The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The Guard was meant to defend against centralized tyranny, not become the fist of it. To my daughter, and every citizen-soldier wearing the uniform: You didn't swear an oath to a president. You didn’t sign up to be a pawn. You swore an oath to the Constitution. And part of honoring that oath means recognizing when the chain of command demands compliance at the expense of liberty. If the day comes when you’re asked to point a weapon at your neighbors instead of defending their rights, you better know which side of history you're on. Now let’s be clear about ICE. This isn’t about immigration policy. I support secure borders. I believe ICE has a legitimate, constitutional role in enforcing federal immigration law. Article I, Section 8 makes that plain. Federal immigration enforcement is valid. ICE has the legal right to operate in every state, including so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. States don’t get to nullify federal law—and they shouldn’t. But there’s a line, and the federal government keeps crossing it. Needing more agents is one thing. Using military force—particularly National Guard troops federalized over the objections of the state—is another. If ICE faces danger? Send ICE backup. Deploy HSI, CBP, or BORTAC. That’s what they’re trained for. Or work with the state to request Guard support voluntarily. But turning state-controlled militias into federal enforcers without consent? That’s not enforcement. That’s federal militarization. This isn’t about left or right. It’s about power and who it belongs to. When the federal government can deploy soldiers from your hometown into your city to impose federal policy against the will of your state government, you no longer live in a constitutional republic. You live under occupation. The National Guard was never supposed to be the tip of the spear for tyranny. So yes, ICE has the authority to do its job—but the National Guard should not be federalized to help them do it, especially not against the wishes of the states that those troops are sworn to protect. That’s not immigration enforcement. That’s the slow death of federalism dressed in the uniform of law and order. The Constitution matters. State sovereignty matters. And any soldier who still believes in liberty should know the difference between duty and obedience. edits added: If there’s a real insurrection, that’s exactly when the National Guard should not be under federal control. Because if Washington is the one declaring who the “insurrectionists” are, then it’s also deciding who the enemy is—and historically, that’s often been anyone who disagrees with centralized power. The Founders didn’t trust the federal government with that kind of judgment, and neither do I. The Guard wasn’t created to crush insurrections on behalf of the feds. It was created so that if the federal government ever became tyrannical, the states had the armed means to resist. That’s not an oversight. That’s the point. So if there’s truly an insurrection, the question isn’t whether the Guard should be federalized—it’s which side of that conflict actually represents the Constitution and the people. And history has shown that the people in charge aren't always the ones on the right side of liberty.