argued that invoking the Insurrection Act would have dramatically escalated tensions.
“Insurrection suggests a minority of militants,” one Minnesota resident wrote. “The militants were from the government and it was regular folks…”
Fears of Escalation Resurface
Several commenters said the book’s allegations confirmed fears they had during the demonstrations.
“The whole administration was floating the idea for about 6 weeks,” one user claimed, while another described the report as “100% foreshadowing” of future attempts to expand federal authority during periods of unrest.
Some residents argued that local leaders were right to avoid actions that could have given the White House justification for a more aggressive response.
“This is why Walz and Frey had to be measured in their response,” one commenter wrote. “They were playing right into Trump’s hands.”
Others framed the situation as a narrow escape from a much larger confrontation.
“Glad he didn’t. MN didn’t want to start the civil war but it sure felt close,” another user posted.
The discussion also reflected concerns about federal power, with many Minnesota locals expressing unease that senior officials had reportedly considered invoking a law traditionally reserved for extraordinary domestic crises.
For many participants, the biggest takeaway was actually validation.
“We knew they wanted this,” one commenter wrote.
Whether the allegations in Haberman and Swan’s book lead to further political fallout remains to be seen. But if the online reaction is any indication, many Minnesotans remain deeply unsettled by the possibility that troops could have been deployed in response to protests they viewed as anything but an insurrection.
