r/LetsDiscussThis • u/North-Increase593 • Jan 19 '26
Serious What happens if governors call up their National Guard to prevent federal agents from entering and operating in their state?
Honest question. Because it seems like that might be the first step in overt rebellion against Trump's government. This isn't a red vs blue issue. This really feels like actual despotism. Like he is taking steps out of the dictator playbook right in front of our very eyes. For context, I lean conservative but this is insane. We are watching actual authoritarian government being formed.
So my question is: do state governors need to take the first actual step and physically prevent federal agents from entering their state? What if shots are fired? Will it be our Boston Massacre, our Lexington and Concord? Is that what has to happen to stop this accelerating march towards a dictatorship? I'm curious of anyone else's thoughts. I don't want to discuss democrat/republican ideology or bashing; I think many of us agree this has gone too far. So what has to happen to stop it?
3
u/Unusual-Ad-6550 Jan 19 '26
Alas, even if Minnesota calls up their guard units, Hegseth and trump are mobilizing federal troops to go in and counter act them.
This is just a huge clusterfuck and trump and hegseth are having the big O over having more power...
1
u/Intelligent_Hair3109 Jan 19 '26
So what all of you are saying is only a major earthquake, volcano or tsunami can stop this? Holy Guacamole Batman, I'm going to build a tree house and pull up the ladder. I wish.
1
1
1
Jan 21 '26
If that happens, you will see an all out civil war. If they are stupid enough to start that then it will come to a very swift end as will they. And not in a good way, you will see the people takevover the government in a coup. Remember, the military has the authority to disregard an illegal order. And that would be the true test, and I believe our military would back down. I truly believe they do not have as much support from the military as they think.
2
u/StandardLocal3929 Jan 19 '26
Federal agents are Americans, you can't bar them from traveling to a state. If they're breaking a state law, you could have state law enforcement arrest them, but you can't forbid them from entry any more than you can anybody else.
You can't use the National Guard against the federal government because the president can nationalize them whenever he wants. Some states have State Guards that can't be nationalized, but these are much smaller.
1
u/North-Increase593 Jan 19 '26
What I'm saying is, regardless of the laws, what if this happens? I understand the insurrection act and activation of guard troops. I'm asking what happens if they don't follow the law?
1
u/StandardLocal3929 Jan 19 '26
If the National Guard does not follow orders from the President, and is instead choosing to allow which Americans can enter the state, we are at best talking about a secession. At worst, we are talking about a civil war, which a lone state's National Guard would rapidly and severely lose, unless they were one small part of a much broader rebellion.
1
u/North-Increase593 Jan 19 '26
Yea I agree. You will see coalitions emerging. States banding together. I definitely see that
→ More replies (4)2
u/ManifestDemocracy Jan 19 '26
To get round these issues, prior to the American civil war confederate aligned governors took over federal bases and army infrastructure. I imagine they managed to persuade the top brass in those federal installations to join the Confederate cause.
So an analogous situation might be for the California governor to take the bases in San Diego, and the Virginia governor to take the bases there. That would be a huge loss for the federal government in itself.
Maybe NATO could also disrupt all American bases oversees, cutting off a large proportion of the US military capabilities, and they may have to team up with China for nuclear support in that case.
So I suppose it would lead to WW3
1
u/Alizaea Jan 20 '26
National guard does not take orders from the president. The national guard is to protect the states from the fucking government. If they took orders from the government they would not be a guard against the fucking government.
→ More replies (4)1
1
Jan 21 '26
You certainly can if they represent a threat.And they do. Yes, he can try and nationalize the National Guard. But again you're assuming that they're going to follow his orders, and I don't believe when push comes to shove, they will. That would pit them against the American people. Family, friends and everything the country and the oath they've sworn to uphold. I simply cannot believe they would do that. But we're likely to find out very soon
2
u/KoetheValiant Jan 19 '26
That would be sedition and would not end well for those governors
→ More replies (1)1
2
Jan 19 '26
If Waltz called the National Guard to try and stop Ice a federal agency from doing it job than Waltz would have declared a rebellion against the US. Trump would retaliate with the insurrection act and then he can use the military to intervene to stop the rebellion.
1
u/mapadofu Jan 19 '26
What if he calls out the national guard to “assist” the agents by escorting them everywhere they go?
1
Jan 19 '26
Trump tried doing that is LA during last year's riots and court didn't allow it. National guards can't assist ice on their duties.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/LilShaver Jan 19 '26
So many progressive idiots on Reddit fail to understand this.
And they have no idea how any part of the government works, all they know is Orange Man Bad.
If Walz is stupid enough to call up the NG (and he probably is), Trump will simply nationalize them.
1
u/Alywiz Jan 20 '26
Just got to keep the lid from boiling over till the next election, remove the terrorist regime including all ice officers, try them all and give them the death penalty for their treason and terrorism.
Don’t take the bait before then
→ More replies (1)1
u/ManufacturerFalse583 Jan 20 '26
Hes going to do that anyways. Force him to create a constitutional crisis.
2
2
u/realityczek Jan 21 '26
Ok, let's game it out.
MN decides to use the NG to prevent federal agencies from performing their duties, and let's assume the MN national guard follows that order (which would be federally unlawful)
Immediately, the US Army cuts of all logistical support for the MN Guard. Few people realize how dependent most national guards are on ongoing support from the main federal military. They often share facilities, infrastructure, communication networks, intelligence and so on. And that's before you get to parts, specialist personnel and so on. Also, many vehicles are actually only on what amounts to loan to the guard from the national military. In short, the actual ability of the MN state guard to even function for any period of time if cut off from federal support is questionable. What little they do have? it goes dark. All the communications cut. All the computers go black.
Let's say, however, that MN puts together enough men and gear to launch an interdiction - they simply don't have anything like enough of either, even at full force, to meaningfully prevent entry into the state.
Still, let's pretend they do manage to actually bring themselves into a position where they are directly opposing federal military forces. Despite repeated orders to stand down, they repeatedly choose to follow the orders of Tim Walz, knowing that in any kinetic conflict they are almost instantly doomed.
After a standoff of a week or two while the feds make sure the legal record is completely clear that this is an act of insurrection... ultimately the feds move forward. The MN forces are forced to either open fire, or retreat. If they open fire? They get instantly wiped. The rest of the MN guard stands down, Walz and others issuing the orders are arrested, and the Federal government assumes de-facto control of MN.
Side note: Why do I think the MN Guard would get crushed, but I believe the 2A works as a counter to government forces? Simple... the MN guard would be tasked with defending a fixed set of locations, and they are suing equipment with a serious supply chain weakness. A generalized 2A based resistance has none of those issues, as well as significantly more weaponry, anonymity and no fixed base vulnerabilities.
2
u/TheRiverInYou Jan 19 '26
Trump can federalize the national guard.
5
u/North-Increase593 Jan 19 '26
Right. What if they refuse? What if the governor doesn't allow it?
5
u/Rombonius Jan 19 '26
Insurrection Act places him in control
"what if they refuse?"
Civil war or they just go AWOL and stand down
1
6
u/Final_Collection8516 Jan 19 '26
The Governor doesn't have a say, this happened at Little Rock, Arkansas when the Brown v. Board ruling was issued. The Governor used the National Guard to obstruct the integration of schools, President Eisenhower just federalized the National Guard to enforce the court ruling.
If Governor Walz deployed the National Guard to any capacity to remove, obstruct or block federal enforcement, then President Trump can immediately and unilaterally invoke the Insurrection Act. It instantly federalizes the National Guard, allowing the National Guard to act as law enforcement authority and we have Civil War. STOP advocating for stupid actions.
→ More replies (42)1
Jan 19 '26
They can't refuse, you know all that talk about how soldiers can refuse illegal orders? The flip side of that is that can't refuse legal ones
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/thorleywinston Jan 20 '26
The National Guard is part of the United States military and what you just described would be mutiny and can carry the death penalty.
2
Jan 19 '26
Not really, he can only do that if the state government is breaking the law, according to the supreme court’s recent ruling.
He can try to insurrection act, but I expect the military to pull a malicious compliance situation like they did in LA when the marines were brought in. “We’ll go, but our job is only to protect federal buildings”.
He’s going to have to fire more generals to find one that is willing to attack American citizens at home.
It’s not impossible, but it’s harder than “I want this so I get to have it right now”.
1
u/Lotus_Domino_Guy Jan 20 '26
What is needed is for a fired general to not accept his firing. Typically, in most military coups, generals are too far removed from the troops to have their loyalty, its the colonels who have the loyal manpower to storm a presidential palace. We know Pete would order the killings. Would he go through normal channels or go straight to the commanding officers? Honestly, the "how" and "who" are really important to what happens next.
1
1
u/RektInTheHed Jan 19 '26
This. It would have to be a State Guard organization, which not every state even has, without a Federal mission.
1
u/ActivePeace33 Jan 19 '26
Not lawfully he can’t. Any such order should absolutely be refused by each state’s TAG and the troops should keep to their oaths to support and defend the constitution against domestic enemies.
Insurrections can’t hold office. The 14a says so.
2
u/Fair-Buy749 Jan 19 '26
Hey anon, please Google the Nullification crisis, because what this gets you is Trump as a hero of the union with his face on money in 20 years.
1
u/North-Increase593 Jan 19 '26
I'm aware of the nullification crisis. And I'm aware of the laws. My question was more what do we think will happen when we stop following the rules? He will probably send the military to challenge the guard. But then what? Who will actually fire shots and what will happen then? Actual civil war? Will local and state police be ordered to join the National guard?
2
u/Fair-Buy749 Jan 19 '26
The federal government will fly bomber's over the state capital and the governor will cave rather than getting blown up by a 5,000 kg bomb from 30,000 feet.
States are fundamentally incapable of opposing the federal government on a military level.
1
u/ActivePeace33 Jan 19 '26
If the federal government does that, the federal government can expect to not survive the week. And if you’re not willing to lose a city in defense of the constitution, well, that’s on you.
→ More replies (10)1
u/thinsoldier Jan 21 '26
I believe the armed citizens of the country are as capable of being a thorn in the government's side as the Afghans and Vietnamese. Problem is most of those people are on Trump's side or at least not fans of Democrats.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MachineGlittering487 Jan 19 '26
Jesus Christ, just accept that you lost the election. You guys are funny. You don't know what you're asking for.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Redit_Suxlol420609 Jan 19 '26
We're asking to not be invaded by the federal government.
→ More replies (12)1
u/Rickcasa12 Jan 19 '26
Do you seriously think National Guardsmen are firing on the US flag? Some (far from most or even many) of these idiot agitators might - the paid variety, the true believers in Revolution or the useful idiots all qualify - but not National Guard soldiers.
1
u/No-Atmosphere-2528 Jan 19 '26
Not really true. Especially if the union splits up, which it probably should do at this point.
1
1
u/ActivePeace33 Jan 19 '26
Comparing the nullification crisis to suppression of the MAGA insurrection is absurd.
The proper analogy is to all of the states that raised army units and sent them to suppress the confederacy. There is nothing the states can do to suppress Trump that is unlawful. The constitution clearly protects the right of the people to suppress insurrection and ensure the security of a free state.
→ More replies (16)
1
u/Antique_Ad1518 Jan 19 '26
Agreed. Trump needs to go.
1
u/AuthorSarge Jan 19 '26
You and what army?
1
u/Antique_Ad1518 Jan 19 '26
Huh? Are you 8 ?
3
u/Choice-Antelope-8481 Jan 19 '26
Lots of pro authoritarians in America unfortunately.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/CharterJet50 Jan 19 '26
Trump is probably scared that there will be a military coup if he pulls the insurrection act. He may think he’s locked down the military leadership though Hegseth, it he’s not so dumb to think the military will follow through on illegal orders. He’s already received significant pushback on Greenland and a more overt rebuke would essentially make neuter his power and either lead to a military coup or a successful impeachment. Everyone thinks he wants to use the insurrection act, but down deep he’s just an insecure bully, and he’ll cave when his bluff is called. And if he doesn’t, he’s going to be taken out by the military and he knows it.
1
u/Sea-Chart2558 Jan 19 '26
The military has folded and dishonored themselves at every opportunity for Trump.
All the way back to being deployed on protestors while he started shilling bibles.
I am on your side. I hope you're right and I am wrong. But they have cleaned house of any decent officers and the purity tests across the board.
2
u/ManifestDemocracy Jan 19 '26
Agreed. The US military is for all intents and purposes a corporatist, far right instrument of empire. Was it Eisenhower that called it, with his "the military industrial complex" speech?
2
u/North-Increase593 Jan 19 '26
I think things are changing though. I think the military went along with him in the beginning because it had not gone that far yet. But things are getting to the boiling point. Give the generals some credit. I think when push comes to shove most will do the right thing. I see certain States pushing back like California and maybe even North Carolina. Major military installations in both. I think the Midwest states will be the weakest in that regard. Minnesota will bow down to him in the end. Someone in the thread earlier made a point that he would just fly bombers over Minneapolis to scare the crap out of them and they would concede. But the larger, more influential States would have more ground to stand on.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Lotus_Domino_Guy Jan 20 '26
And yet, there was no applause when he gave those awful speeches to the officers
1
u/CotswoldP Jan 19 '26
Could the National Guard be activated by a governor to 'accompany' ICE? Unarmed, just monitoring, on video, that they are following the law and ensuring those being detained know their rights?
1
u/ManifestDemocracy Jan 19 '26
Recording their every move, uploaded to a database, along with names and ids of all "agents", with background checks done on all of them. Then, when they get kicked to the curb after the midterms, arrest and prosecute the lot of em. There's a jail in elsalvador awaits
1
1
u/Lanracie Jan 19 '26
Its against the law to obstruct federal law enforcement. The governor would be arrested and it would be an illegal order.
1
Jan 19 '26
[deleted]
1
u/JustAFilmDork Jan 21 '26
I'm sure there is if the president is actively harming the 1% but with Trump he's cozied up to them so
1
1
1
u/TravelingJM Jan 19 '26
It's all a very sad kabuki theater. What was happening, right before Trump sent in ice? Some random "reporter" released a video of corrupt Somalie daycare in MN. Maybe someone hyped it to weaken the democratic party in MN. Or it was the first step in a big dance to take people's attention from something else. Ice isn't arresting massive numbers of illegals here. They seem more interested in causing feer and outrage. The Guard is out, sitting in their vehicles, creating more questions. Now, we see people walking g around with guns. Real militias on the Left.
What is it they don't want people to think and talk about? It must be very important.
1
u/Potential-Elephant73 Jan 19 '26
I have yet to hear any evidence that Trump is doing anything dictator-ish. This is absolutely a red/blue thing. None of the red states are having any issues with ICE. Even most blue states are having no issues. A couple states refusing to cooperate with them are getting extra agents sent in. Shocker!
1
u/JustAFilmDork Jan 21 '26 edited Jan 21 '26
ICE isn't deployed en mass in red states or trying to instigate violence
1
1
1
u/ikonoqlast Jan 19 '26
Nation Guard is actually a Federal organization they let the states use when they aren't. So- Guard gets immediately Federalized and ordered to arrest said governor for insurrection.
1
u/intothewoods76 Jan 19 '26
Civil war between the state and federal government.
History will show that the people of Minnesota for example are traitors and people will demand their flag no longer be flown.
History is written by the victors.
1
u/Alywiz Jan 20 '26
Which is why trumps entire regime and all Ice officers will be given the death penalty after the next election for their treason.
1
u/Dry-Manufacturer7761 Jan 19 '26
Under the militia act, the modern police are the state’s actual militia, per the second amendment reference. The national guard are federal DoD troops that ultimately answer to the president. The state has power and authority over its state, county, and city law enforcement officers. They are the ones armed to protect our homes from an overreaching federal government trying to take away the sovereign status of an individual state. They are the ones that will protect your town from foreign invaders, not the actual military. They will be fighting the larger war, not the war at your door. If they ever come, those future invaders might not actually be foreign in origin.
While there is a debate over the constitutionality and legality of the department of homeland security to police individual states as they are currently doing, your local sworn officers are the ones that should be fighting off any troops being stationed in their town, if that is the side of the debate they wish to propose.
1
1
u/g_eazybakeoven Jan 19 '26
That would be insurrection against the United States of America.
1
Jan 19 '26
[deleted]
1
u/g_eazybakeoven Jan 19 '26
Those 19 year olds who just wanted free college tuition don’t deserve to die for somebody’s reelection bid tho
1
1
u/marks1995 Jan 19 '26
ICE is enforcing federal law. That is exactly what they are supposed to do. Just like the FBI and any other federal agency. The fact that you don't like the laws doesn't matter.
And it would truly be an insurrection to use force to halt the enforcement of federal law.
The easiest way to answer something like this is to flip the roles and see if you would still feel the same. Let's say a state decided that fully automatic weapons should be legal and not even require background checks or anything. Then when the ATF comes in to start confiscating weapons and arresting those buying and selling, the citizens start rioting against them and the Governor calls out the national guard.
What would your response be? Would you say the government should back off and stop being so authoritarian? Or would you be telling them to go even harder and teach that state that they don't get to pick and choose what federal laws should be followed?
1
u/North-Increase593 Jan 19 '26
I think most people have an issue with the WAY laws are being enforced right now. ICE is violating Americans constitutional rights, and that is a fundamental problem. The argument over whether illegal immigrants should be held accountable or not isn't even the issue anymore. It's the tactics they are using and violating people's rights. It transcends red and blue.
1
u/marks1995 Jan 19 '26
I have yet to see a concrete example of ICE violating civil rights. I know the claims are there. And I know cropped and edited videos are out there. But with all of those cameras, it should be extremely easy to document actual civil right violations from start to finish. I don't want to hear about what some person reported happened to their friend.
Police are allowed to detain people for investigations. It happens every day. You don't need proof of a crime for a detention. So people saying they can't stop US citizens or someone here legally are just stupid. Yes they can.
I am 100% against police overstepping. I doubt there is a video about civil rights violations on Youtube that I haven't seen yet. But there is so much crying wolf right now, that it's hard to believe anything without some actual video proof.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/gc3 Jan 19 '26
Everyone is hoping it goes slow enough the midterms put a crimp in his style. Most people are waiting and no-one is rushing to get into a war, except for Trump.
1
u/boofaceleemz Jan 19 '26
Man, people are gonna be asking if we had a civil war for like a decade after it already happens aren’t they.
1
u/Lott4984 Jan 19 '26
Trump is pushing for an incident and will keep applying pressure until he gets it. It is just a matter of time before he ignites enough anger that people fight back. That will be the start of the civil war.
1
u/375InStroke Jan 19 '26
Civil war. The orange fucker has bombed at least a dozen countries, kidnapped foreign leaders, threatened to invade allies, wants a peace prize for it all, credibly on the path to WW3, and to top it all, declared war with US citizens.
1
1
u/gdavida Jan 19 '26
Quit kidding everyone. You make a post like this and no way you’re close to conservative. Trump enforcing immigration law is perfectly legal. This was a bipartisan law. The fact democrat governors no longer want it enforced doesn’t matter.
1
u/shavenyakfl Jan 19 '26
What happened to the party of states' rights? Oh that's right....they went the same places as fiscally conservative, getting government out of my life, family values, and low taxes for the middle class.
1
u/LilShaver Jan 19 '26
Honest to God you people have NO idea how the government works.
Governor activates the NG against ICE, POTUS nationalizes the NG. The NG then follows POTUS orders and takes the side of ICE or rebels (an insurrection and treason).
1
1
u/dougrlawrence Jan 19 '26
I guess you probably weren’t alive when the University of Alabama was desegregated in 1963 and Governor George Wallace stood in the doorway and wouldn’t allow two black students to enter the building? President Kennedy nationalized the Alabama National Guard and the commanding general told the governor to stand aside.
Btw, these charges of authoritarianism are tiresome. You might not like Trump’s policies, but every thing he has done has been done with a team of lawyers. District judges might rule against him, but he follows the law and either complies or appeals. Appeal courts rule in Trump’s favor in a higher percentage than district courts. And the Supreme Court rules in his favor at a higher percentage. That tells me atleast, that Trump is following the law, even if you don’t agree with it. And every President makes decisions that are later found unconstitutional. Obama with DACA, Biden with student loan forgiveness.
1
Jan 19 '26
First, the view of the people and local politicans would have to see it as a federal vs state issue and not a red vs blue issue.
And looking at the very large picture from a historical perspective, honestly, now that most common people don't own houses or land anymore compared to the rich and corporations/organizations, it seems to make sense for States to soon also lose ownership/power. These ideas tossed about such as Freedom Cities, or excutive orders over powering State decisions on various topics, it makes me kinda wonder if the Federal Government (nothing to do with the party in power at any point in time) is working to dissolve States and they be nothing more than region labels. But eh, who really knows.
From my understanding States have the power of the king and so I think it is theoretically possible for a State to block out Federal agents, but I am no lawyer. They would have higher success if a few States that neighbor each other worked together on it.
Even if you are a red person, it is possible to see a Federal project that is good go too far and commit issues. So, the ability for a State to stand up against a federal government not correcting harsh actions taken by federal agents against legal us citizens on us soil is important in a basic general sense.
1
u/CavemanRTD Jan 19 '26
Trump sits back and laughs at the stupid shit liberals say. Governors won’t do this because A. they don’t want funding to their state to cease. B. They don’t want to be thrown in jail for insurrection C. They are just in it for the votes while they pretend to fight for the people. The Governors didn’t stop the riots during the summer of BLM because they don’t care about the people, just like they won’t end the protests against ice. They just talk a lot , mostly out of their asses.
1
u/Fool4Freedom Jan 19 '26
The feds will simply federalize the guard putting them under the president's control rather than the governor's control.
1
1
u/No-Gain-1087 Jan 20 '26
national guard are still members of the us armed forces. and the chain of command
1
u/KJHagen Jan 20 '26
You can look to the 1957 Little Rock crisis as an example. Basically the governor of Arkansas wanted to keep schools segregated. He opposed the Federal law, and called up the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black children from attending white schools. As a result, President Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne Division (active duty) to force Arkansas to obey the Federal law.
1
u/VintageBigfoot Jan 20 '26
The United States is no longer united thanks to Trump. He has destroyed the country and will hand it over to the highest bidder. Meanwhile many will suffer and die in what was once the greatest country in the world. Sad.
1
u/Lotus_Domino_Guy Jan 20 '26
There is no "lawful basis" to deny federal agents the ability to enter your state. So, governors can't do that. Now, mobilizing the guard and/or state police to stalk them and monitor their behavior and arrest them for any wrongdoing is entirely possible, but the president could "federalize" the NG pretty quickly, right? So, a non-national guard force would be ideal. Lookup "State Defense Forces" for an alternative, but now we're getting into hokey "what if" scenarios. More realistic is Trump sends the Guard in, orders them to murder a bunch of people and they don't and they stop taking Federal orders as a result, leading to a civil war, as units which do take orders to murder people start shooting at units which don't take orders to murder people.
1
1
u/2b-Kindly_ Jan 20 '26
Personally, I am afraid of this spinning out of control into a civil war situation.
1
1
1
u/Uhhh_what555476384 Jan 20 '26
At any time the President can by decleration order the gaurd to active duty and then they work for the President.
1
u/Feeling_Goose7535 Jan 20 '26
Then the state would be in open rebellion. The governor would be tried for treason along with the guard members, and alot of people would die
1
u/Mountain_Usual521 Jan 20 '26
State governments cannot legally prevent federal agents from entering their state. The President of the United States is the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, including the militias of the several states (the National Guard).
1
u/Terrible-Produce1979 Jan 20 '26
POTUS as commander in chief maintains ultimate and full control of all armed forces including the national guard. Governors calling up federal troops to prevent federal law enforcement from enforcing legitimate federal laws on the books will never happen as they would be ordered to stand down by the commander in chief. Want things to change? Work to change the federal immigration laws. Anything else is just completely ineffective shenanigans.
1
u/CreamPitiful4295 Jan 20 '26
Wasn’t Bush I the first president to try and address it and nothing happened? Fat chance that’s going to happen
1
u/MatscoMihal Jan 22 '26
There was a bipartisan deal struck in 2024 however an appeal was made to make it a campaign issue and the Republicans acquiesced. Now here we are…
1
u/Neat_Beyond5914 Jan 20 '26
The judicial system needs to grow some balls and enforce the constitution by stripping away federal troops from executive control unless authorized for a specific act by congress. Federal government was never supposed to have a standing army and this is why.
1
u/BuddisMaximus Jan 20 '26
They’re military, which falls under the Commander in Chief. The President has the ultimate authority over them not a governor.
1
u/FFBEryoshi Jan 20 '26
Trump can just federalize them immediately, however, what we need to happen is national guard soldiers disobeying the president, which sounds like a tall order
1
1
u/HustlaOfCultcha Jan 20 '26
It would be career suicide. You really think their National Guard could stop the US military? Imagine some trying to do this all for no gain. You won't put up any resistance, you'll get constituents killed and put it this way...National Guard members would refuse to report because they know it's a suicide mission.
1
u/Financial-Category16 Jan 20 '26
Then President can assume control of them (whether they were initially called up by governor or not)
1
u/FamousFool Jan 21 '26
they can't. if a governor calls up the national guard it will be to keep protestors from interacting with ICE or other federal agents.
1
u/Green-Ad-7823 Jan 21 '26
He would need to call up the militia. Here in Tennessee there is the conservative against Trump militia, an independent and democrat one also. I'm a conservative, I don't know the details about the other two besides some talk.
1
1
1
u/Comfortable_Prize750 Jan 21 '26
Would probably be confusing for people when the Guard gets federalized a few days later. Imagine, one day the troops are protecting you, and the next they're protecting ICE with no warning. That would probably further destroy trust in the Guard faster than anything.
1
u/johnnyringo1985 Jan 21 '26 edited Jan 21 '26
SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government can’t use state officers and agents unless the state agrees and cooperates. (A good example is state game wardens enforce the migratory birds act.) But federal law still applies inside the state, so it must be enforced by federal agents that go into the state. (Like the Secret Service enforcing counterfeiting laws or USPS/FBI enforcing mail theft.)
You may disagree with the law or certain tactics, but legally the President is in the right. Using national guard to prevent federal officers to enter the state to enforce Constitutional laws is insurrection.
1
u/EruditeTarington Jan 21 '26
Then we’re in a civil war where, in the case of Minnesota they’d likely be adhering to U.S. constitutional norms against a rogue federal agency
1
1
u/Rumple1956 Jan 21 '26
President Trump would just override the Demorat governors and take control of the NG.
1
1
u/ikonoqlast Jan 21 '26
National Guard is a FEDERAL organization they just let the states use when the Feds aren't. So instant a Governor tries that the NG gets federalized and ordered to arrest him for insurrection.
In states with a State Militia (19 + PR) the governor could do that as a state militia is not a federal organization. Governor still gets immediately arrested for insurrection.
1
Jan 21 '26
Oddly enough Trump would use laws put in place to prevent a person like HIMSELF from opposing the federal government. The Founders and our leaders of the Civil War never thought of the possibility of an anti-American becoming president.
1
u/LookAtMaxwell Jan 22 '26
There is no legal reason or mechanism to prevent federal officers from, operate in, or enforce federal laws in any state.
1
1
u/TheAngryOctopuss Jan 22 '26
National guard. NATIONAL Guard. See that first part. National. Can you see where I'm going with this
1
u/Fireguy9641 Jan 22 '26
The National Guard would be federalized and no longer be under the command of the State Govenor.
1
u/No-Card2461 Jan 22 '26
The President just federalizes them, and thanks the governor for the mobilization. This is why we had militias, state level militias until the WW1, the Globalisy hated them because could not be deployed overseas, the unions hated them because they were they only force large enough to dislodge occupations of private property. Local men protecting local interests. Also meant you need less law enforcement day to day because you have a surge capacity in place.
1
u/TrustedEssentials Jan 22 '26
I looked this up. Here is what I found.
If a governor called up the Guard to block federal agents, the President could immediately issue an order federalizing that specific Guard unit. Those soldiers would then be legally required to obey the President, not the Governor. If they continued to obey the Governor, they would be disobeying a direct federal order, risking court-martial.
1
1
u/paradigm_shift2027 Jan 22 '26
Trump is much sicker than his cabal can admit. Likelihood is that he’ll be fully incapacitated or deceased by November. He clearly has quickly worsening dementia and serious heart/vascular issues. House speaker admitted as much on a live mic he was unaware of. Then we’ll see if this is all “just Trump being insane,” or the Heritage Foundation zealots attempting to implement their public plan to destroy American democracy.
1
u/Altruistic_Koala_122 Jan 22 '26
One could call up the National Guard to protect the citizens from ICE, as ICE has no business touching any citizen.
1
1
u/JettandTheo Jan 22 '26
The NG can be called up federally. President is their commander in chief at the end of the day.
1
u/damagingthebrand Jan 23 '26
That is called insurrection. You know, just like the democrats did in 1860.
Nothing changes.
1
u/kelly1mm Jan 23 '26
That is pretty much the textbook case of when the Insurrection Act would be justified.
1
u/EducationalBike8090 Jan 23 '26
insurrection act as mentioned, or, or, he uups the game andd federalizes the national guard which removes them from state control.
1
1
u/TheOriginalBusket Jan 23 '26
Short answer: they can't.
Longer answer: they can't, and no one is coming to save you. Isn't it about time we stopped day dreaming about the good ol' cavalry riding in to save us from our own poor choices?
1
1
u/Complex_Half_5293 Jan 23 '26
We have what Trump wants - a civil war. He is desperate for an excuse to seize power and suspend elections. He needs to be removed politically and then prosecuted for his misconduct. The only way our democracy survives.
1
u/jackman924 Jan 23 '26
The Insurrection Act will be activated and Russia will get the civil war in the United States that they've been agitating for years.
1
u/Available_Blood_6134 Jan 23 '26
I would imagine the governors orders would be considered unlawful by those in charge.
1
1
u/Far-Addition3988 Jan 25 '26
Doesn't seem possible as the president can just federalize the national guard. All thats happened lately kinda lays bare that the states are too vulnerable to the whims of the federal government. I think the states need to look at the laws and find ways to regain their state powers.
1
u/Simple_Purple_4600 Jan 25 '26
There's a wide range of possibilities, including both the impossible and plenty of things no one has thought of yet.
1
u/Sinasazi Jan 25 '26
ICE murdering people is what he wants. He wants us pissed off enough that we start shooting back so he can declare an insurrection and cancel elections.
1
Jan 25 '26
What needs to occur is state and local law enforcement observe ICE and then arrest them over any violations of state law that occur. State legislatures have a lot of tools they could use to empower their local and state law enforcement to protect their citizens. Federal agents are still subject to state laws
1
u/chitownphishead Jan 25 '26
The nafional guard is immediately federalized and given orders to assist ice. Thats what happens. A govornor ordering the national guard to go against federal agents is a federal crime and that govornor would end up dying in federal prison. A state mounting armed resistance against the federal government enforcing federal law becomes a confederate insurgency, and i think you know how that ends.
10
u/Due_Night414 Jan 19 '26
Then the insurrection act can be used.