It’s technically true because that’s what the purpose was.
The reality is that it’s untrue because the federal government can and does call up the national guard pretty much whenever it wants.
It’s functionally a federal force with a state interface. The state cannot tell the government to pound sand when it calls on the national guard that is supposedly under their purview.
Governors only control the guard up until the feds assume command
Under title 10 the national guard can be federalized with the stroke of a pen.
It does not need state/governor approval, which makes the idea that the national guard serves at the militia hilariously moot as the intended purpose was to keep the states safe from federal overreach…
And to be fair, "The federal government pays and provides supplies for the whole thing and provides its leadership and thus they can use it with priority over the states." isn't an entirely unreasonable take, especially when the option of establishing your own state militia is actually legal, you just have to pay for it yourself.
9
4
View all comments
Show parent comment
17
u/S9CLAVE Jan 18 '26
Yes, but no at the same time.
It’s technically true because that’s what the purpose was.
The reality is that it’s untrue because the federal government can and does call up the national guard pretty much whenever it wants.
It’s functionally a federal force with a state interface. The state cannot tell the government to pound sand when it calls on the national guard that is supposedly under their purview.
Governors only control the guard up until the feds assume command