Is it unconstitutional for national guard soldiers to go to different states in USA, yes or no?

1. Constitutional framework: federalized Guard vs. state control

The National Guard operates in a dual-sovereignty structure: ordinarily guardsmen serve under their governor; Congress and the President can federalize units to place them under federal command—for example to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or execute federal law—through statutes such as the Insurrection Act and Title 10 provisions like §12406 ^{[1] [2] [6]}. That federalization power is the principal constitutional mechanism that permits interstate movement of Guard units without state consent when legally invoked ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The critical distinction: unfederalized (Title 32) deployments

Guardsmen can also operate in Title 32 status, paid by the federal government but remaining under state command; legal commentators and the Brennan Center argue that sending unfederalized Guard personnel into a nonconsenting state is constitutionally impermissible because it violates state sovereignty ^{[7] [3]}. Scholars note that Title 32 is a “loophole” with real operational consequences: it can blur command lines and raise Posse Comitatus questions even while preserving state control ^[7].

3. Statutory hooks judges ask for: Insurrection, invasion, or obstruction of federal duties

Courts reviewing 2025 deployments have focused on whether facts meet statutory criteria—e.g., whether conditions rose to rebellion, invasion, or obstruction of federal law—to justify federalization. Some courts have blocked deployments as lacking that clear statutory basis; other courts have found administrations likely within authority when a sufficient federal nexus is shown ^{[2] [5] [4]}. Reuters and SCOTUSblog both recount the split in federal rulings across jurisdictions during 2025 litigation ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Posse Comitatus and the “protective power” debate

The Posse Comitatus Act generally limits use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement; it usually does not apply to state-controlled Guards but does apply once units are federalized. The Department of Defense’s prior claim of an inherent “protective power” to station forces to protect federal property has been controversial and was repealed at one point; critics warn that relying on constitutional exceptions creates dangerous ambiguity ^{[7] [1]}. The Brennan Center and other analysts say Congress should clarify these limits ^{[7] [3]}.

5. Recent practice and litigation: real-world test cases

In 2025 the Trump administration deployed federalized and out-of-state Guard units to places including Los Angeles, D.C., Portland and Chicago, prompting lawsuits from states and the District and mixed judicial responses—some temporary injunctions, some appeals finding likely executive authority—demonstrating the law’s fact-specific nature and lack of settled precedent ^{[2] [4] [8]}. Legal analyses and state lawsuits argue deployments can intrude on state “sovereign police power” when not properly grounded in statute ^{[9] [10]}.

6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas

Executive-branch filings emphasize federal responsibility to protect federal functions and assert statutory or constitutional hooks ^{[11] [10]}. State attorneys general and civil liberties groups emphasize state sovereignty, Posse Comitatus protections, and the danger of normalizing domestic troop use ^{[3] [4]}. Advocacy documents like the “Defend the Guard Act” reflect political efforts to constrain federal deployment authority and to reassert state control ^[12].

7. Bottom line for the original question — is it unconstitutional?

There is no categorical constitutional bar to deploying National Guard soldiers across state lines: federalization under proper statutory authority permits it; but sending unfederalized Guard personnel into a nonconsenting state likely violates constitutional principles of state sovereignty, according to legal scholars and the Brennan Center ^{[1] [3] [7]}. Courts decide deployment legality case-by-case, examining the statutory basis and factual record; 2025 litigation shows that deployments can be enjoined when judges find insufficient legal authority ^{[4] [2]}.

Limitations and sources: This analysis draws only on the provided reporting, legal analysis and court documents from 2025; available sources do not mention any later Supreme Court rulings that might resolve lingering conflicts or definitive statutory amendments beyond those cited here ^{[4] [2] [3]}.