An increasing number of President Trump’s supporters are advocating for him to disregard federal court mandates, potentially leading the nation into a direct conflict between the Executive and Judicial branches—precisely the scenario the .

Following a weekend decision by an Oregon federal judge stating that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by deploying National Guard troops to Portland, conservative political podcast host Matt Walsh called on his 3.9 million followers, asserting that “Trump needs to openly defy these judges” and that it’s “time for a showdown.” Billionaire Elon Musk responded to Walsh, stating: “It is high time that corrupt judges who violate the Constitution be fired!”

Later that day at the White House, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, labeled the judge’s decision to temporarily halt the Portland troop deployment as “legal insurrection.” U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut had determined that the demonstrations near the Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices in Portland did not warrant Trump’s military intervention. Miller contended that this ruling—along with other court directives that have impeded some of Trump’s initiatives over the preceding nine months—constitutes “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States.”

He asserted that district courts must “perceive themselves as operating within the confines of the laws and Constitution, and not assume powers exclusively reserved for the President.”

The term “insurrection” bears significant legal implications. The Insurrection Act of 1807 grants the President exceptional authority during an armed uprising. On Monday, a reporter questioned President Donald Trump in the Oval Office about whether he would invoke this Act. He responded that he would “if people were being killed” and if he felt courts, governors, or city mayors were impeding his actions. “Well, I’d do it if it was necessary. So far, it hasn’t been necessary,” Trump stated. “If people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I would do that,” Trump reiterated.

This escalating aggressive language targeting judges coincides with Trump’s instructions to his Justice Department to pursue legal action against his political adversaries, a move that has raised concerns among legal scholars.

On Wednesday, , who had investigated Trump regarding potential collusion with Russia, faced arraignment after Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey and other individuals who had investigated him.

Kristy Parker, special counsel at Protect Democracy and a former federal prosecutor, views these combined actions as a danger to American democracy.

“These constitute profound attacks on our rule of law, our governmental system, and the foundational structure of our government,” she informed TIME. “Our founders deliberately established three coequal branches of government specifically to prevent the President from becoming a tyrannical power.”

“The appeal for court orders and the administration’s actual defiance of them should alarm anyone who believes we should uphold the democracy our founders envisioned,” she further stated.

Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, explains that courts are tasked with determining if the President operates within constitutional and legal boundaries. “When assessing the President’s evaluation of on-the-ground conditions, courts generally show Presidents deference.” However, recent judicial rulings have found that the Trump administration’s justifications for deploying military personnel in Portland were “untethered from the facts on the ground,” according to Goitein.

Nonetheless, numerous supporters of the president maintain that he continues to operate within the scope of his legitimate authority.

John Malcolm, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative policy think tank responsible for Project 2025, suggests that a president disregarding a judge’s rulings would be “a risky thing to do, to say the least,” but he contends that such authority could exist “under extreme circumstances.”

Malcolm recalls former President Andrew Jackson’s refusal to uphold the Supreme Court’s Worcester v. Georgia ruling, which recognized the Cherokee Nation as a distinct political entity possessing its own rights and sovereignty, and resulted in the notorious “”.

“I believe President Trump has, up to this point, refrained from defying any court order, despite my view that many Democrat-appointed judges in blue states are deliberately attempting to obstruct his agenda,” he stated.

Within the immigration courts, which fall under the Executive Branch, the Trump Administration has adopted a more assertive stance. Over individuals have faced dismissal, involuntary reassignment, or opted for early retirement since the commencement of Trump’s second term.

“This President unquestionably utilizes the adaptability and discretionary powers granted to him,” Malcolm commented. “And I am hesitant to critique it if I believe he is operating within the bounds of his authority.”