Have there been recent cases (since 2020) where governors or adjutants general publicly objected to federal control of their National Guard, and what were the outcomes?

1. Governors versus the White House: 2020 D.C. deployments and visible refusals

Governors publicly resisted the Trump administration’s 2020 efforts to move out‑of‑state Guard troops into Washington, D.C.; the Brennan Center notes the administration asked 15 governors for troops and four declined, illustrating early, public-state pushback about federal control or use of guardsmen for domestic law‑enforcement‑type missions ^[1].

2. Legal fights over federal power: vaccine mandates and readiness rules

Governors and some adjutants general challenged Pentagon directives tied to federal funding and readiness — a notable post‑2020 example involved Texas and other governors suing to block DoD vaccine mandates for Guard members, arguing only states control Guard personnel not in federal active duty; courts have been a key battleground and rulings have not produced a single precedent reversing federal reach ^{[2] [5]}.

3. Adjutants General and associations pushing back on legislative or NGB moves

Adjutants general and organizations such as the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS) have publicly opposed statutory proposals and National Guard Bureau authorities they view as encroaching on state control — for example, opposition to proposed NGB inspection or control provisions and to Legislative Proposal 480 (LP480) that governors say would transfer Guard space units without gubernatorial consent ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

4. 2025 — a spike in disputes, lawsuits and mixed courtroom outcomes

Reporting from 2025 documents a flurry of conflicts when the Trump administration federally mobilized and redirected Guard forces to cities including Los Angeles, Portland and Washington, and when states sued. California and D.C. pursued litigation; federal district judges at times ordered halts and returns of command, while at least one appeals court allowed federal control to remain pending appeal — demonstrating mixed legal outcomes rather than clear federal triumph or complete state victory ^{[9] [3] [4] [10]}.

5. What courts have done — temporary relief versus lasting rulings

District courts have granted temporary relief in some cases, such as orders halting deployments while litigation proceeds ^[3]. Conversely, appellate courts have sometimes sided with the administration, at least temporarily, finding the president presented a defensible rationale to federalize Guard forces ^{[4] [10]}. That split underscores the unsettled statutory and constitutional questions and the likelihood of protracted litigation.

6. Practical outcomes: operational control, Title 10/32 ambiguity, and political effects

Even where governors or adjutants general publicly objected, operational control often depended on which statutory path the administration used (federal Title 10 federalization, Title 32 hybrid status, or D.C.’s unique authorities), and courts have focused on statutory text and factual predicates (e.g., whether conditions for federalization under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 were met) rather than establishing a broad new barrier to federal action ^{[10] [11]}. The political effect has been significant: governors and the National Governors Association have escalated lobbying and surveys to preserve state authority ^{[8] [12]}.

7. Competing viewpoints and underlying agendas

State officials and NGAUS emphasize guarding state command and local mission needs, warning that proposals like LP480 or expanded NGB powers erode centuries of precedent ^{[7] [8]}. Federal advocates and some legal analysts stress that presidents retain statutory authority to federalize Guard units in narrow but critical circumstances — and that federal action may be justified to protect federal assets or enforce national laws ^{[13] [4]}. Each side carries an implicit agenda: governors defend federal cost-sharing and state prerogatives and political autonomy; the federal side emphasizes national uniformity and protection of federal interests.

8. Bottom line for readers and open questions

Since 2020 there have been repeated, public objections from governors and adjutants general to federal control or uses of National Guard forces; the outcomes have been mixed — from temporary district‑court relief and returned control in some instances to appellate decisions that allowed federal control to stand while appeals continue ^{[1] [3] [4]}. Available sources do not yet show a single, definitive Supreme Court resolution settling the dispute nationally; readers should expect continued legal, legislative and political contests over the Guard’s dual state-federal role ^{[11] [8]}.