The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward

July 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. Department of Defense rewrote the rules.

But legal does not mean constitutional.

Gradualism does not legitimize usurpation.

You do not get to trample foundational principles and call it progress.

What is happening now, federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent, is blasphemous. It is 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 did not swear an oath to a president. You did not 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 are asked to point a weapon at your neighbors instead of defending their rights, you better know which side of history you are on.

Now let’s be clear about ICE.

This is not 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 do not get to nullify federal law, and they should not.

But there is 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 is what they are trained for. Or work with the state to request Guard support voluntarily.

But turning state-controlled militias into federal enforcers without consent is not enforcement. It is federal militarization.

This is not about left or right. It is 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 those troops are sworn to protect.

That is not immigration enforcement. That is 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.

Added point:

If there is a real insurrection, that is exactly when the National Guard should not be under federal control.

Because if Washington is the one declaring who the “insurrectionists” are, then it is also deciding who the enemy is. Historically, that has often meant anyone who disagrees with centralized power.

The Founders did not trust the federal government with that kind of judgment, and neither do I.

The Guard was not 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 is not an oversight. That is the point.

So if there is truly an insurrection, the question is not whether the Guard should be federalized. The question is which side of that conflict actually represents the Constitution and the people.

And history has shown that the people in charge are not always the ones on the right side of liberty.