I think if Trump's use of martial law is less dramatic than a takeover of the government, then it will work, easily. The close to half of Congress on board with Jan 6 is cool with basically anything at this point. I expect at some point Trump will want to do something, gets blocked, and calls for the military to 'just do it anyways' and gets away with it
But that's because it's what your fee-fees want, not because it's what the actual threats are. The United States doesn't have a federal provision for "martial law." states can impose martial law. The Feds can suspend habeas corpus. Could the supreme court back up Trump's notion that he can "impose martial law?" Sure they can. At which point you get to find out which states think states' rights matter more. The supreme court is aware of this - in many, many ways they rule by the consent of the governed. And they probably don't want to deal with roughly 50 governors going "wait that's my job." There's a pretty big air gap between "things the libs are afraid of" and "things Trump can do effortlessly." We've never had to go "I wonder what happens if a president declares martial law" before, granted, and I don't think it's great either. But the Senate already played "you are not the boss of me" with Gaetz and Hoggseth. You think they're going to go 'well okay I guess we're powerless pawns of an incompetent dictator now?' Why do you think that?
I'm expecting, if it happens, it will be used to send the military to hassle people in states that are doing things Trump doesn't like. I do not think that the supreme court cares in the slightest about state's rights, and I'm not very hopeful that some governors will be meaningfully able to do anything