This bill requires the consent of a state's governor (or D.C.'s mayor) for certain National Guard duties within their jurisdiction, reinforcing state control over these forces.
Mikie Sherrill
Representative
NJ-11
The _______ Act of 2024 amends title 32 of the United States Code, requiring the consent of a state's chief executive officer (or the Mayor of D.C.) for National Guard operations within their jurisdiction when requested by the President or Secretary of Defense. This ensures state-level consent for certain National Guard activities. It also stipulates that the Posse Comitatus Act applies to any training or duty ordered under this section.
Bill Mandates Governor Approval for Federal National Guard Deployments Within State Borders
This proposed legislation amends federal law (specifically Section 502 of Title 32, U.S. Code) to add a significant step before the National Guard can be put on full-time duty within a state at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense. The core change? The governor of that state (or the Mayor of D.C.) would need to give their consent first. Essentially, it aims to ensure state leadership signs off on federally directed Guard operations happening on their home turf.
State Sign-Off Required
Think of it like this: the National Guard often wears two hats – one for the state and one for the federal government. This bill focuses on situations where the federal government asks the Guard to perform duties inside its own state borders. Under this proposal, before those orders can be executed, the state's top executive gets a formal say. This reinforces the state's authority over Guard personnel operating locally, even when the mission comes from Washington D.C. For instance, if federal authorities wanted to use the state's Guard for security at a federal facility within the state, the governor would need to agree under this provision.
Keeping Military and Policing Separate
The bill also makes a point to explicitly mention the Posse Comitatus Act. This long-standing law generally prohibits using U.S. military personnel (including the Guard when under federal control) for domestic law enforcement purposes – like making arrests or investigating crimes among civilians. By referencing it directly in relation to these federally ordered, state-consented duties, the legislation underscores that even with the governor's approval, these Guard operations must still respect the traditional line between military action and civilian policing.
Potential Speed Bumps?
While giving states more control is the clear intent, requiring this extra layer of consent could introduce delays. Imagine a fast-moving crisis where federal officials believe activating the Guard within a state is crucial. If the governor hesitates, disagrees, or simply takes time to respond, it could potentially slow down the deployment compared to current procedures. This highlights a potential friction point: balancing state authority with the speed needed for certain federal responses, a dynamic clarified by this amendment to Section 502 of Title 32.