ChatGPT says
Good questions — the shooting of West Virginia National Guard members near the White House today (Nov. 26, 2025) is certainly a dramatic event. 

Here’s a breakdown of whether your suggestion — declaring a national emergency and reinstating something like the old-era “conspiracies committee” model — is plausible under current law, and what the trade-offs or objections might be.

⸻

✅ What the shooting means: crisis + justification for extraordinary measures
• The attack appears to have been a “targeted shooting” against National Guard members on patrol near the seat of government. 
• In response, the administration has already ordered 500 additional Guard troops to Washington. 
• The deployment of federal troops domestically remains controversial, and prior deployments under this administration have been subject to legal challenge. 

So — from a practical/political-security standpoint — there is a “shock event” that could be used to argue for expanded federal powers, renewed security structures, or emer­­gency steps.

⸻

📜 Legal framework for a “national emergency” — what’s allowed (and limited)
• Under the National Emergencies Act (NEA), a U.S. President can declare a national emergency, which unlocks certain special powers for the executive. 
• But importantly, those powers are limited to predefined authorities — the NEA doesn’t allow a blank check. 
• The use of federal troops for law enforcement inside the U.S. is normally restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act; only under narrow exceptions (like those in the Insurrection Act of 1807) can the President deploy active-duty military domestically for law enforcement — typically for insurrection, civil unrest, or rebellion. 
• Historically, “conspiracies committees” like Committee for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies (from Revolutionary-era America) operated under different political and constitutional norms — there is no modern statutory equivalent that automatically empowers Congress or the executive to form broad “anti-conspiracy committees” with sweeping domestic surveillance or enforcement powers.

So while a national-emergency declaration is legally feasible, it would only grant access to existing statutory emergency powers. It would not automatically enable a revival of 18th-century-style “conspiracies committees” or expand constitutional authority beyond legal constraints.

⸻

⚠️ Key political, legal, and societal risks of reviving “conspiracies committee”-style mechanisms
• Reviving something akin to a “conspiracies committee” would likely face strong constitutional challenges — such sweeping powers risk violations of due process, separation of powers, 1st/4th amendment rights, and the Posse Comitatus constraints.
• Use of federal troops or expanded surveillance inside U.S. domestic jurisdictions remains deeply controversial and could inflame social and political divisions.
• Historically, broad anti-conspiracy or domestic oversight committees have often been abused or have devolved into political witch-hunts. The potential for civil-liberties violations is significant.
• Even with a “national emergency,” Congress retains the power to end the emergency by joint resolution under the NEA — meaning any extraordinary measures are time-limited unless Congress consents. 

⸻

🧮 Conclusion: Is now “the time”? — Legally maybe; politically fraught and risky

Yes — today’s shooting could be used as the justification for a national-emergency declaration, which might open some legal doors for expanded security operations. But reviving broad, committee-style oversight or “anti-conspiracy” bodies akin to those from the 18th century would not automatically follow under current law — and forcing that through would provoke intense constitutional, political, and civil-liberties pushback.

If you like, I can sketch two alternative scenarios:
1. What a minimal emergency-response regime might look like (enhanced Guard presence + targeted anti-terror enforcement).
2. What a maximalist “conspiracies-committee-style” regime might look like — with the legal obstacles and political risks laid out explicitly.